@Saphira: ACQUITTED. In this case the needs of the others to survive outweighed his want to choose whether or not to be eaten, in a similar way to dangerous criminals in normal society. Of course they still want to be free, but locking a serial killer in jail (depriving him of personal freedom and choice) protects a vast number of people from potential death. We don't get campaigns to set prisoners free, do we? So why should these guys be convicted of anything other than necessity? His opting out of the system (basic law) causes a slight problem, but all that means is that he's not a 'citizen' under said basic laws and that he therefore has no rights.
EDIT: Though if he'd been a little smarter he would have killed the others and eaten them instead. He's perfectly entitled to defend himself just like they're entitled to eat him.
Regarding my ethics: I don't believe there is an objective good or evil nor that anyone has the obligation to follow any moral principles or laws for the benefit of anyone but themselves. Nonetheless I believe that altruism is the best philosophy most of the time, since it holds society together. Society itself helps the individual in a number of ways, and therefore the destruction of society is in nobody's interest. However, one instance of breaking the law will not destroy society; so long as the majority of people follow the law most of the time society will do just fine, ergo crime is permissible for individuals so long as most people don't do it. A conversation with Kodos on AIM came up with the following 'golden rule' of self-interest:
"Good is that which is recognizing man's freedom to do what he can, while aiding the continuance of his freedom to do what he wills."