The Case for Cannibalism

The Case for Cannibalism July 14, 2015

From the Culture Where Consent is the Sole Criterion of the Good.

Not that we are going to face a wave of cannibalism (or incest, or bestiality, or necrophilia, or pedophilia, or various other logically acceptable forms of Forbidden Love, given the premises now enshrined in law that whatever two or more consenting things want to do is just fine as long as you Follow Your Heart).  There will be no sudden uptick in the numbers of people who want to do unnatural and depraved things.  What there will be is the long soaking effect of a culture that now deeply believes in Total Personal Libertarianism and no longer has any argument beyond “Ew!” for whatever consenting people wish to do.

A culture that has nothing beyond consent to go on for its moral code, coupled with no conception of the common good is a culture that, as ours already does, has little room for the weak who cannot participate in consent.  That is the message of Roe, where abortion is “between a woman and her doctor” and the weak do not get a vote.  It’s the message of a culture that says a bailout is between a CEO and his Caesar and the people who actually pay the money have no say.  And it’s the message of Obergefell, which tells people like this that they have no right to a mother and a father.

In short, in a civilization where the *real* dynamic is the concentration of power in the hand of the powerful and the slow reduction of the weak to slaves, the best thing in the world for the powerful is the atomization of culture into pure individualism with no conception of the common good.  It is the strategy known as “divide and conquer”.  That is Hell’s long con.  It will conclude when the Strong have enough power concentrated in their hands to ask, “What’s so sacred about consent anyway?”

"So you inherently object to Shakespeare's ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA or JULIUS CAESAR or RICHARD III ..."

Trailer for a new biopic about ..."
"I've not heard the radio drama, but the BBC, in general, seems to have a ..."

Trailer for a new biopic about ..."
""It will be boon to humanity when the boomers dies off."In case you haven't noticed ..."

Dear Prolife Suckers
"I'll generally try any new food I see, but I've not had camel so far. ..."

Simcha Fisher Has a Great Idea

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Hermann o

    In Belgium they are peparing to kill a woman who “told doctors who assessed her condition that ‘life, that’s not for me'”.
    Slippery slope? No more. This is the part where we are falling headlong from the edge of the cliff. Now we all wait for the “SPLAT”. 🙁

  • Pete the Greek

    “hat now deeply believes in Total Personal Libertarianism”
    – False. Say what you want about Libertarians, at least the ones I know say you need to face the consequences for your actions. Most moderns want all the license, without accepting any responsibility.

  • Amaryllis

    Sigh. No.

    No one is claiming that consent is “the sole critierion of the good.” Merely a necessary first step.

    • Guest

      Actually, “consenting adults” was pretty much the only criterion I used to use for evaluating such things – and the “adults” part was in there only because it reinforced the “consent” part. Anything I disagreed with that met this standard I regarded as simply a matter of taste.

      • D.T. McCameron

        “… simply a matter of taste.”

        Esp. in regards to consensual cannibalism.

        • ivan_the_mad

          Just awful…ly funny.

    • neoconned

      “Lest anyone think that the argument from mutual consent for the permissibility of cannibalism is purely theoretical, it is precisely what Meiwes’s defense lawyer is arguing in court. “

    • SteveP

      What is the next step?

      • Amaryllis

        Depends on the situation is.

        Since this argument, cannibals aside, is usually about sex, I can think of several other ethical considerations.

        Is one or both of you already in a committed monogamous relationship? Sex with someone else would involve promise-breaking, and probably lying, possibly financial and medical considerations, and hurt inflicted on the cheated-on spouse.

        Have you been honest about yourself to your potential partner? Or misrepresented yourself in some important ways in order to obtain consent?

        Is one of you in a position of authority over the other, or do you work closely together in some capacity? Proceed with EXTREME caution.

        Is one of you considerably more eminent, older, more powerful in general than the other? If so, are you sure that this is a case of true mutuality, or is someone being exploited?

        Are there children in your life? If so, is this person someone you want to be around them?

        And, finally, are you respecting yourself in this relationship? Is this likely to lead to damage to your body or soul? A slippery concept, perhaps, but I’m pretty sure that even consensual cannibalism is going to leave a mark.

        These are moral questions rather than legal, most of the time. We don’t fine people for adultery any more. But if you don’t have consent, both legally and morally, you’ve got nothing else.

    • Pete the Greek

      How much do you get out and about? I run into it a LOT. The may not use the exact words, no, but they assume the premise.

      The only other criteria that seems to come up with people like that is: “Is it legal?” This is simply asking “will someone with power punish me if I get caught doing it?”

      In a discussion about sexual morality I had with someone recently, when it came to underage children, they declared that no, no one was going to promote relations with children, because ‘contract law specifically states children can’t give consent.’

      When I pointed out that ‘contract law’ was nothing but and arbitrary set of legal statutes that, if enough people wanted them to, could be changed to whatever was wanted, he didn’t really have an answer.

      • Amaryllis

        Okay, everyone, I admit it. I was in a hurry this morning, and in an irritated mood, and more than a little tired of “slippery slope” arguments, and perhaps I overstated my case with the “no one” bit.

        I still maintain that MOST people recognize at least some distance between “everything not explicitly permitted (by whatever criterion) is WRONG” and “anything goes.”

        As for underage children (a discussion I seem to keep having), it’s not merely “contract law” that says children can’t give consent. The actual age of legal capability to form a contract or to consent to sex may be an arbitrary line– 16? – 18? – whatever– but the reason for the law in the first place, is the recognition that persons below the age of physical and mental maturity, don’t have the capability to give an informed consent.

        And I am surprised that your debate opponent didn’t mention the observable harm that sexual abuse does to children as a reason for not changing the law, or for why most persons will not want it changed.

        Cannibals, ewww.

    • ManyMoreSpices

      Would you withdraw your objection if we changed it to “consent is the sole critierion of what is legal”?

  • Why don’t the cannibals just buy some of the aborted baby parts that planned parenthood has been selling?

  • Gunnar Thalweg


  • PalaceGuard

    Ultimately, I can see even “consent” falling by the wayside. If person A has an urgent need which person B selfishly declines to fulfill, well shame on person B!

    • Rebecca Fuentes

      Especially if A’s urgent need is also fashionable.