Been a while, I know. Had lots on my plate (literally: I went to my parents’ for thanksgiving and ate the biggest turkey drumstick you could imagine, with turkey filling and rutabaga and potatoe side dish. And the gravy! My dad is just the best cook… I digress). Not so much digression in the brackets, I imagine, since I am going to talk about food.
So, what’s on the menue, Mr Nick?
You heard me. Human flesh.
Peter Singer is big on anti-specianism. If we want to regard animals’ interests as equivalent to human interests, then we should become vegetarians, on account of cruelty experienced by livestock at human hands. Another implication of Peter Singer’s preferential utilitarianism would be: if a human wanted to die, I mean, actively, and donated his body to human consumption, what would be the grounds to prohibit consentual cannibalism? Why should we give a rat’s ass, vulgarly speaking, if somebody wanted to be eaten (and killed in the process) by another human, willing to consume Human flesh? Even if we didn’t treat animal will, suffering, and life, equally to those of humans, who’d we be to deny, or even judge, such preferences, no matter how sick and perverted we deem them?
As you may have heard from the underlying tone of my presentation, I am by no means opposed to consentual human cannibalism. I find it sad when a person thinks the world would be better off without them, or they would be better off without the world, but I didn’t walk the last mile in their shoes, did I? In Germany, there is currently the second case if voluntary human cannibalism being discussed publicly. By law, it is considered murder. I don’t see how something consentual can be portrayed as vile as rape, robbery, murder, or all three in a single act, but that is how it is being trated in this case.