Introduction
Consensual Cannibalism is the act of eating another human being when they have agreed. There are three kinds of consensual cannibalism namely emergency, ritualistic and fetish cannibalism. Emergency cannibalism is when people are stranded and have no other way to survive. For example, in times of great famine, some communities decide to eat the children and the sick for survival. Ritualistic cannibalism is when people eat other humans as part of a religious or cultural practice. For example, in endocannibbalism, individuals eat the flesh of their dead relative as part of the burying rituals. Fetish cannibalism is when people get sexual pleasure from eating other humans. For instance, people can decide to eat their partner’s groins to suppress a fetish for the same. Further, cannibalism is divided into the active and passive types. In active cannibalism, an individual is consumed when already dead. For example, in the case of endocannibbalism, people consume the body of a dead relative. On the other hand, passive cannibalism happens when the individual is still alive. For example, in fetish cannibalism, a partner may eat the groins of another living person. Consensual cannibalism is considered to be a very taboo practice in most cultures. Cannibalism has been practiced by many different cultures throughout history. In some cultures, cannibalism was seen as a way to show respect for the dead. In other cultures, it was seen as a way to gain strength from the person who was eaten. There are various factors associated with the ethics of practicing consensual cannibalism. This paper will assess these ethics and determine whether consensual cannibalism is morally wrong.
Discussion
Concession #1: The act is not morally wrong since it is consensual
Consensual cannibalism is morally permissible as long as the parties involved have consented to it. This is because both parties have given their consent and is thus aware of the risks and consequences involved. This argument is based on the ethical principles associated with dealing with human beings. Individuals who are over 18 years old are legally allowed to give consent to anything that should happen in their lives. When people are giving consent, it means they understand the benefits and drawbacks associated with the practice. If both parties are willing to engage in cannibalism, then they should be able to do so without any moral implications. The consent perspective argues that an act is only morally wrong if the person who is harmed has not consented to it. This means that if the person being eaten has consented to it, then cannibalism is not morally wrong. However, it could be argued that consent is not enough to make an act morally permissible. The reason for this is that consent can be forced or coerced, and people can sometimes be tricked into giving their consent (Ashby & Rich, 130). The consent perspective also, portrays consensual cannibalism as wrong and as going against the freedom of an individual. These arguments are emphasized by Perro Loco, a pseudomonous moderator on vore fetishist forums told the Awl. Loco stated that “consenting adults should be allowed to do what they want with their bodies.” This includes killing each other. However, if the individuals do not consent to the act, then it is regarded as murder and is morally wrong. Consensual cannibalism can also be viewed as the right of the two consenting adults. The rights perspective argues that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person. Within the rights perspective, individuals have the freedom to engage in the actions they deem right. This argument is based on the aspect of free will which indicates that people should be free to do what they want as long as they are not harming others. The rights perspective would argue that if the two consenting adults are not harming anyone, then they should be able to engage in consensual cannibalism. The autonomy perspective argues that everyone has the right to make decisions about their own life. This means that the person being eaten has the right to decide whether or not they want to be eaten. This perspective further states that everyone has the free will to do as they wish with their lives.
Counterclaim: Consensual cannibalism is wrong and should not be practiced
Consensual cannibalism violates the right to life, as it results in the death of the person being eaten. The right to life is firmly rooted in the Christian perspective which indicates that every person was created in the image of God. Human beings have inherent worth and dignity that should not be violated at any time. This means that all human beings are deserving of respect, and that harming them is morally wrong. Cannibalism goes against this belief, as it harms and kills another human being. It also goes against the Christian teaching of love, as it involves causing pain and suffering to another human being. It also violates the rights of the person being eaten to security and liberty, as they are being forced into a situation where they may be harmed or killed. Consensual cannibalism involves the killing of an innocent person, just because they have consented to it. The act of killing causes pain to the individual involved, thus indicating that consensual cannibalism is morally wrong. Cannibalism is also harmful to the environment, as it results in the loss of valuable resources. For example, people who are killed through this practice are active members of the society. Their loss means that the society has lost important members of the community who were contributing to its growth and development. Furthermore, cannibalism is potentially hazardous to the health of both the person doing the eating and the person being eaten. For example, when an individual is killed in a dirty place, this may cause infections which are potentially fatal. Further, there are ethics associated with the mode of killing a person (Ashby & Rich, 132). For instance, one stroke with a knife would not cause a lot of pain or contamination to the surface. However, using blunt objects increases suffering to the individual being killed and is also hazardous. There are also social implications associated with cannibalism, as it can lead to discrimination and violence. For example, individuals associated with consensual cannibalism may be labeled as outcasts to the society. Such labeling marginalizes these communities, thus increasing the likelihood that they will be discriminated. It also violates the right to security of person, as it causes harm and suffering. Before the individual dies, they go through a lot of suffering as they are usually slaughtered. Further, the free will that people have does not cut across the ability of a person to give consent to be consumed whether alive or dead. The dead cannot give consent and as such, their consumption is a violation of their right to security and liberty. As such, even if the person being eaten has consented to it, cannibalism is still morally wrong. Cannibalism, therefore, should not be condoned as it goes against the rights of individuals and also has harmful consequences to society.
