Cannibalism revisited: Warning. This thread is not for the moral faint of heart.

[kerry]

The German cannibal case which someone posted here last week has now made the US national news and our local paper. As you probably know, the facts appear to be (at least are claimed by the cannibal to be) that a man advertised on the internet for a willing cannibal victim. Someone responded and in addition to other grisly details, the victim was willingly killed and eaten.

This seems to raise some puzzling issues. While I find the whole matter disgusting, I am at pains to figure out what precisely is wrong with what happened. Many people believe in the right to suicide. Or, to put it another way, the State does not have the right to coerce you to live if you don't want to. Life is a gift and it can always be rejected. It is not too far to go from the right to suicide to the right to be assisted in a suicide. This is precisely what Kevorkian has argued for years. Of course it is a legally disputed issue but I am not so much interested in the legalities as I am in the moral issues surrounding it.

If the victim of the cannibal wanted to be killed, and people have the right to suicide, what exactly did the killer do wrong? In other words, what's the difference between Kevorkian and man on trial in Germany? Is it just that the killer used the opportunity of assisted suicide to satisfy his own selfish needs and failed to consider the human dignity of his victim. What if it had been the other way around and the vicitim had done the advertising? If there is a right to suicide does the manner of that suicide matter. Was it wrong, even if the vicitm agreed, because it encourages such bizzare behavior? But the behavior seems so disgusting and unusual that widepread copying of it seems highly unlikely.

[Cap'n Carageous]

Kervorkian didn't eat anybody, and that's all this lunatic will be charged with in the form of "disturbing the dead".

[rickg]

You really like to explore controversial subjects.

[rickg]

Hey! Maybe it could replace using nukes as a deterant to war! We won't evaporate you, we'll eat you and your family

[rickg]

Yeh, don't let me dampen the fun. I just have to rib you guys, but it's all in fun. Have at it I just wish I had the I.Q. to keep up with you guys
Now if you ever want to discuss machining metal, let me know:p

[kerry]

I disagree that without God there is no morality. I think there are plenty of moral principles that can guide our lives. I'm just not sure they apply in this case, or at least how they apply. Autonomy is a fundamental value of libertarianism. It includes the right to govern your own life, including how long it will be.

I don't see why prohibitions against suicide are necessary components of religious systems. In fact I know quite a number of devout religious people in favor of euthanasia.
In fact, it is not an unreasonable argument, that the prohibition against suicide grows in religions which believe in an afterlife because of the logical implications of the system. If there is an afterlife, and it's going to be better than this one, why wait around for it? Get there right now.

[Zeitgeist]

Now look what you've done...you've wasted an awful lot of potentially useful healthy tissue. Why not use the fetal tissue to save lives? How about harvesting organs for the living? What about the meat?

Soylent Green is people?

Was there a contractual agreement between the men, or are we just accepting the er, uh...eater's word?

The original account I read in the Guardian claimed that the eater surgically removed the eatees male organ, cooked it, then they both dined together before he stabbed him. The eater says he's remorseful. It's hard to imagine someone who put that much thought into his project really being all that remorseful. I'm sure the German public is going through paroxysms of shame and revulsion, with recriminations flying left and right.

[Cap'n Carageous]

At the risk of oversimplification, eating another human being is wrong. Eating another persons sex organ is more wrong. Eating your OWN sex organ is ........somebody give me a word.......

[rickg]

Originally posted by Cap'n Carageous
At the risk of oversimplification, eating another human being is wrong. Eating another persons sex organ is more wrong. Eating your OWN sex organ is ........somebody give me a word.......

Eeeeewwwww!!!!

[kerry]

I can certainly understand and appreciate the sentiment behind the claim that it is wrong. But it is very unclear to me why it is wrong (if it is wrong at all). We let people cut off parts of their anatomy every day and throw those parts away (cosmetic surgery) so it can't just be that. Is it wrong because there was a sexual component to it? (I have no clue as to what the sexual component was, it was mentioned in the news stories).
Botnst seemed to think there was a clear religious argument against it. I don't know what this might be. Ok, it might be that it is wrong to kill someone but the removal and consumption of part of someone's anatomy doesn't seem to be covered by that rule. In fact some religions regularly remove parts of that organ and just throw them away.

