While travelling for business, your company plane flies into a storm and must make an emergency crash landing on a deserted tropical island. The two dozen on board survive and are forced to fend for themselves until help arrives. None, including the pilot, have previous camping, fishing, or hunting experience, and as a result find it difficult to obtain food. One survivor, Axel $($one of your company$$s executives$),$ goes off by himself, and through considerable time and effort, figures out how to catch fish with the limited resources available. He eventually returns to camp with fish enough to feed everyone. He agrees to share the fish, but he refuses to teach the others how he obtained the fish. Axel makes an offer to the other passengers; he will continue to provide fish, as long as the others do the camp chores for him $($fetching fresh water, hauling firewood, etc$).$

A$)$ Under Kantianism, is Axel$$s offer ethical? Why or why not?

B$)$ Under Utilitarianism, is Axel$$s offer ethical? Why or why not?

C$)$ Under Social Contract, is Axel$$s offer ethical? Why or why not?

Make sure you discuss both elements for each theory.

Part II$.$

Think back to the Speluncean explorers and discuss the following:

A$)$ Were the actions of the survivors ethical according to Kantianism? Why or why not?

B$)$ Were the actions of the survivors ethical according to Utilitarianism? Why or why not?

C$)$ Were the actions of the survivors ethical according to Social Contract Theory? Why or why not?