Forums → WEPR → Cannibalism

We feel bad for people who kill and harm themselves because it's morally incorrect to let a person inflict self harm whilst knowing about it, also eating yourself isn't exactly healthy in any way.

What if someone was about to kill his/herself because of depression? Letting him/her kill his/herself is really mean (in general) and would really not be nice.

Self-harm in most cases, is not illegal, if it was, that would open up a floodgate of unwanted legislation. For example, Parliament would then be able to legislate that teenagers who cut themselves in a fit of adolescent pique should be prosecuted. Obviously this is not the case and is highly undesirable. The law is sculpted in the way to provide as much private autonomy as possible.

In fact, the law is such that not helping a victim is not a crime. If a stranger (with no direct relation to a victim), walks by a baby drowning, and walks off, leaving the baby to drown, he will not be prosecuted. The legal system deems it best not to mandate such positive actions, "positive" meaning being characterized by the presence rather than the absence of distinguishing features. It is extremely intrusive to criminalise omissions (Eg, Failing to save someone) rather than acts. If a person is drowning on a busy beach, and a hundred people near him do not save him, imagine if all of them were prosecuted due to their failure to attempt to save him. That would be disastrous. The courts therefore have resisted any systemic imposition of liability for failure to act to save a person.

In short, morality is treated as separate issue altogether, and it has no business in this matter of law. Morality is not a sound enough reason to ban people from donating their own flesh to cannibals.

Now the question "what if it was done in public whilst I was there." well I'd call the police and find an item to use as a weapon (preferably a polearm type) and start walking away with it pointed at said person because being cannibalized is not on my bucket list (not that I have one).

Making something illegal because it offends one's sensibilities makes for a very bad law indeed. After all, it is the person's own body, and he can to it what he sees fit in most cases.

In terms of evolution being self terminated in a painful way by your own will is a big no no for humans unless it is for 'the greater good' which in terms of evolution is the survival of our species or subspecies and what not.

I do not feel that cannibalism is even going to have an impact on our species' survival. Man has practised it for the longest of times, and it remains legal today, yet we have a overpopulation crisis.

The motives and superstitions behind cannibalism are not really religious, but cultural. As the wiki article put it, it can be &quotart of the grieving process" or a "celebration of victory against a rival tribe".

Well by religious I simply meant that it has something to do with beliefs.

As for me, I would condemn cannibalism as it clearly has no place in our society. When someone dies, we bury or burn them, we do not eat them(*); eating prisoners after a victorious battle would be seen as an atrocious war crime; also, from a modern biological point of view eating someone to 'absorb' whatever characteristics is nonsensical.

In YOUR society. Not everybody buries and burns the dead, even if the west or even most of the world does it. I'd say the crime is taking the body from the culture it belongs to. I believe that if you buried a body of a person who belonged to a culture where you had to bash his skull and eat his remains to free his soul, they would feel the same pain you would if they ate a body of your side.
Plus, there are many weird and nonsensical things people do, religious or not. Just because it's weird to your culture or even science doesn't mean we have to condemn it.

Eating a person means you either kill someone or eat a corpse. The grand majority of reported cases of cannibalism include murder and murder is obviously wrong. The second option is equally condemnable as desecration of corpses; besides, it poses a serious health hazard (only specialised animals like vultures are able to eat carrion and live). Other known health issues with cannibalism include the transmission of brain diseases via prions as in the case of the Kuru disease or other diseases from the consumption of other tissues.

But these are simply excuses. Your opinion would not change even if the person was willing/I could promise there will not be any health issues. We can get diseases from a lot of things we eat. This is irrelevant since even by making those things right you would not change your mind.

(*) This is another cultural thing. Defiling the body or harming it in any way is condemned by many cultures. It is very disrespectful towards the corpse and the family of the deceased. Add to that beliefs in a judgement day for which the body needs to be preserved imperatively (the church condemned cremations until relatively recently because of exactly that).

