Question to Martinus quoted from Kosmos 3 1989:
If one makes, for example, and emergency landing in arctic territory where access to vegetable nourishment is excluded, and there is therefore access only to animal food gathered though hunting and fishing should one then forgo this food and thereby surrender oneself to death from starvation?
Answer by Martinus:
To surrender oneself to death from starvation is to commit suicide; to commit suicide is to kill; to kill is a violation of the fifth comandment. But in a situation where the keeping or violation of a commandment is to an equal degree a violation of its wording of precepts, this comandment revokes or obliterates itself. The fifth comandment does not exist in this situation and cannot thus he violated. Here, however, there is another cosmic law which is valid, namely that which says that of two evils one must choose the least evil. The question then becomes whether it is the least evil to maintain one's one's life by means of animal food until one has fought one's way out of the abovementioned situation.
To go on living will thus here only bepossible on the basis of the physical destruction of other living beings. But a developed human being who in his normal life avoids the killing principle both as regards food and his relation to his fellwo-beings, and furtermore with his will and reason works for the removal of htis principle from the human wayfo living is more protective and life-giving being for other beings than the animals which he, in the existing unfortunate situation, must kill if he himself is to live and manage to get through the crisis. If such a being therefore chooses death from starvation what happens is that the more significant being is sacrified to the advantage of the less significant, the greatest evil is practiced instead of the least evil which is in turn the same as a violation of the law of love. The opposite solution to the problem would therefore be the least evil and must be preferrred in this situation.
(Translation MMG)