http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2569095.stm

And to think some people don't believe in total depravity...

Alright, this is seriously whacked. But, is it murder???

One could argue that it is "assisted suicide", couldn't they? Assuming that there was no coercion, of course. But the "victim" allegedly sold all of their possessions prior to the meeting, sort of suggesting that there was at least no overt coercion.

As long as no others are harmed or put at risk without their ascent, should I not be allowed to voluntarily enter into any agreement with another human?

If I don't have a right to "self-possession" anterior to any other right of possession, what worth is any right? If my own body and life is not my property, than what possibly can be?

It seems to me that if this strange situation is a voluntary contract between to competent adults, the state is asserting its authority over a person's own body and life. I realize that states do this constantly, but I find that immoral.

If I can't choose whether to live or die, ultimately any choice is at the discression of the state, is it not?

Jim

In reply to:

---

It seems to me that if this strange situation is a voluntary contract between to competent adults (emphasis added)

---

I think this is where the question is... Under normal circumstances saying its ok to kill me is a hint that I'm NOT ok....
This is without introducing questions like... Am I my own property? Notice that all of the actions he went through were warning signs of a depression related suicide. The inclusion of canabilism should not diminish the fact that it was suicide. Also the inclusion of assisted suicide arguments isn't really helpful (assuming that one believes that mercy killing is all right which I don't) since the article doesn't mention any sort of physical illness.

this is just sick and ridiculous.

I think that when you're dealing with people who are that dysfunctional, there's no logic or reason to it, let alone any ethics or morals. I think it's safe to say that both involved parties needed psychological treatment that they weren't getting. It's sad to see it when this sort of thing happens, but the world is full of examples like this (okay, not all of them that extreme).

Perhaps, but eating someone is so disgusting, so inhumane, and just so [censored] weird that he should be brought in the backyard and shot in the head like a dog with rabies.

Look, guys. I agree that its disgusting and weird. The question is not about the morality of their behavior, but of our own in compelling others. I think that we need to be very careful about extending the authority to the state to decide what is acceptable. I'm not saying that we shouldn't do it at all, just that it needs to be carefully considered.

It's bad if these people wanted psychological help and couldn't get it, but what if they didn't want it? Do we have a right to compel them, to "treat" them against their will for a "disease" that is nothing more than behaving in a way that is disgusting to us?

How thick a psychological line is it between inviting someone to your apartment so you can butcher them and just going out to the streetcorner and getting someone?

Come on.

-Zeke

I agree that we should watch what freedoms we give away. But I think we can safely mark "cannabalism" off of the freedoms list. I don't think we should bother trying to treat that guy, unless you wanna treat him with a piece of lead traveling at 3,000 feet per second.

"nothing more than behaving in a way that is disgusting to us"

I would hardly consider killing someone else (or allowing yourself to be murdered) "nothing more than behaving in a way that is disgusting to us."

How thick a psychological line is it between inviting someone to your apartment so you can butcher them and just going out to the streetcorner and getting someone? Come on.

I think you pretty well defined it yourself. There is quite a difference between "inviting" someone who has the option of refusing the invitation and "getting" someone who has no such option.

tanstaafl.

I agree with TigerJimmy. It appears that this was a consenaual act. How could these two men be forced into treatment if they were only acting upon eachother in consent and not hurting others? The guy's neighbors seemed to think he was ok.

Now, let's take this a step to the right on the spectrum. What about homosexuality. I may think it's kinda gross for two men to have sex, but those two men may think it's perfectly ok. Hey, that's their thing, let them do it. They are doing it with consent and are not hurting others.

Push it further to the right. Maybe a gay man thinks it is gross that I'd have sex with a woman. Who's right and who's wrong now? Is the straight-male majority right? Is the non-canabalistic majority right?

See, ultimately, there is no right and wrong. A person has the right to impose their views on anyone else unless that person is being threatend. If I was worried of being eaten by my neighbor, I'd call on the law for help. If I was worried of being raped by my neighbor, I'd call on the law for help. But if a bunch of cult members want to catch a ride on comet Hale Bop by putting on black Nike shoes and killing themselves in a mansion in LA, then let them. (anyone remember that, by the way? 1996?) Who's to say they are wrong when they are only hurting themselves.

Please, prove me wrong. Someone find a scenario where hurting yourself is wrong. I've been looking for a long time.

I don't think we should bother trying to treat that guy, unless you wanna treat him with a piece of lead traveling at 3,000 feet per second.