But you do realise that pretty much anything done to a body is defiling it in at least one culture. Even keeping it frozen could be hurting the soul of the person in one culture.

Overall, who are you to say that one cultures beliefs of the dead and afterlife are more or less right from another? The west and what you know as right isn't the only thing or even the most obvious thing.

In another case, English this time, (Regina v. Dudley & Stephens), four sailors were cast adrift, and one fell into a coma. Two of the others killed him, and they all cannibalised his body. Subsequently, the killers were charged for murder, but not cannibalism. I think it interesting that the charges raised did not include cannibalism, and indeed the public at the time were very sympathetic to the castaways.

I would sympathize with them too. In the end, our most basic instict is to survive. I probably could not do such a thing but I could not blame them. What if you passed out and woke up to your friend giving you meat of the person he killed on his own? In the middle of the ocean while starving, I think I'd eventually eat what he gives me.

They can't not eat meat by eating the meat of birds or fish.

That's exactly my point. It's illogical, contradicts itself and is hypocrisity, but tons do that.

No, I'm fairly certain it's because they were rarely or never fed those as a child, and don't see them as "edible" parts.

And why? It's the cultural thing. My father went to vacation to the us with his friends like 30 years ago. He told me how he and his friends were astonished to find liver so cheap there and bought it, eating it every night. In the end they found out it was meant to be used as dog food. It was still regular livers definitely edible for humans. It changed today because it saves money, but it was pretty known at the time that inner organs were animal food.

I'm not saying that I'm definitely right about the "too close to you makes it unedible" theory. I'm just saying it's what I see in most cases and showed it in this case too.

Lots of culture eat inner organs. (Haggis?) I ate pig offal soup/noodles before, and it's very common where I come from. How about foie gras? I think our cuisines are littered with examples of inner organ eating.

It's a nice potential point being raised, but unfortunately, I don't think it's really relevant? Maybe there's some serious research into it, but I haven't seen any so far.

I said "many meat eaters". Giving me examples of people or cultures who don't doesn't really argues against this.

The question at hand is should it be 'ILLEGAL'. I say absolutely no. As you can see in the comments of the debate site you can see that most people who defended the negative (no it should not be illegal) give some crazy answers. When it comes down to having no other animal left in the world or pure survival situations we humans are human. If we need to eat we hunt as a group, if we need to be safe we stay in the group, we are indeed social animals that do not kill each other for food even in bad conditions, your case must be EXTREME in order for it to even come close to being justified. Most of the people who defended the negative clearly were being outright unreasonable or defended it as if it were an opinion or consent issue. It's not. You can't agree to murder someone and have it not be murder (or manslaughter at least). The article I was reading actually involved a person finding another person he met online that allowed himself to be eaten (for some reason) not only did he get eaten, he was cannibalized ALIVE. One does not simply say it's okay for me to be tortured, killed and be eaten in the process.

Hmmm.... I mostly agree. But what would you say in the case in which the consent person kills himself and the other just does the eating?
The topic is the actual eating habit. The murder and torture are mostly sub cases

I just now read the second page. Angelofwar, your argument starts sounding like it's based on your own or most peoples disgust and what disturbs you (which with all respect is irrelevant to what's right or wrong).

We feel bad for people who kill and harm themselves because it's morally incorrect to let a person inflict self harm whilst knowing about it, also eating yourself isn't exactly healthy in any way.

What if you were gonna die? Eating a finger or two to keep you alive would be more healthy then not wouldn't it?

You cannot let someone eat you to death or let someone assault you (let alone bite your flesh off) without the other person committing a felony because agreeing to break the law is still breaking the law.

Hiding behind the law won't help you. The law isn't always right. It's a collection of what most people believe is right or wrong. The law is there based on moral, not the other way around.

It messes with people on a psychological level. In the game "Fallout" cannibals get "the shakes" which is also true for real life cannibals. It's like taking a big pill of PTSD, your doctor isn't going to give you a green light (hopefully).

Wut? Not everybody plays fallout. Explain what you mean by this and how it covers the point that it tries to cover

I said "many meat eaters". Giving me examples of people or cultures who don't doesn't really argues against this.

