Not practical because to connect the defendant because these men were under the situation

where they find no other means of survival

We should therefore ask the question whether the actions of the men puts them in the same
pedestal with the other murderers convicted in the past under the statute

Commonwealth v. Slaymore, the defendant was convicted of a crime but his conviction was set
aside because he was put in a situation beyond his control. The right of self-defense is rooted in
mans naturals instinct to survive especially from the impending danger or peril. In other
words, these men were driven by their impulse of self-preservation. Again to reinterate that
self preservation is the fundamental desire of men where men have the right to use their
purpose or any way in order to stay alive. The exception in favor of self defense is clearly rooted
in its very purpose and not to the literal words of the stature. This line of reasoning is in relation
to courts ruling in self defense as exception to the penal statute

The four explorers could think of nothing else but dying in the next seconds but we have to
think in relation to the state of nature that they are in that in the society of the cave that eating
the flesh of whetmore was the only manual that we could apply to survive wherein scientifically
it is loaded with protein, it has fat and we have to consider the fact that our stomachs can
actually process something like that. We must think for a fact that we only survive because they
ate the human flesh of Whetmore and granted that this must be a terrible or humiliating thing
for them but when they finally made this decision you can completely understand why they did
it only because they are determined to survive unless they eat the human flesh of whetmore.