KANTIAN ETHICS

THE FIRST FORMULATION- PRINCIPLE : Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

In survival cannibalism, the maxim would be: 'It is permissible to eat another person when it is necessary for survival.' Kant would likely argue that this maxim cannot be univeralised. If everyone acted on this principle, it could lead to a breakdown of society, where human life becomes commodified and no longer respected. Kant emphasises that human dignity must be upheld, and reducing a person to a means for survival violates this dignity. The universilisation of the act of eating another individual for survival would undermine the integrity of human life as a whole, so the act would be deemed morally impermissible.

THE SECOND FORMULATION- PRINCIPLE : Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end, and never merely as a means. 

Eating someone in a survival situation treats that person as a means to your own survival, not as an end in themselves. According to Kant, this is morally wrong because it violates the principle of respecting human dignity. Even if the person consents to being eaten, Kant would argue that they may not fully be able to exercise their rational autonomy in such an extreme situation, which further complicates the moral permissibility of the act. Consent in this case is problematic because the person may be in a state of desperation, which could be seen as impairing their rational will.

THE THIRD FORMULATION- PRINCIPLE : Act only so that your will can regard itself at the same time as making universal law through its maxims. 

Survival cannibalism would likely be problematic because the act involves treating someone else's autonomy as subservient to one's own survival. Survival cannibalism would likely be problematic because the act involves treating someone else's autonomy as subservient to one's own survival. The act might be seen as incompatible with the moral ideal of autonomy, where rational beings make free and equal moral choices without coercion or desperation. 

How Useful is Kantian Ethics in Response to the Issue? 

Strengths:   

  - Kantian ethics provides clear moral boundaries, emphasising the inherent dignity of every human being. 

  - It focuses on respect for autonomy and the intrinsic value of individuals, which offers a strong critique of using people merely as means to an end (i.e., survival). 

Limitations:   

  - Kantian ethics can be rigid and does not offer much flexibility in extreme, life-or-death situations like survival cannibalism. 

  - The theory is very strict about the impermissibility of acts that violate human dignity, even if the person consents. In cases of desperate consent, Kant’s ethical system might struggle to address the moral complexity of the situation. 

  - It does not offer a way to differentiate between moral duties (e.g., to preserve one’s own life) and respecting others as ends in themselves in such extreme circumstances.