A Cat Itself kills Other Animals for it's Food! And we're Talking about the Killing of an Animal for Food, or Not!?
Shackleton's Decision involved and concerned His Group's Food Supply,
-Even if the Deceased Cat Itself was (Respectfully and Belovedly) Not used to Augment their Food Supply in itself.
The Cat would Have Otherwise Continued to Eat some of the Group's Valuable and Limited Food Supply.
In this Sense, It's Passing Saved or at least Stretched!, the Group's Food Supply!
It was so a "Food Bearing On" Decision of Shackleton's, even if the Cat Itself was Respectfully Not eaten.
Not Eating It, -Does Not automatically Equate into Senseless, Cold Blooded killing!
I personally Think they shud Have Augmented their Food Supply even More, by using their Deceased Cat as an Additional Food Source.
It was probably a Concencus Decision, in which to Not eat It, Came Out as a Majority Decision. I wouldn't be Surprised if Shackleton Himself Put That Question to a Vote.
However Done, They Made a Wisely Neccessary Decision toward Stretching Valuable Food Supplies, but a Not Wise One, -to Not Also Make Good Food Use of the Unfortunately / Neccessarily Deceased, Cat.
From these Pressing and Sound, Neccessary Reasons which Brought the Decision and Action About, This D & A was Neither an Excuse Nor Senseless. And as to killing, it was a Killing, but Not a Senseless, Cold Blooded One. [color:"black"] [/color] [email]Craig[/email]
_________________________
"No Substitute for Victory!"and"You Can't be a Beacon if your Light Don't Shine!"-Gen. Douglass MacArthur and Donna Fargo.