Concession #2: Ritualistic cannibalism is morally right as it preserves the family tree
Ritualistic cannibalism is a practice that is done in some cultures as a way of showing respect to the departed. Ritualistic cannibalism is when people eat other humans as part of a religious or cultural practice. This practice involves the consumption of the flesh of the deceased by their close relatives. The act is seen as a way of honoring the dead and allowing them to live on through the people they have left behind. It is also seen as a way of connecting with the deceased and keeping their memory alive. For example, in endocannibbalism, individuals eat the flesh of their dead relative as part of the burying rituals. One argument in favor of cannibalism is that it can be seen as a way to show respect for the dead. In some cultures, eating the remains of a deceased person is seen as a way to honor their memory. Endocannibalism is a ritual practiced in most parts of the world. For these cultures, cannibalism does not harm or hurt the dead person but rather, the practice has a deep spiritual symbolism. Indeed, these cultures believe that by eating the remains of their loved one, they integrate the body into their’s thus offering the needed closure after death (Milburn, 3). This argument would only apply in cases where the person who is being eaten has died of natural causes and has consented to be eaten. The ethics of consensual cannibalism, in this case, is based on the rightness or wrongness of the action of eating the remains of a dead person. The proponents of the act state that endocannibalism does not harm anyone, not the dead or the living. Indeed, this practice is related to eating a hamburger, where an animal or a plant has to be killed to provide this tasty snack. As such, if it is moral to eat beef, it is also right to eat human flesh. Another argument in favor of endocannibalism is that it can be seen as a way to gain strength from the person who is being eaten. Some people believe that by eating another person’s flesh, they will gain some of that person’s strength. For example, consuming flesh from a king will instill the same power and authority to the one who is eating. This argument would only apply in cases where the person who is being eaten is still alive and has consented to be eaten. Another line of though argues that everyone is permitted to decide their funeral rights. For instance, some people decide to be cremated while others chose to be buried. In the same breath, individuals who opt for consensual cannibalism should be allowed to choose what they would like to happen to their bodies after they die. Indeed, consensual cannibalism can be traced back to the traditional societies. Up until the 20th century, American and European communities used human body parts as medicine. As such, if morality depends on the cultural norms, then the society has been cannibalistic and immoral.
Counterclaim: Endocannibalism is associated with bizarre actions that border mental illness hence should not be tolerated
The opponents state that endocannibalism is a gross act that should not be practiced by any human being. This happens since the practice is associated with bizarre and disturbing actions. The opponents state that endocannibalism is a gross act that should not be practiced by any human being. This happens since the practice is associated with bizarre and disturbing actions. However, the act only appears to be bizarre when it is done out of context. In some cultures, eating the dead is seen as a way of honoring them. It is also seen as a way of connecting with the deceased and keeping their memory alive. For example, in endocannibalism, individuals eat the flesh of their dead relative as part of the burial rituals. This practice is done in order to show respect to the departed and to keep their memory alive. Also, most of the people believe that people who practice consensual cannibalism are mentally disturbed. This includes individuals who give the consent to be killed and eaten or those who want to kill the people who have given this consent. Consuming human flesh is an act that is only done by people who have no regard for human life, such as the mentally ill. It is an act of gross violence and cruelty that should not be condoned in any way (Oostland & Michael, 5). The mentally sick individuals are involves in gross and bizarre acts that indicate their cognitive dysfunctions. Consuming human flesh is one of the most bizarre and disturbing acts that a mentally ill person can do. It is an act of complete disregard for human life and dignity. As such, endocannibalism should not be condoned as it is an act of violence and cruelty. The main question, in this case, would be whether mentally sick people can be able to consent for anything. Indeed, consensual cannibalism, which is the naked, erotic desire for death seems unordinary hence the reason why people do not believe it is normal. Cannibalism can also be viewed from the point of taboos in the society. A taboo is a social norm that is forbidden by society. Cannibalism is a taboo in most societies, and it is generally seen as being morally wrong. The reason for this is that it goes against the social norms of most societies. The argument about taboo states that, even if an action is right but goes against the norms of the mainstream society, it is considered to be wrong. Cannibalism is considered an immorality that goes against the natural laws. Animals are allowed to engage in cannibalism since they do not have the capacity to reason like humans. However, human beings are not allowed to engage in cannibalism since they have the capacity to reason and make ethical decisions.
Conclusion
Some people may find consensual cannibalism distasteful while others practice it. It is necessary to understand the factors surrounding a practice before universally condemning it. As seen in this discussion, there are many legitimate reasons supporting the practice. Various theories have been used to explain the morality of consensual cannibalism. While various perspectives have been put forward to explain the ethics of consensual cannibalism, the most convincing argument is that cannibalism is wrong because it goes against the norms of the mainstream society. Further, the morality of consensual cannibalism depends on the specific case. If the person who is being eaten has died of natural causes and has consented to be eaten, then it is morally permissible. Also, if the person who is being eaten is still alive and has consented to be eaten, then it is also morally permissible. However, if the person has not consented to be eaten, then consensual cannibalism is morally wrong.
Works Cited
Ashby, M. A., Rich, L. E. Eating people is wrong… or how we decide morally what to eat. Bioethical Inquiry. 10: 129-131(2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-013-9444-9
Milburn, Josh. 2016. “Chewing over in Vitro Meat: Animal Ethics, Cannibalism and Social Progress”. Loughborough University. https://hdl.handle.net/2134/19434557.v1.
Oostland, Marlies, and Michael Brecht. “Kin-Avoidance in Cannibalistic Homicide.” Frontiers in psychology vol. 11 2161. 31 Aug. 2020, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02161