Crat Fat. Deep Fried and deeeeeeelicious! (Paula Deen certified)

I recently purchased and read Walter Moer's The Alchemaster's Apprentice. This book describes a crat named Echo. A crat, as I should explain, looks exactly like a cat but can speak in any language. Echo lives in Malaisea, a sickly, disease-infested town. After his owner dies, he is kicked out on the street and is promptly found by the unofficial ruler of Malaisea, Succumbius Ghoolion. Ghoolion is an alchemist, and wants Echo's fat to use in his life's work. Ghoolion offers to feed Echo fantastic food until the next full moon, and then kill him for his fat. Echo, who hasn't eaten in days, agrees and signs a contract with him. A happy tale of warped, dark-humored friendship. Having at least one brain cell, Echo eventually realizes he doesn't want to die, and tries to escape repeatedly.

This got me thinking. Is the best choice for Echo to escape? Echo has signed a contract with Ghoolion. If he escapes, Ghoolion's life work will be ruined, losing a crucial ingredient (Crat fat), but if he doesn't escape, Echo will die. So which decision makes the most sense when you look at both sides of the argument? Should Echo act in his best interests, break a contract, and ruin someone's life work, or should he stick to the contract, help Ghoolion reach his goal, and possibly help with a new alchemical discovery?

I started to apply these thoughts to my philosophy unit, which explores many different outlooks on life. So without further ado, here are philosophical takes on Echo's dilemma:

From a Nihilist's perspective, life doesn't really matter, and neither does anything else. So Echo should just die.

From a Hedonist's perspective, he should do whatever is happier for him. So Echo should escape and preserve his life.

From a Skepticist's perspective, how do we even know Ghoolion's going to kill him? How do we know there's a contract? How do we know Echo's even a crat? So I suppose a Skepticist would assume that Ghoolion wouldn't kill him. But he does, so Echo would die.

From a Pragmatist's perspective, escape is more beneficial. So Echo should escape.

From an Existentialist's perspective, Echo is totally free to do as he pleases, so he can leave at any time. Another vote for escape.

An Essentialist would say that since Echo is a crat, he signed the contract because he wanted to be domesticated again, as it is his custom. So die, Echo, die!

A Communitarianist would say that Echo should die for all other crats, as they are more important than just one crat. Echo would stay then.

And finally, a Fatalist would say cryptically, "It was FATE". So Echo would die.

I tallied up the votes! The results: Echo dies - 5 votes. Echo lives - 3 votes.

Philosophy says - Echo DIES.

Personally, I don't know what to decide on this issue. Since reading the book connects you somewhat to the character, I've grown fond of Echo, even if he is just ink and paper, so I think he should escape. However, from a logical point of view it makes more sense for Echo to die for the good of many (as pertaining to the alchemical experiment) and because he signed a contract, albeit in a somewhat delirious and weakened state.
So I suppose this makes me both a Communitarianist and a Hedonist.

Comment! Vote! Eat fish-tomatoes! Goodnight!