Cannibalism

[Norman Humann]

Would I stop being friends with someone if I found out s/he was a cannibal? Probably not.

Phew... You had me going there for a sec.

[Losty]

But, in famine, and other emergency situations, I couldn't condemn anyone for practicing it; provided of course that they did kill not their dinner.

Just curious, how wrong would it be for a person starving to death to kill and eat another person?

[Pyrrho]

But, in famine, and other emergency situations, I couldn't condemn anyone for practicing it; provided of course that they did kill not their dinner.

Just curious, how wrong would it be for a person starving to death to kill and eat another person?

How wrong it would be would depend on all of the circumstances, like whether or not there was something else that could be eaten, how "starving" the person is, what sort of person is killed, how the person is killed, etc.

If you look on wikipedia for "Custom of the Sea" and read about The Mignonette, you will see that in British Common Law necessity is not a defense against murder. I agree with that idea. I would condemn anyone who murdered someone in order to eat the person, no matter how hungry one was.

If a group of people is starving, and one dies of starvation, then eating that person does not involve murdering the person. Waiting until the person dies naturally is what I recommend that you do, if you are ever in such a situation. Otherwise, when you get back to civilization (if you get back), you should be prepared for being charged with murder, since you would, in fact, be a murderer.

[TheRealJoeFish]

But, in famine, and other emergency situations, I couldn't condemn anyone for practicing it; provided of course that they did kill not their dinner.

Just curious, how wrong would it be for a person starving to death to kill and eat another person?

This is the question they ask new law students on the first day of class. For a lot of (United States) law students, the first case they encounter is the British case R. v. Dudley and Stephens from 1884.

Basically, there were three guys shipwrecked. It got to the point where they were all going to die if they didn't get something to eat, and the two bigger ones basically said "meh, your time's up d00d. sorry" to the other, killed and ate him. They were then rescued. After a scandalous, crazy, wacky trial, they were sentenced to death, with "necessity is not a valid defense to a charge of murder" the legal principle underlying the case.

They were technically sentenced to "death, with a recommendation of mercy," which meant that although they could theoretically be executed it was very likely they would be pardoned. They ended up serving six months in prison.

---

P.S. I done got ninja'd

[Losty]

It's a question I truly struggle with. Not that I think I'll ever be faced with the situation, but...I mean if you're starving to death...can you really be blamed for killing and eating someone?
I just can't decide how I feel about it.

[Mudhammam]

If you drop a human foot on the ground as you're bringing it to your mouth, how many seconds is it allowed to sit there until you must declare it too unclean to eat? Is it still the five seconds rule?

[Losty]

If you drop a human foot on the ground as you're bringing it to your mouth, how many seconds is it allowed to sit there until you must declare it too unclean to eat? Is it still the five seconds rule?

Gross!

If you're hungry enough to eat a human foot you're not going to drop it.

[Pyrrho]

It's a question I truly struggle with. Not that I think I'll ever be faced with the situation, but...I mean if you're starving to death...can you really be blamed for killing and eating someone?
I just can't decide how I feel about it.

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.

[Losty]

It's a question I truly struggle with. Not that I think I'll ever be faced with the situation, but...I mean if you're starving to death...can you really be blamed for killing and eating someone?
I just can't decide how I feel about it.

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.

[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.