I think my point was well elaborated and explained; I meant to point out that many cultures have dishes that involve offal, hence I feel that the point that humans are repulsed by cannibalism because the organs look the same be it from an animal or human source, is untenable.

But I agree with your general sentiment that cannibalism (provided it isn't coerced, or achieved through a crime), isn't as horrible as dressed up to be.

@thebluerabbit The topic is very open. I do get your point and somewhat agree, but while I never claimed that my cultural background was the only valid one, what I said is still very much valid for my cultural background.

The topic is the actual eating habit. The murder and torture are mostly sub cases

Another point also concerns the Meiwes case and nicho already mentioned it: it is potentially difficult to assess just how legally responsible someone is by agreeing to be eaten. Is that person truly conscious about all implications and mentally stable? Or are there psychological issues also with the consenting person that could be treated? I am not categorically stating that everyone consenting to be eaten must be mentally ill, but do we really know? In my opinion we should be very careful about this before claiming that it is just fine.

*PSA: Graphic details in the link.

Well, other than Armin's case, there have been others* recently, curiously, also in Germany too. They didn't touch on the psychological aspects thoroughly, but from what can be reasonably gleaned from the article, vores (or people who have such cannibalistic urges/fetishes), aren't considered to be mentally unsound. However, it seems to be tentative, and maybe more research can be done.

Meiwes' case was deemed to be much murkier, because the operation took a long time and he was heavily drunk/drugged during it, meaning that it left open the question whether he was able to withdraw his consent during the act if he regretted it.

We feel bad for people who kill and harm themselves because it's morally incorrect to let a person inflict self harm whilst knowing about it, also eating yourself isn't exactly healthy in any way.

What if someone was about to kill his/herself because of depression? Letting him/her kill his/herself is really mean (in general) and would really not be nice.

In terms of evolution being self terminated in a painful way by your own will is a big no no for humans unless it is for 'the greater good' which in terms of evolution is the survival of our species or subspecies and what not.

The courts therefore have resisted any systemic imposition of liability for failure to act to save a person.

My father went to vacation to the us with his friends like 30 years ago. He told me how he and his friends were astonished to find liver so cheap there and bought it, eating it every night. In the end they found out it was meant to be used as dog food. It was still regular livers definitely edible for humans. It changed today because it saves money, but it was pretty known at the time that inner organs were animal food.

But the majority of reported cases in cultures that do not normally practise cannibalism, which in turn are the larger part, are linked to murder, probably because of psychological reasons.

Another point also concerns the Meiwes case and nicho already mentioned it: it is potentially difficult to assess just how legally responsible someone is by agreeing to be eaten.

Unless I'm mistaken, U.S. courts actually do regard this as a crime if the observer both knows the other is in danger and is capable of helping without being endengered as well. This doesn't make it any less absurd, mind you.

Deviating from the cannibalism issue, I think it's not actually regarded as a crime in the States as well? I know some states have laws that coax people into at least phoning for aid for people in need, though it doesn't seem to be enforced. In any case, even if there are laws for such purposes, and a person doesn't help another, it's not a crime, but a tort.

The whole thing though, is different for countries using civil law systems, but I'm not studying that, so I'm clueless about the law in those countries! :P

When looking for laws against cannibalism, I stumbled upon an article with an interesting definition: it starts right off by defining cannibalism as "the nonconsensual consumption of another human's body matter". To be honest, I also thought it was merely defined as eating someone from your own species, but maybe the legal(?) definition is different from the biological/cultural? This would be something to look into with more details.

Haven't found any actual law against it yet, though.

Cornell University Law School: Cannibalism

The most frequent association is irrelevant. The discussion is about the act of cannibalism; not a form of psychosis which happens to result in it.

1 Unless your plan is to be eternally frozen, plastinated, or chemically disintegrated, your remains are going to be eaten by something.

