Now for something completely different. How about a light-hearted look at cannibalism?
This is just a train of thought that pulled out of the station as I read an article in The Libertarian Enterprise that mentioned "cannibalism" as something that is wrong, and something we should feel guilt over doing. For some reason I balked at the assertion. I can't see any reason to claim cannibalism is wrong in and of itself. As long as you are not devouring the living, it doesn't violate the ZAP as it initiates force on no one. Dead people can not be harmed or coerced or stolen from or defrauded. They are just as dead whether you eat them or not. You are also stealing nothing. Do the dead person's survivors own the corpse? How? Unless a contract of some sort was completed before death I don't think they do.
So, is cannibalism wrong? What about in survival situations? It has happened numerous times, and probably more frequently than is known. Was Alferd Packer a murderer or just a resourceful survivor? Should the "Donner party" have allowed themselves to all die of starvation instead of taking advantage of free meat? What would you do in a similar situation?
Obviously if you kill an innocent person in order to eat him, you have committed a gross violation of the ZAP. But if you are attacked and manage to kill your attacker, why would it be wrong to eat him? Dead thugs don't care what you do to their corpses. Their relatives might care, but the dead guy's body might be restitution in a way and I think you might have a valid claim on it. I wonder if such a consequence might cause more thugs to choose another line of work rather than risk becoming a meal.
Or what if a friend or family member dies and leaves instructions for his or her body to be the main course at a funeral barbecue? Isn't that a selfless offer: to nourish those left behind?
I see nothing necessarily un-libertarian or wrong with cannibalism. It's your turn. So, tell me why it would be unequivocally wrong to eat a human under any circumstances, or why you agree that it wouldn't be wrong under the conditions I laid out. And remember that "legal" or "illegal" are not very good indicators of "right" or "wrong", but are a lazy way for government extremists to try to control behavior. Let's think deeper than that.
Comments
Just as a PS: I'm thinking that if the government keeps "fixing" the economy, this question could become really important in the near future.
Thanks for the idea, Kent.
I think I know what my funeral plans are.
As long as you don't violate ZAP, then I say, it's the other, other white meat.
Jerry - And you know humans have white meat... how? ;)
I always figured we were dark meat. Not sure why; just an assumption.
The only rational objection that comes to my mind is that if the eatee left a will providing for any disposition of bodily remains other than being eaten by the eater(s), then the eater(s) would be committing a tort against the decedent's estate's property.
I have to agree with Mike. If they left a will and the family has paid for a funeral, it would be wrong to eat them, or do anything else with them for that matter. (See Tri-State Crematory) Other than that, I say snack away. I especially like the idea of devouring someone you've killed in self-defense. I'd start eating meat again for that!
"They are just as dead whether you eat them or not!" HOLY CRAP THAT IS SOOOO FUNNY! That's really out there, Kent. Congratulations. It takes cajones to explore such a topic in print. What a truly unique idea for a post.
I have no moral objection to cannibalism, as long as it's as you say, you're not offing anyone. I couldn't do it though, unless I was dying of hunger. Even then, I just don't know.
"Restitution!" Damn, that's funny! Yeah, even if your relatives knew you did not want to be eaten, not only do they not own you, they have no moral obligation to assume any responsibility for disposing of the body you used to inhabit. One could design an entirely new line of tattoos: "please don't eat me!" or just "eat me!"
Your idea lends new meaning to "I could just eat you up!" If you ever come to Detroit for a visit, don't try to "help me" into heaven or anything, ok?
White meat? Dark meat? Maybe it depends on how high you turn up the heat? What is meat? Is it muscle? It's different from organ meat. If we eat each other's brains would we be smarter? You know, raw meat is better for you because it contains enzymes for digesting and absorbing nutrients, unless of course some bad bacteria is present. So don't rule out the new "sushi," either.
Every generation objects to the boundaries that are pushed by youth. Maybe I'm just aging, but I remember how my parents objected to my music when I was a teen in the '70's. I was ruminating about the sex and violence in today's music and wondering what's next? What boundary is left to push? I think maybe you've stumbled upon it here. Thanks for the "brain food."
Retta- Eating brains isn't a particularly good idea. Prions in nerve tissue is what causes "Mad Cow disease" and causes a similar problem in New Guinea natives who eat the brains of their dead relatives as a way of honoring them. If it would transfer knowledge it might be worth the risk in extreme cases (Stephen Hawking's brain, anyone?).
