First Primary Precept

Principle: Life is a fundamental good, and actions should protect and preserve human life. 

   Application:   

     - Survival cannibalism would be considered permissible only in extreme cases where no other means of preserving life are available. 

     - However, it would be seen as a last resort, since the primary precept is to preserve life without violating other natural goods. 

Second Primary Precept

Principle: Humans are naturally inclined to procreate and maintain the species. 

   Application:   

     - This precept is not directly relevant to the issue of cannibalism, but a natural law thinker would emphasise that cannibalism should not undermine the natural order of human relationships, family, and community. 

     - Survival cannibalism might be seen as detrimental to the reproductive role of human beings, as it devalues human life and could have broader societal consequences. 

Third Primary Precept

Principle: Humans have an inherent desire for knowledge and truth, which should guide our actions. 

 Application:   

     - An individual’s consent to cannibalism would be scrutinised to ensure that they are fully informed and rational in their decision-making. 

     - If the person is under duress or not fully capable of making a free, rational decision (e.g., in extreme survival situations), the consent might not be valid according to natural law. 

Fourth Primary Precept

Principle: Humans are social beings and must act in ways that promote communal well-being. 

Application:   

     - Cannibalism would be seen as undermining social trust and the integrity of human relationships. 

     - Even if consent is given, the act could disrupt social cohesion and mutual respect, which are foundational to society. 

     - Secondary precepts could include prohibitions against cannibalism to maintain the moral fabric of society, as it could lead to widespread moral decay. 

FIFTH PRIMARY PRECEPT

Principle: Humans are naturally inclined to worship and honour God. 

  Application:   

     - Survival cannibalism may be seen as morally problematic because it could be viewed as violating the natural law that requires respect for the sanctity of life, which is a divine command. 

     - Even in extreme situations, survival should not come at the cost of disregarding the natural dignity of human beings created in God's image. 

Secondary Precepts Created in Relation to Survival Cannibalism: 

- Cannibalism as a Last Resort:   

  A secondary precept might state that cannibalism is only morally permissible when no other means of survival are available, and all attempts to preserve life in accordance with natural law have failed. 

   - Consent and Rationality:   

  A secondary precept could emphasise that any consent to cannibalism must be informed and freely given, without coercion or desperation clouding judgment. 

 - Social Order and Trust:   

  Another secondary precept would emphasise that actions that threaten social order, trust, and the communal bond are morally wrong. Cannibalism could erode social bonds, even if consent is involved.