I am a theoretical physicist and currently Director of 
June 17, 2011
Limits to consensual actions
Although I do not consider myself a libertarian, I do agree with some libertarian principles, especially the ones that says that adults have the right to privacy and be able to engage in solitary or consensual practices that do not harm others free from interference from the state and society. But Michael J. Sandel in his book Justice: What's the right thing to do? (p. 74) provides a story that sorely tests my allegiance to those principles
In 2001, a strange encounter took place in the German village of Rotenburg. Bernd-Jurgen Brandes, a forty-three-year-old software engineer, responded to an Internet ad seeking someone "willing to be killed and eaten." The ad had been posted by Armin Meiwes, forty-two, a computer technician. Meiwes was offering no monetary compensation, only the experience itself. Some two hundred people replied to the ad. Four traveled to Meiwes's farmhouse for an interview, but decided they were not interested. But when Brandes met with Meiwes and considered his proposal over coffee, he gave his consent. Meiwes proceeded to kill his guest, carve up the corpse, and store it in plastic bags in his freezer. By the time he was arrested, the "Cannibal of Rotenburg" had consumed over forty pounds of his willing victim, cooking some of him in olive oil and garlic.
I had not heard of this shocking story before, even though it occurred quite recently. That two hundred people responded to the ad at all, even assuming that most of them thought it was a joke of some kind, was weird.
Is the negative reaction that most people will feel towards this story a result of revulsion towards cannibalism? And is that feeling rational? After all, once a person is dead, no further harm can be done to that person. When someone dies, we are allowed to use the body for research or to bury it or burn it. In the Zoroastrian religion the custom is to leave dead bodies out in the open to be eaten by vultures, so we could take the extreme position and say it is acceptable for it to be eaten by humans too.
Or is our feeling of revulsion due to the idea that a young and seemingly healthy person in a state of sound mind should voluntarily choose to have himself killed and eaten at the request of a stranger? The whole episode was videotaped (which is why we know that this bizarre transaction was consensual) but the tape also indicates that the dead person had some truly weird ideas of his own and was not of sound mind as we would understand the term, except in the narrow sense that he knew what he was doing.
As you can imagine, the case posed extraordinary problems for the justice system and made me glad that I was not the judge assigned to oversee it.
When Meiwes was brought to trial, the lurid case fascinated the public and confounded the court. Germany has no law against cannibalism. The perpetrator could not be convicted of murder, the defense maintained, because the victim was a willing participant in his own death. Meiwes's lawyer argued that his client could be guilty only of "killing on request," a form of assisted suicide that carries a maximum five-year sentence. The court attempted to resolve the conundrum by convicting Meiwes of manslaughter and sentencing him to eight and a half years in prison. But two years later, an appeals court overturned the conviction as too lenient, and sentenced Meiwes to life in prison.
Sandel reflects on what this might tell us about the limits of libertarianism as a philosophy.
Cannibalism between consenting adults poses the ultimate test for the libertarian principle of self-ownership and the idea of justice that follows from it. It is an extreme form of assisted suicide. Since it has nothing to do with relieving the pain of a terminally ill patient, it can be justified only on the grounds that we own our bodies and lives, and may do with them what we please. If the libertarian claim is right, banning consensual cannibalism is unjust, a violation of the right to liberty.
The weirdness of the story does not end there. Sandel says that, "In a bizarre denouement to the sordid tale, the cannibal killer has reportedly become a vegetarian in prison, on the grounds that factory farming is inhumane."
There are some truly strange people in the world.
Comments
Isn't this a pro-choice/pro-life issue?
Does the person have some right that allows them to decide what to do with their body? Or, does the preciousness and uniqueness of life trump that right?
john king was being a typical cnn "talking head"...the "pepsi/coke", "presley/cash", thin/deep dish" questions were silly and in my opinion dumb...i have come to expect that from cnn...also, they tried to "bait" each candidate with a sarah palin question...no one bit on that...with the economy in the tank and 3 wars going, the networks that sponsor these debates need to do a better job of asking questions regarding china, the middle east, oil/energy production and how to de-regulate so that enterpeneurs can get back to doing what they do best, hire people.
If we legalized consensual cannibalism, I doubt it would become terribly popular. I have no problem with a few people here and there deciding to eat each other.
I remember this event when it occured and was rather horrified by it.
But, since being involved in a prolonged and escalating workplace conflict and experiencing a meta-existential crisis and a wholesale smashing of everything I beleived in, I don't find this story at all horrifying
and can understand the cannibal becoming a vegetarian on the grounds of factory farming being inhumane.
He advertised for a person willing to be killed and eaten. People responded and the vetted the responses from 200 to 4, and finally, selected the one person who was then killed and consumed.
He acted in an above board and ethical manner, there was no coercsion, he didn't advertise and not getting any response kidnap and murder and eat an unwilling person.
As much as i would not consent to be killed and eaten, who are we to say that someelse isn't allowed to consent to such treatment? Clearly the to be eaten person did so knowing full well that this was not a joke, that it was serious.
Animals in factory farms are probably treated worse than the consumed person was.
If you read Douglas Adam's Restaurant at the End of the Universe, there is a sentient cow-like creature who arrives at the table to offer parts of itself for consumption - the idea being that eating an animal that not only consents to, but can actually give verbal consent - is morally and ethically superior to ordering a salad, wherein, the vegetables have no say in the matter.
The world is getting stranger by the minute as is evidenced by your post. So what will be next...would you like fries with your HANDburger or do you want it super sized?