Missing posts / members X
Philosophy Forums was hacked on September 6th. Due to the hacker, everything between July 24th and September 6th is permanently missing. Unfortunately, automated backups had to be turned off months ago because they were crashing the server. We're evaluating how to stop this from happening again. You may be able to find your own posts in a google cache to re-post them, if you want to.

Consensual cannibalism

Consensual cannibalism
NorseHeroine
Unmoderated Member

Usergroup: Unmoderated Member
Joined: Jan 27, 2004
Location: Norway

Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 9
#1 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Oct 16, 2004 - 6:55 PM:

I found these sources on the net about consensual cannibalism and related things and put in a couple of excerpts from the articles.

1)The Case for Cannibalism "The case raises interesting questions of principle, even for those who take the thoroughly conventional view that eating people is wrong. According to the evidence, Meiwes and Brandes were consenting adults: by what right, therefore, has the state interfered in their slightly odd relationship?

Of course, one might argue that by eating Brandes, Meiwes was infringing on his meal’s rights, and acting against his interests. But Brandes decided that it was in his interests to be eaten, and in general we believe that the individual, not the state, is the best judge of his own interests."

2)Cannibalism: A Modern Taboo: "Whether Mr Meiwes' victim was willing or not, eating another for anything less than necessity remains a taboo in the modern world."

3)Cannibalism is not a Lifestyle Choice "Legal experts have said that this case is unprecedented - crucially, because Meiwes' victim wanted to be eaten. Meiwes advertised on the internet seeking a fit man 'for slaughter'; he received dozens of replies, but only one - Bernd Juergen Brandes - was serious about going through with it. The two agreed between them the methods by which Brandes would be butchered. As Professor Arthur Kreuzer of the Institute of Criminology at Glessen University said: 'This will make legal history…. The killer sought out his victim and the victim sought out his killer.' (1)."

And in addition something I found while searching that may not be directly linked to cannibalism, but although interesting. I hope the admins will not behead me for not attaching an excerpt. It is in PDF-format and I thought it easier to just attach the link. The Emotional Construction of Morals

Bear in mind: "Any consensual act in private is legitimate."

I would appreciate your thoughts, objections, anger or whatever your hearts are filled with when having investigated the above links.
wuliheron
Resident
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Chesapeake, VA

Total Topics: 49
Total Posts: 466
#2 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Oct 16, 2004 - 8:38 PM:

Quite humorous. It falls into the catagory of "victimless crimes". The state of course can argue that the man is emotionally disturbed and that canabalism is wrong and crime, but obviously these are cultural biases. For quite some time now mental health professionals have had a hard time attempting to adapt their ideas of mental health and illness to every culture. This case respresents an extreme example.

There are plenty more examples of such things. Personally, I stopped watching Boxing matches because of the brain damage it causes and occational death, but evidently the state does not consider such mutually agreed upon destruction a crime or insane.

Ancient Chinese saying, "Don't listen to what people say, watch what they do."
Capi
Newbie

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 03, 2004

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 0
#3 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Oct 17, 2004 - 1:35 AM:

Was this the german case? I read about this a while ago.

In all seriousness I think it was quite fine if they both agreed.
NorseHeroine
Unmoderated Member

Usergroup: Unmoderated Member
Joined: Jan 27, 2004
Location: Norway

Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 9
#4 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Oct 17, 2004 - 1:24 PM:

Yes, this was the German case, Capi.
Bizilbur
Newbie

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 08, 2004

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 0
#5 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Oct 18, 2004 - 11:30 AM:

This overlaps into the argument of doctor assisted suicide. Any assisted suicide for that matter. In both cases, someone wants to die and someones willing to kill.

