Well, there's no practical reason why you couldn't kill a human for food. I hear we're somewhat salty. Better keep the water.
> There may be a benefit (if we were stranded on a desert isle) having another
> human for company and assistance that would make my chance of survival
> greater.
It's an interesting thought experiment, but it doesn't really work that well in reality. One can simply not expect situations to arise in complexity-free, clearly delineated circumstances. Were I a mathematician, I'd say that your example does not generalize.
It might be worth mentioning that societies which exist in hostile environments, such as the innu, tend to hold material objects and resources in common.
It is ironic that plenty builds selfishness, isn't it?
> keeping another human alive is the alieviation of some form of 'guilt' in
> my mind brought on by the indoctrinated into me during my formative years by
> a liberal school system and religious institutions.
Could there be a practical or evolutionary reason, not just a moral one, for inhibiting antisocial acts? Investigate, then report back to the class.
Marco
,--------------------------------------------------------------------------.
> Marco Anglesio | Hard reality has a way <
> mpa at the-wire.com | of cramping your style. <
> http://www.the-wire.com/~mpa | --Daniel Dennett <
`--------------------------------------------------------------------------'