2 It's highly dependent upon regional culture.

I think my point was well elaborated and explained; I meant to point out that many cultures have dishes that involve offal, hence I feel that the point that humans are repulsed by cannibalism because the organs look the same be it from an animal or human source, is untenable.

If you read what I said you will see that different eating habits in this theory depend on how close the food is to yourself but also on your personal disgust and what you feel is close. Those cultures simply closer to canibalism then starving. That's why some people are vegans and some aren't. Vegans see just any meat as close to them while organ eaters do not.

@thebluerabbit The topic is very open. I do get your point and somewhat agree, but while I never claimed that my cultural background was the only valid one, what I said is still very much valid for my cultural background.

It does but we have to be objective and look beyond our cultures. I'm religious myself and very western too but we can't judge someone else's decisions with our culture. You'd question someone's insanity if he would want to be eaten after his death but that's just because it's a culture difference.
For a society that deeply believes in science, anything you want done with your body that isn't freezing it would make them question your sanity.

Being burried isn't any more logical then being eaten objectively.

What are you talking about? Many people eat liver in the U.S.

30 years ago. Cultures change, especially when facing economical pronlems. Not eating inner organs was awfully wasteful.

The most frequent association is irrelevant. The discussion is about the act of cannibalism; not a form of psychosis which happens to result in it.

Exactly what I wanted to say and didn't know how. You can't use a specific example to judge a general idea. We are talking about pure canibalism.

First, a simple statement: I cannot find any ethical reason speaking objectively and unconditionally against the simple consumption of human tissue. Now, then...

It does but we have to be objective and look beyond our cultures. I'm religious myself and very western too but we can't judge someone else's decisions with our culture. You'd question someone's insanity if he would want to be eaten after his death but that's just because it's a culture difference.
For a society that deeply believes in science, anything you want done with your body that isn't freezing it would make them question your sanity.

- I never claimed that tribes practising cannibalism are insane barbarians. I am aware of the cultural differences and the implications. However I am not a tribesman of one of those cultures myself, and so I argue from my perspective and in the context of my culture, which is also the context of the forms of cannibalism I address, of the examples I use (like the Meiwes case) and most likely also the context in which the OP made this thread.

- I consider my objections about possible psychological issues impacting the ability to give consent to be objectively reasonable. As I already clearly stated before, I do not assume mental instability by default.

- There is no such thing as a 'society that deeply believes in science'. More importantly, there is no such thing as a scientific opinion on the morality of different funerary rituals. Implying that science is all about freezing people is untrue and unfair. Lastly, while cultural, societal and scientific aspects are all integral parts of my arguments, I am not representing the 'side of science', as there is none in this discussion.

When looking for laws against cannibalism, I stumbled upon an article with an interesting definition: it starts right off by defining cannibalism as "the nonconsensual consumption of another human's body matter". To be honest, I also thought it was merely defined as eating someone from your own species, but maybe the legal(?) definition is different from the biological/cultural? This would be something to look into with more details.

I don't see why it seems so apparently aberrant to discuss some of the causes and links of some common forms of cannibalism, in a thread about cannibalism. We can, of course, restrict the discussion to the narrowest interpretation of the definition of the word and ignore all phenomena associated to it. But that would not be very interesting in my opinion, and neither has it been stated to be the boundary of the discussion by the OP.

First, a simple statement: I cannot find any ethical reason speaking objectively and unconditionally against the simple consumption of human tissue. Now, then...

Well this is what the argument is about. Should canibalism be legal? Don't you believe that law should be just, fair and basically be based on morals? If you agree and can't find an ethical reason against canibalism itself then there is no reason for it to be illegal. Putting more specific stuff on the scale like what usually happens bad psychological state is irrelevant.

- I never claimed that tribes practising cannibalism are insane barbarians. I am aware of the cultural differences and the implications. However I am not a tribesman of one of those cultures myself, and so I argue from my perspective and in the context of my culture, which is also the context of the forms of cannibalism I address, of the examples I use (like the Meiwes case) and most likely also the context in which the OP made this thread.