Edited by Bizilbur on Oct 23, 2008 - 2:03 PM
Piramni
Disappeared
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jan 06, 2004
Location: Anywhere But Here

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 126
#6 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Oct 18, 2004 - 11:48 AM:

We actually had an interesting discussion about this here;

forums.philosophyforums.com...8887&highlight=Cannibalism

(people thought I was evil for many months, and some still bring it up)
Piramni
Disappeared
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jan 06, 2004
Location: Anywhere But Here

Total Topics: 53
Total Posts: 126
#7 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Oct 18, 2004 - 4:16 PM:

Bizilbur wrote:
Forgive me before I say anything, I haven't slept well and I'v forgotten what specifically is legal and what is illegal. Speaking of which, could someone fill me in?

This overlaps into the argument of doctor assisted suicide. Any assisted suicide for that matter. In both cases, someone wants to die and someones willing to kill.


In most countries including Germany, cannibalism is not illegal. Miewes was charged and convicted of mansalughter, even though his victim requested the killing. The argument the defense team used was illegal euthanasia. I think that was the reason he was convicted of manslaughter instead of the charge of murder that was against him.

It's an interesting case. I do not condemn cannibalism if the person is already dead, and gave consent to be used as food prior to their non-existance. I do, however have a problem with a live person being killed to feed another, if that is the purpose. Whether or not he was mentally sound is not even a question. Strangely enough, I believe in euthanasia to relieve suffering and pain if the person in question is terminal.
Morrandir
Ich habe mich aufgehoben
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 19, 2004
Location: The Finnest Land

Total Topics: 48
Total Posts: 256
#8 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Oct 18, 2004 - 4:32 PM:

Piramni wrote:

(people thought I was evil for many months, and some still bring it up)


That is really sad. sad I think mostly it is just the prejudices of people doing the talking, and those that try to look at it objectively get hurt in the process. I have actually heard very good arguments for cannibalism. In many cultures, it has been thought as horrifying and evil beyond recognition NOT to eat their dead loved ones (of course, cannibalism here does not include killing - that is not cannibalism; cannibalism is just about the eating portion), to so defile their memory and so waste that what they still have to give to us. I personally couldn't eat a person, but I am not so convinced that we have much ethical arguments against it - just cultural.

I am saddened to hear you labeled evil for bringing that up.

~Morrandir~
NorseHeroine
Unmoderated Member

Usergroup: Unmoderated Member
Joined: Jan 27, 2004
Location: Norway

Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 9
#9 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Oct 19, 2004 - 11:56 AM:

I have to be patient now, I can feel that. You are not evil, Piramni. I would not eat human flesh for whatever reason. Why? Because I can identify myself with a human, I can relate to its being. The flesh you would be eating would consist of the same tissue, muscles, nerves, cells and blood that your self is embodied by. It would feel too close, to intimate and particularly disgusting. Hidious exactly because we feel too close to the person.

Still, flesh is flesh. It dies, dissolves and rots. If someone was really hungry looking at my dead body: Take my body, my spirit you cannot have. But that's my view!
Morrandir
Ich habe mich aufgehoben
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 19, 2004
Location: The Finnest Land

Total Topics: 48
Total Posts: 256
#10 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Oct 19, 2004 - 1:58 PM:

NorseHeroine: you must remember to distinguish between the ethicality of something and the "yuckiness" of that something. When a person is dead, his or her body will be destroyed nonetheless. Some cultures (few nowadays, after colonialists have banned that sort of activities) believe that it is a great honour to be "taken in" to one's loved ones, instead of leaving the body just coldly to rot in the ground. For some, it is a sacrilege to so waste the body of your loved one, and also to waste the food.

I agree wholeheartedly on the disgustingness, but I also can't stand some foods that others like. I don't think they are unethical if they eat it. In a sense I can emphatise with these cultures perhaps even more than with ours. The only reason I can see that makes cannibalism unethical would be that the person still lives on after death and would look askance at that sort of treatment of his body. Even if life after death is assumed, I can see no reason why someone would see it as evil to feed upon his corpse instead of leaving it to the ground to rot.

But truth be told, I tend to think cannibalism is not an ethical question at all. If it is, would someone state an argument against cannibalism?

~Morrandir~
locked
Download thread as
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



This thread is closed, so you cannot post a reply.