Understanding The Morality of Acts of Self-Preservation in the Face Of Adversity Survival in the face of adversity is often a controversial issue in our current times. A lot of controversial real life cases involving the matter of life and death have been brought to the attention of the public in the past several years. Although people have the right to self preservation during tight situations, this right of self preservation does not give permission for people to kill others in order for them to stay alive. We have to understand that our rights is subject to certain limitations and when the exercise of ours rights come in conflict with the rights of others, we may have to forego the exercise of certain rights for moral reasons.It is not morally and politically correct for people to act as Gods and decide the fate of another person even when we are in the face of intense pressure. In our case, the fact that the four men were stranded in the middle of nowhere and were in danger of starving to death does not give them the right to vote as who should live and who should die. The fact that Peter, Greg and John connived to give Paul the shortest straw can be considered as an act of discrimination. You see, these three men knew the present circumstances of Paul and apparently, the three of them decided that Paul is the person who is least likely to be missed by his family and his community. The discriminatory treatment against Paul is not only unfair, it is also immoral. Note also that the relationship of the four friends is based on mutual trust and confidence and the act of the three other men of conniving against Paul constitute an act of betrayal. Even if Paul was unemployed and he has not achieved much in life that does not mean that he is expendable. We have to understand that every human being should be treated equally regardless of his or her background.On the other hand, based on the facts of our case, Paul did not want to take part in the scheme that Peter, Greg and John hatched is evident. He expressly told his friends that he did not want to take part in the plan of sacrificing someone so that the others could live. Since Paul did not give his express consent to his friends that they could eat him, his friends should never have forced him to sacrifice himself. On the other hand, even if Paul agreed to the plan of Peter, Greg and John, that does not make the plan to kill someone moral or legal. Taking another person’s life constitutes manslaughter or homicide at the very least and such act is punishable under the law. With regards to the reaction of the public, outraged reaction of the public regarding the incident is only normal. The circumstances of this case are so extreme it warrants intense scrutiny. We have to understand that this is not a simple case of heroism and survival but also a case of betrayal, cunning manipulation, and discrimination.