I, a senior medical officer in Ottawa, have been approached by a group of people who have survived a devastating biological weapons attack. I thought that I was the sole survivor of this attack but am relieved to find out there are seven other survivors. The group of seven survivors do not know how to approach a dilemma they face and have come to me for advice on their current situation. I had decided there was no one else around to help the group, so I took it upon myself to give the group the best advice possible.
             Before I provide advice to the group, I should briefly outline the facts. Firstly, a 45-year-old male professor attacked an 11-year-old boy. He believed they could survive by consuming the boy's body. The boy had become unconscious as a result of the attack and may remain unconscious permanently. As a result of this incident, the group had tied up the professor. The remaining members of group also consist of a 40- year-old female lawyer, 30 year-old woman who is expecting her first child in two months, a 55-year-old female pediatrician, a 60-year-old clergyman, and 18-year-old female university student.
             The most pressing fact about this situation is the fact that the supplies they have will only last ten days for the seven people. The dilemma the group faces is that they can make their supplies last for forty days but for only four survivors. Therefore, three people must be eliminated. Also, if the group were to survive past forty days (rescued by other unknown survivors) then I should consider other factors such as reproduction of the human species and their ability to hunt and gather for their future survival.
             Three people must be eliminated in order for the group to have any chances of being rescued, the supplies must last as long as possible. This can be justified by the Doctrine of Necessity. This is the moral prohibition against capricious killing. Capricious killing is the impulsive behav...