The "white meat vs dark meat" question depends on how the muscles are used. White meat muscles are usually used for bursts of activity; dark mean muscles are for sustained exertion. That is why I supposed humans would be dark meat. I doubt I am likely to find out for certain anytime soon. I have heard there is a tofu product that is supposed to be "human flavored". How would they know without some research?
Great one Kent! Geez! I would think humans would be more along the lines of red meat like beef or possibly gamy like venison. The white/dark meat is more along the lines of fish and chicken witch has a different muscle structure than mammals/humans.
Morally, I would personally object (remind me to make conditions in my will against this). But once again this would probably be a personal choice as it does nothing to violate the ZAP. I never had thought about the remains and who they belonged to. That could be an article in itself. Just don't know how well anyone could sink their teeth into that one though (bad pun, I know).
Technically, I think it's just taboo. With that said, I don't know that I'm willing to tell my friends & family to put me out on the bbq and enjoy once I'm gone.
Also, even if I was up to participating in that type of event myself, I think I would want to know that the person who is being so giving of themselves specifically gave their consent to having their body 'disposed' in such a way.
White meat- I remember reading some where that the Pacific Island cannibals called humans 'long pig'.
I'm for it. Although I would find it hard to do so in a family member death, in self defense though, it would be much easier. Afterall, we are animals as well. You're right Kent. The way they fix things is going to make it very interesting in the near future.
Actually, come to think of it, what if the person who attacked you survives, or you catch a thief after the fact-could it be moral for restitution to require the surrender of a body part for....epicurean restitution? Say an arm roast for theft, ham for arson, and well, obviously, for rape......
This reminds me of an article I came across long ago-"body-parts farm", essentially a future state "correction" system where parts(arms, legs, eyes, hearts, ect.) of "criminals" are made available for transplant, until, finally, death is reached. It is, of course, easily excused, and lauded, by the amoral political pundits of the day-found to be both moral and even "progressive".
Come to think of it, I probably should not have mentioned that-it'll be the next big thing in prisons. Especially since it could pay for itself.
Perhaps corpses should be dispersed to the needy? Better than the waste of the current situation-with individual consent of course.
Personally, it is my enduring hope that I die far enough from civilization to wind up as wolf poop.
If the person who attacks you survives, you are doing it wrong.
As for a thief caught after the fact... I don't think a demand for a delectable cut would work, although if he really wanted to keep the stuff he stole, and didn't want to pay you for it, I suppose an agreement could be reached for a limb. Voluntary consent is the order of the day, although restitution must be made somehow.
"If the person who attacks you survives, you are doing it wrong."
Not so, not so! I was trying to keep shot out of the choicest cuts. I value my teeth you know. Besides, who wants a hide with holes in odd places? Care is required in these things.
The very fact that most people have an automatic revulsion to this idea, and have had throughout history and across all the continents of the globe, would seem to indicate that there is something fundamentally wrong here - and far more than some kind of weird taboo promoted by men.
Those who engaged in eating human flesh - to the best of my knowledge - did so in the belief that the one being eaten was not "human" as they determined it. Enemies were not considered human. Even the most terrible of the cannibal people did not indulge in eating those from their own tribe or family, and would have been horrified to discover someone in their group doing so.
Seems like it's a bit more than mere custom.
If someone were to attack me and survive, he/she'd just be damned lucky... or a fast learner. My purpose in self defense is to STOP the attack, not kill the attacker. If they die during that stop, it's incidental and of no great concern to me. But I wouldn't want to eat him/her.
Personally, I would have to say that cannibalism doesn't affect me morally. Anthropologically speaking though, we were scavengers for any type of meat whether rotten or not and then we slowly became hunters. It was never morally wrong for them to eat what was lying around and not being used for anything other than decay and recycling of earth. And then, Kent, with the government interfering with everything that is a double edged sword. They are making up crap rules to maintain correct behavior of the public people but then on the other hand, you have the governement (mainly the military and not that I'm bashing them) making new chemicals and concoctions to create the perfect "soldier." One who could withstand a surmountable amount of damage before finally slowing down. It makes the person who ingests these drugs zombie like because of their dulled sense of feeling of pain and proper functionality of the brain such as the part where you rationalize your decisions. Said person could be missing most of his extremeties and a few other key parts of the body before finally falling from blood loss as long as they still kept their heart and brain intact. And medically speaking, if you ate any of the human body, there is a huge chance that you could become really sick from it albeit from a disease/virus or from diseases/viruses that have been overcome with vaccinations such as polio or the common flu; or there is just the chance of your body rejecting the meat and attack it as if it were a disease. And also on the cannibalism aspect, for people who eat the placenta after childbirth. That is a form of cannibalism because it "lived" in the womb with the child through the mother but after birthed, it becomes dead and useless. Sure it might have nutritional value but it would still be a form of cannibalism being that it is still of human flesh and bodily fluids. There are no laws against that especially, since the act of eating the placenta goes along with some peoples religion. And we would be considered red meat because like beef and pork, we have two seperate muscle structures unlike that of poultry. But, I agree. If it were for survival purposes, if "Fred" wasn't among the living anymore, he wouldn't care how he was disposed of and if you were really close freinds, than I would figure that he would let you eat them after they departed so you would have a better chance of living through such extreme circumstances. So that's my input, and now I'm starting to hungry, thanks Kent, lol.
