In conclusion, when considering survival cannibalism and consent, each ethical viewpoint offers important perspectives but also has its limitations. Utilitarianism might justify cannibalism if it results in the greatest good for the most people, focusing on survival. Kantian ethics, however, would argue that it's wrong to treat people merely as a means to an end, so forced cannibalism would be immoral. Natural law would oppose cannibalism, seeing it as violating the inherent value of human life and moral order. Situation ethics would take a more flexible approach, allowing cannibalism if it’s the only way to save lives, based on the specific circumstances. The veil of ignorance would encourage fairness, pushing us to think about how we would want to be treated in such a situation, prioritising consent and equality. Personally, I believe that consent should always be respected, as it upholds human dignity and individual rights. However, I also recognise that in life-or-death situations, survival instincts might overpower moral reasoning, making it a complex issue. In these extreme cases, I think each situation should be carefully considered, weighing the importance of consent with the reality of the circumstances.