I saw a lot of people support the cannibal oath in the film. But there is a loophole here. There is nothing wrong with people needing to survive. But to ask a person to "swear to us that after his death his body can be divided into food" by collective oppression goes against his original logical intention. In a trapped environment, whether or not to separate from the group (both objectively and consciously) are two different choices, and there are two other choices, which is "whether to give up the social constraint and return to the original state completely. come to live". Some people say that they decide whether or not to eat people through a democratic form, so there is no concern. I think this is wrong. The daunting Wannsee Conference in World War II demonstrated the genocide of the Jews through a rigorous scientific and legal process. In human society, the correct method is also used. Does this mean that what they do is correct? Therefore, I personally don't agree with their handling of "eating dead bodies" in the film. It is immoral when doing good is not based on the recognition of good, and takes it as a starting point, but takes doing good as a means to an end. Therefore, it cannot be judged as "the manifestation of the role of human education in the face of disasters".
View more about Alive reviews