I would say if you tried to take my child's body and eat you are stealing from me. I have a claim to my child's body. Further if you tried to take my wife's body you would be aggressing against me and I would take any action I deemed appropriate up to and includig blowing your rear end away.
As to a written contract it is not necessary. If you will read Mercier on Invisible Contracts you will see that a written contract is not always necessary.
For instance if you go into your Dr.s office, and get treatment for which their is a charge, then you are responsible for that fee regardless of the fact that you did not sign a contract.
If you go into a store you did not sign a contract agreeing to pay if you took something, but if try to take something from the shelf and leave without paying you will soon find that you had an obligation.
Consequently I would suggest that you eat your own family first :-)
Danl
Danl- Don't worry, I'm not planning on experimenting with this any time soon. However, your comments bring up a few other questions.
Do your family members know that you claim ownership of them? How far does this ownership go? I don't own anyone else, nor would I ever want to since I oppose slavery. The right of ownership always includes the right to destroy that which is owned (government edicts to the contrary). Do you think you have the right to kill your wife and child? Or does your ownership only begin once they die?
Obviously a written contract is not necessary, as a verbal agreement should be just as binding. How do you prove such an agreement existed in the face of other claims?
What would you do if your wife or child were killed when they attempted to attack an innocent person? Would you accept the obligation to pay any restitution on their behalf (assuming they were partially successful in their attack)?
Kent: Actually I had no thought that you might plan on eating “any body” :-)any time soon, since you clearly stated that this is an interesting and rhetorical concept for discussion. However I think that a case can definitely be made that there could might or could be a natural order of claims upon another’s deceased body and perhaps on a minor child’s life.
I certainly would make an affirmative claim in a heartbeat if it were my child’s or wife’s body. While I do not consider that I own their life and their living body I would at the very least consider that I had a “trust” in over seeing their deceased remains in accordance with what I might deem are the “departed’s” last wishes. I also consider that while they are alive I have an unwritten responsibility to see to their nurturing, safety, disciplining and even their well being. It could certainly be argued that I have a contractual obligation with my wife since I did take vows to that effect.
So based on your questions, I would presently, for arguments sake, say, “perhaps I hold a sacred trust with regard to these particular bodies and lives until such time as in the normal course of events that trust relationship/obligation is removed.”
Thanks for the interesting topic.
Danl,
I think that is a reasonable position. Thanks.
"The very fact that most people have an automatic revulsion to this idea, and have had throughout history and across all the continents of the globe, would seem to indicate that there is something fundamentally wrong here - and far more than some kind of weird taboo promoted by men."
If that was the case, then the people eating the dead in order to survive plane crashes would be considered criminals. Yet they are not (at least, I certainly don't). Therefore your intuition must be wrong.
Religious reasons.
Kuru.
Do you really want to eat from the top of the food chain? If there are toxins that tend to be concentrated as food moves up the chain, Humans would be the worst to eat.
There are a number of inter-species diseases that can be passed along when eating other species as food. In cannibalism, you are susceptible to any disease your food may have carried. Are Humans even safe to eat
I'll stick with the taboo. I don't know if I would eat Human flesh even if I was starving.
If you ate Human flesh, would you admit it? Would you be proud of it? Would you want to live in a society where cannibalism was common and accepted?
Look up Kuru. It's a disease you get from cannibalism, especially if you eat the brain. If you start showing symptoms of this you have 1 year to live, and there's no cure. I think I'll just buy ham.
I return to the graveyard frequently when I'm hungry. Doritos may taste better, but dead people are free. Prevention of disease isn't my top priority because people just taste so good.
i bet some people would taste better than others. example: jessica biel = delicious, ted haggard = absolutely disgusting.
1. There are lots of quibbles, such as kuru disease, but no overarching reason not to eat human flesh.
2, Libertarians are so free! It takes real intelligence to see past this taboo.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!