I was thinking about this case a while ago from Europe, where this man posted an ad looking for someone to eat. A few people answered but most backed out, and he respected their decisions. He even went to a movie and ate a pizza with one of the guys who backed out at the very last minute. Finally someone came forth that actually went through with it. This guy asked the would be cannibal if he would make an ashtray of his skull. sick stuff. Well the cannibal went through with it, giving the man evey opportunity to back out. The man didn't. So he kills the guy, and eats his body over a period of a few months. My question to all of you is, in a free society, should such a thing be tolerated?
Elvis Burgers = $$$
JawofMalak:in a free society, should such a thing be tolerated?
Everyone has full ownership of his body. If it could be proven that the alleged "victim" did indeed consent to this sort of thing happening through contract or otherwise, then yes. It should be allowed. Let it be known that cannibals like this might find it hard to trade with others or associate with others in society if society rejects such things.
Individuals were in effect banished in the past.
I will one-up you. It has to be okay with the owner of the land on which the act of cannibalism is to commited. Person A and Person B and agree to cannabilism, but if it is going to happen on Person C's property, then Person C has to okay with it, either by contract of whatever. Another example, the owner of an apartment complex can have a clause in the contract that states that leasee cannot commit suicide or kill another person.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
The two individuals entered into a contract. Is such a contract enforceable? The question of societal tolerance comes down to the moral issue. Is there something intrinsically immoral in the act of cannibalizing a consenting adult who in the libertarian ideal has ownership of himself? The will cannot be relinquished to another but the body is a material possession and possessions may be traded or given as a gift. The outrage, it seems to me, comes in at the point the cannibal kills the "dinner". Murder ( for anything other than self defense or capital punishment ) is almost universally considered immoral by any human society of which I am aware. Cannibalism, absent the act of murder, does not enjoy such universality. I understand it is known as a funeral rite in some (admittedly rare) cultures. Since the cannibal in question has a proven history of eating pizza he can hardly be characterized as malnourished. He is apparently acquiring a delicacy for which he has a taste beyond subsistance, so comparisons with the Donner Party are of no use here. Thus cannibalism exist on several levels. The moral question may be mitigated at certain such levels. Is it acceptable to practice self cannibalism, such as to consume an amputated portion of ones own body? Hey! It's just gonna go to waste otherwise. :) Like capital you produced it shouldn't you be able to reinvest it for a new use?
Take and eat this is my body...
Mama always told me to wear clean underwear in case I got into a gunfight with the government.
What would piss me off is after being cannibalized, he wouldn't turn my skull into an ashtray. May the furies chase him down for all eternity breaking that contract.