Cannibalism

[Pyrrho]

As far as the law is concerned, the matter is settled.

But think about it: Suppose someone threatened me with death, if I refused to torture people to death. Would that make it okay for me to torture people to death? Should I be willing to do anything in order to continue to live?

Or, to use the example of starvation. How would you feel if your child was on the boat with me, and I decided to go against what I have said is right, and I killed him or her in order to eat. Would you be okay with that? Should you be okay with that?

Or think about you being on the boat. If the principle is to be, it is okay to murder someone if one is very, very hungry, then the other people may decide to kill you first. Is that okay with you?

Think about what principles you would like for everyone to follow, and then I think you may come to see the wisdom of the law as it presently stands on this issue.

Oh there's a move about this. Is it Costa Rica? No, maybe. Some South American country where people are caught and force to torture each other to death. Can't remember if it's based on a true story or not.

Anyways, I'm not saying it isn't still wrong I'm just saying I don't know how I feel about it. Do I want you to kill and eat my child in order to survive? No I don't. Would I be devastated if you did? Absolutely. Does that mean I would blame you? Would you, starving to death, have even been in a place mentally that you could have prevented this? I don't know.

Okay, you don't know how you feel about it. I recommend that you imagine each scenario with you in each of the different positions, then with someone you love in each of the different positions. Think about how you would like it if people acted in each of the different possible ways, with each of the above (i.e., think about the others trying to kill you to eat, think about the others not trying to kill you to eat, etc.). Then think about one rule for everyone, at least for everyone in a particular situation. (That is, you don't change the rule for how someone in a particular position is supposed to act based on who is in the different positions.) Think about the rescue boat arriving just after the killing. Think about it only arriving days later. And think about how you would feel about yourself afterwards, in each of the different positions.

I think if you do that, you may come to like the law on this matter. Of course, maybe you won't; not everyone agrees on everything. If you come up with a different idea of what you would like for people to do, let us know, and we can discuss it.


Also, as a practical matter, if everyone tried to kill everyone else in order to eat, that would not be conducive to maximizing the survival rate, as one may easily be injured in killing someone, as they may very well fight back. If there is a struggle, one is also wasting energy, which means that one now needs more food. Also, if that is the guiding rule, in order for you to not be the meal, you need to act before someone kills you, which will favor killing someone before one is really starving, which means it is a very bad rule from a practical standpoint. The present law on the matter strongly discourages such preemptive action, which is a very good thing.