Canibalism is canibalism. Subjective arguments can never be solved in a logical way. If you agree that no culture is superior to another then you probably understand that already. Your views (by no way do I think they are unimportant) are really only relevant to questions of your own personal opinion or research about you or your culture/society.

I think none of us wants the law to be effected by subjective opinions.

- I consider my objections about possible psychological issues impacting the ability to give consent to be objectively reasonable. As I already clearly stated before, I do not assume mental instability by default.

What can I say? In a way you are correct. But the thing is, we can always try to explain thing we aren't comfortable about in other people as mental illness. I think it's a low card to play. "He is weird, lets first check his mental stability" is kinda... Yeah... The only reason you'd suspect mental stability is in fact because they have values different from your cultural ones. Not gonna say you are like them but, treating homosexuality with electrical shocks was led from this way of thinking.

On a different note, vore is actually a pretty common fetish (at least more common then you'd think). I personally know many of them.
And when it comes to emotional symbolism, I think it's one romantic way to die. Becoming part of the person you love.

- There is no such thing as a 'society that deeply believes in science'. More importantly, there is no such thing as a scientific opinion on the morality of different funerary rituals. Implying that science is all about freezing people is untrue and unfair. Lastly, while cultural, societal and scientific aspects are all integral parts of my arguments, I am not representing the 'side of science', as there is none in this discussion.

This was a hypothetical case. And by freezing the bodies, I didn't mean it as a ceremony, but as a way to keep the body so it can be revived in the future.

I mentioned this because burial seemed to make more sense to you then eating. So I made a case that makes even more sense. This society would wuestion your mental state for wanting to be buried.

Should canibalism be legal? Don't you believe that law should be just, fair and basically be based on morals?

Careful there, though I agree somewhat that cannibalism if consensual, should be legalised, we must remember that laws aren't wholly rooted in morality and ethnics. In fact, what laws stipulate can go against what we may consider as our basic moral compass, and that's not even taking into account the various strains of morality across races, regions, religions. We are hard pressed to pin down the specifics of such a nebulous concept. I think you have also subconsciously pointed that out, when you mentioned that "none of us wants the law to be effected by subjective opinions"

Case in point, the fact that we are not bound by law to rescue someone even in a situation where it would be extremely for us would certainly raise up a moral debate.

Making something illegal because it offends one's sensibilities makes for a very bad law indeed. After all, it is the person's own body, and he can to it what he sees fit in most cases.

Killing yourself in public is illegal in the United States but no one enforces it because you know... their dead, also their family would not be happy with having to pay for their family member dying. There are signs in Aokigahara (the suicide forest) telling people that they should think of their families and etc before they kill themselves because people care. Look at it this way, life is like minecraft, go ahead punch some stones I won't really care but someone will and the admins will do something about it.

I do not feel that cannibalism is even going to have an impact on our species' survival. Man has practised it for the longest of times, and it remains legal today, yet we have a overpopulation crisis

You can't prove that our ancestors (pre Homo-sapiens) ate each other at all, since we (Homo-sapiens) don't cannibalize each other as a food source (99.9%) it is safe to assume that the behavior is not innate. Overpopulation can also be solved in various ways, I highly doubt eating each other is going to solve it although one point in British history they used limbs to feed fires.

Wut? Not everybody plays fallout. Explain what you mean by this and how it covers the point that it tries to cover

It messes you up to the point where you can't function.

Remember guys EVOLUTION. We did not evolve to eat each other.

I didn't mention this but I'm going off the logic of anti-dueling. It's illegal to duel to the death now because the idea is that consenting to murder each other is still murder. Also eating a dead body for reasons other than survival is pretty much a sexual act (please do not make me google the actual term(s) for this) and a dead person cannot give consent therefore it is rape. If you think your family members will let your spouse eat your corpse without putting up a fight then well you're going to be spending quite a while in court. Probably going to end up in an asylum too.

Edit:
Cutting up a dead body to eat it is also mutilation which is illegal even with consent.