It is extremely difficult for me to imagine what might have been going through the killers mind, let alone the victim's mind.

[Cap'n Carageous]

Originally posted by kerry edwards
But it is very unclear to me why it is wrong (if it is wrong at all).

It is extremely difficult for me to imagine what might have been going through the killers mind, let alone the victim's mind.

Probably the same thing that's in all three of these minds...

[Lebenz]

A basic test of psychological health is that if someone is a danger to themselves and/or a danger to others they are considered to be what is called gravely disabled. Meaning they can’t make concrete decisions on health needs. Both people in this case are clearly not on the most stable psychological footing.

Second, I have to doubt that a guy could have his penis amputated by an amateur and then have the ability to eat anything. Blood loss, trauma to an area with a huge blood volume and, of course, slicing through a massive nerve center aren’t going leave the guy able to do much....

Third, while culturally we equate morals with their biblical archetype, religion and morals are not tied together.

Last, I'm a little miffed at Z for using Heston’s famous quote before me.....

[bjcsc]

Wow, this is one of the most thought provoking threads I've seen in awhile. As we consider all of these issues, I think there are some key elements that have to be considered. Morality can and does exist outside of religion, but not for everyone. Some people absolutely cannot make the determinations for themselves. If these people make up the majority in a democracy, interesting things can happen. Nonetheless, the reponsibility lies in dealing with the way things are, not the way they should be. Do not lose sight of the enormous intellectual inequality from person to person. The soultion has to include everyone. Libertarianism? Communism? Nihilism? What they all have in common is that they fail in execution; All require personal responsibility, self-accountability. Many people cannot and would not and do not accept those responsibilties, yet they still must be inculded in the solution. What about compassion? Compassion is the achilles heel of the human race, from a strictly Darwinian perspective. Is it compassion we feel for the eatee in this situation because they may have been taken advantage of? Is it compassion we feel for the eater because the tentacles of socialism have yet to draw him into some overfunded program to "cure" him and others like him? Surely there must be a way spending large amounts of money and infrastructure could provide a solution! Personally, proving the limitless moral and ethical (not to mention culturally specific) theorems that arise from this situation, albeit interesting, are not half as important as the simple fact the gene pool is a little cleaner.

Originally posted by kerry edwards


I don't see why prohibitions against suicide are necessary components of religious systems. In fact I know quite a number of devout religious people in favor of euthanasia.
In fact, it is not an unreasonable argument, that the prohibition against suicide grows in religions which believe in an afterlife because of the logical implications of the system. If there is an afterlife, and it's going to be better than this one, why wait around for it? Get there right now.

The answer to this is simple. Although to what degree is debatable, organized religion is a business. In some denominations, it's BIG business. The money required to sustain the business comes from breathing members; People in heaven don't fill collection baskets. Organized religion condoning suicide would lead to their own.

[kerry]

But if many religions did not promote such a great afterlife, they wouldn't have to worry about their 'customers' killing themselves since most people are not naturally inclined towards suicide.

Are you suggesting that religion is just for the intellectually lazy? But what about all those people who have to come up with religious moralities to begin with. After all, religion isn't some kind of static phenomenon. Moses didn't have anything to say about abortion or about keeping people on respirators.

Compassion could have evolutionary advantages. It could keep the population up during times of threat that might otherwise push a completely individualist species towards extinction.

I'm beginning to think that the relevant moral component of this case, is the cannibal simply using his victim for his own sexual interests despite the willingness of the victim to be used. In other words, it's similar to slavery being wrong even if a person finds someone willing to be enslaved. So the fact that someone agrees to have something done to them is not the last moral word on the matter.

[Zeitgeist]

I'm beginning to think that the relevant moral component of this case, is the cannibal simply using his victim for his own sexual interests despite the willingness of the victim to be used. In other words, it's similar to slavery being wrong even if a person finds someone willing to be enslaved. So the fact that someone agrees to have something done to them is not the last moral word on the matter.

...Kerry, If I were feeling bawdy and rambunctious, I'd point out the eerie similarities between your willing-exploiter/willing-exploitee example and our earlier discussions about capitalist exploitation...but, that might push us over the controversial thread threshold, so I won't.