I'll admitt that you have to assume lots of things to even respond to this, but I suppose one of the things I assumed was there was no other solution, or that all other solutions had been tried.
But such an assumption makes no sense. It is impossible that murder would be a reasonable option because of a lack of fruit.
I think what you are really talking about is fighting over the fruit like a bunch of savages as opposed to sharing equally and you are making equivocating and self-justifiying arguments to behave like savages.
The only way that the question of murder would be involved is if we are talking about cannabalism. I can say that I would feel perfectly justified in puting such a degraded homo sapien down as no different than a rabid dog.
If that's the case, are you saying that in the absence of any survivable solution
Life has no survivable solutions. I do not see trading ones soul/integrity for few more measly years, whether for myself or for my family. We are all going to die. That is not only unavoidable, but we cannot choose the hour of our death. The only thing we really have power over is how well we have lived. Under the proper circumstances, I would indeed sacifice my life and/or the lives of my family members for the sake of others.
would be morally correct to allow your own family to die so that others may eat? If it was just myself, I'd agree! but allowing my wife and Kids, to starve or be killed for principle would be just as souless, imo.
Again you are not making any sense. How is allowing others to eat the same as letting your own family die? Perhaps you are willing commit murder based on such guesses about the future but I call that souless and evil.
I would not allow anyone to be murdered.
I notice how you twist things slowly from "allowing others to eat" to "letting your family die" to finally "allowing your family to be killed". This is a blatant tactic of rhetoric, which you are using to convince your self of something which has no moral foundation. None of these things are the same in any way whatsoever.
It sounds like you see the survival of your family as justifying anything. I see you dashing out the brains of a child in the other family so that your own children can live. Will you have your children watch so they can see how it is done, or will you finish by taking your own life so they don't have to share the rest of their life with a scumbag?
--------------------------------------------------
Here is a better puzzle. As a result of an accident, two families are in the middle of the ocean with one small lifeboat which cannot hold more than one family. The evil family might indeed try to club the other so they can have the lifeboat to themselves. But more civilized people are more likely to put the children in the lifeboat while the capable adults swim along side.
Lets make it more difficult and assume that some of the adults are severly wounded and that some of the children have to do the swimming. Well now in that case some people will indeed have to make some difficult choices. But insisting that one of the injured adults take a turn at swimming is not quite the same as clubbing someone to death.
Ok now lets make it even more difficult. As people start getting really tired and put more of their weight on the boat, the boat begins to sink. What then? Push some of the heavier people off? Hmmmm...? If I had the strength to do that then I must be swimming, right? Pulling off the heaviest adult might kill him and it might kill me to. Under those conditions I might go for it.