In a zombie apocalpyse

[dehro]

@TheFallenOne
I think we can safely say that most of us here are of a fairly anal-retentive analytical disposition and will nitpick to death if it means not conceding a point and looks reasonable.
I don't think there's a scenario out there that at least one of us can't poke a hole in or find an exit strategy out from that negates having to shoot your buddy...at least on paper and behind the safety of our computers. so making actual examples probably won't work because people will just start nitpicking over it's details.
this is true because most of it is armchair reasoning and in a pinch one might not have the clarity of mind or even the chance to come up with a way out.

for the sake of debate however..let's assume that there is indeed a situation where one cannot save oneself without sacrificing the other, either through inaction or through actively pulling a trigger. would I do it?
since this would be my first zombie apocalypse, I can only try and base the answer on my moral code and the fact that I tend to be very rational about pretty much everything, even when I'm in a hurry ..
I think the answer is accurate:

it depends
is there someone to go back to once I survive this?, if no, then that means I'm the last sentient human being on earth, and even if I manage to find a way to die of old age, what would be the point? what kind of life is that, and who am I doing it for? I might as well go out heroically, trying against all hope to save my mate.
+1 on the "lo, there do I see my father"

if there are people depending on me or with whom I can find shelter and survive.. then..I will probably consider it
in which case...if it's a stranger or someone I've only hooked up with recently, I assume I'll pull the fateful trigger.. if it's a friend.. I might still do it and have nightmares about it for the rest of my life...or not, depending on how good a friend and how far back we go.
if it's my partner, one of my 1-2 best friends or a relative, then no..I wouldn't do it, even though it means certain death alongside him/her (yes..blood ties really are that important to me).
this is of course all hypotethical and subject to being tested..

I think the main issue people had with Boredgremlin's statements was that he didn't present this as a life or death specific circumstance in which to resort to extreme measures. he introduced actively killing off in cold blood the weaker elements and those who might threaten him as his main gameplan and role in the group.
it's one thing to do the unspeakable when all other options are exhausted..quite another to sistematically use other people's lives as playthings and decoys..and then argue in favour of it (need I mention the casually stated intent of organizing and carrying out mass murder of inmates, without half a thought on examining them 1 by 1 looking for redeemable people who might be useful, or otherwise figuring how to use these people productively even if it means sharing food rations?)

I might be entirely off the mark here, but I have the feeling he made the statement because it has a degree of "cool" to it, in a testosterone fuelled kind of way, and sounded like a good idea..and when he saw people rising up against it, he took the challenge and defended his statement on principle...whether he was 100% behind it or not.