ARGUMENTS FOR SURVIVAL CANNIBALISM:

- Moral Pragmatism : In life-or-death situations, eating human flesh may be the only option to survive. The primary instinct for survival could justify actions that would otherwise be taboo.

- Consent in Extreme Circumstances : If individuals agree to the consumption of their bodies before death or under duress, it might be seen as an extension of personal autonomy.

- Cultural and Historical Precedent : Throughout history, some cultures and societies have accepted cannibalism as a last resort during famine or siege situations.

- The 'Trolley Problem' of Survival : Some see cannibalism as a form of necessary sacrifice, where consuming another's body could save the lives of others in the group, akin to moral dilemmas about sacrificing one life to many.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST SURVIVAL CANNIBALISM:

- Violation of Human Dignity : Cannibalism is often seen as a profound degradation of human dignity, reducing the deceased to mere sustenance rather than respecting their humanity.

- Legal and Ethical Boundaries : In most societies, cannibalism is illegal, regardless of the context, and seen as morally unacceptable. There are also legal complexities, such as whether consent is valid under extreme duress.

- Psychological and Social Harm : Survivors may suffer psychological trauma from having engaged in cannibalism. The act could also strain or break social bonds withing groups, leaving long-lasting emotional scars.

- Slippery Slope and Slavery of Consent : The issue of consent my be complex, as survivors might feel coerced or unable to freely agree in such dire situations. The concept of 'consent' could be questioned when it arises under extreme pressure and desperation.