https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Dudley_and_StephensR v Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273 DC is a leading English criminal case which established a precedent, throughout the common law world, that necessity is not a defense to a charge of murder.
I've been arguing with someone on another forum about ethics and whether or not killing someone to engage in cannibalism is justified (or even a moral imperative) under extreme circumstances such as famine where one person's survival may count on killing another person in order to avoid death by starvation. In the other forum we're sort of at a dead end (no pun intended) with the discussion. I won't say which side of the argument I lean toward at this point but I'm curious where others stand in this forum. Is killing someone to engage in cannibalism justified or even a moral imperative in situations of famine? Does morality "break down" in such situations or does it simply change to a "morality" that is appropriate to the situation? In other words, can morality change or is it unchanging?