Yeah. Let's just shoot everybody who doesn't think the "right" way -- right being defined as thinking the same way you do.

tanstaafl.

"See, ultimately, there is no right and wrong."

And this is the core of where we would disagree. I understand that the values of today are undefined to a large extent and I think this can only lead down a dangerous path. It is good to have a sense of "rightness", and this sense must sometimes be placed on us externally; we can't always rely on our own abilities to judge. There are times that we aren't capable of "right" decisions, whether it be because we don't have enough information, we are misguided, we are in some altered (drug-induced) state, or whatever else.

We are talking about suicide here, and I hope you would all agree that teenagers feeling the angst one often feels at that age should be prevented from taking their own lives, no matter how badly they want to do it. And if a friend out of sadistic pleasure decides help by putting a bullet in his or her "friend’s" head, I at least would certainly call out for justice. You might say that the case in question differs from teenage angst because it involves consenting adults, but the actions, consequences, and rationale are the same.


"Someone find a scenario where hurting yourself is wrong."

If hurting yourself causes others to copy you who wouldn't otherwise have hurt themselves, then you have affected them for the worse. People are responsible for their own actions, but we can't believe what we do has no consequence.

For the case in question, say that eating humans becomes fashionable if we allow this behavior. Is it too far removed to think that people would offer themselves with full consent if money was to be given to their families? Based on your criteria, could we say that it was wrong? Or what about a person who is drug induced? You might say that drug inducement would be wrong, but is it alright to take advantage of someone who is mentally unstable (Which I would say is the case of anyone offering themselves up for cannibalism)?

Back to the "right or wrong" thing, again I will agree that this is the view a lot of people take, but there are those (like myself) who believe that there is absolute right and wrong, and that it is not a matter of mere perception. Of course, I can't force you to believe the way I do, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

Taking sadistic pleasure in consuming another human being is depraved, and it is not a right that I believe should be protected.

This case & ensuing debate points are very similar to the arguments made over prostitution, but moved up another notch on the permanence scale. I know many people think prostitution should be legal - who's the victim? However, most people disagree vehemently with that argument, and hence in most places it is illegal. Not a lawyer, but I don't think the victim's state of mind is relevant in determining if this person killed another.

-Zeke

I'd say that your comparison to prostitution is invalid because simply having sex doesn't hurt anyone. Sure, it has the potential, but there are some prostitutes out there who are in that business because they like to have sex, in the same way that I'm a systems administrator because I like to work with computers. Certainly, there are many women out there who have sex with other men for free; why not get paid for it? On the other hand, there are as many people who work on computers simply because they thought it was a good career path, and, I'm sure, there are some prostitutes that thought the same thing. (There's some debate in my head as to which of those two groups was the least wrong. ) And there are virtually no physical maladies in those areas where prostitution is legal (in the U.S., at least -- I won't speak of Thailand, Brazil, etc.), as government controls keep much better care of them than any (okay, most) pimps would. (Madams may be a different story.)

Not that I don't understand your point.

It appears that this was a consenaual act
No one is arguing about whether or not the act was consentual. The question stems around whether this gentleman had the right to give consent to be eaten and whether or not he was in the mental condition to give consent to much of anything.

The guy's neighbors seemed to think he was ok.
Their diagnosis is at best questionable considering their lack of contact, expertise, and the fact that their neighbor killed someone and ate him.

Maybe a gay man thinks it is gross that I'd have sex with a woman. Who's right and who's wrong now? Is the straight-male majority right? Is the non-canabalistic majority right?
This really doesn't work since homosexuality is first of all not final or permanent in its affect and even those who disdain homosexuality would argue that it is a perversion of a good. Being dead and eaten would be in what way... good?

Please, prove me wrong. Someone find a scenario where hurting yourself is wrong. I've been looking for a long time. The last time you stubbed your toe in a dark hallway... Are you going to argue it was the good and right thing to do? If it is the good and right thing to do then why did you swear and why did it hurt?

say a guy#1 puts an ad in the paper for a house for sale. guy#2 goes to look at the house. guy#2 suddenly dies of a heart attack. guy#1 claims that guy#2's heirs should get the house and he should get guy#2's money in the bank for the value of the house. But there was no contract. just going to the place doesn't mean guy#2 was agreeing to anything. Therefore there was no sale on the house and the other case was murder. If there were a written contract between the eater and the eatee, then I'd say it was legal. But I still stand by my statement that any cannabals should be swiftly shot in the head.

Yeah, those Uruguayan rugby players and the members of the Donner party were all evil people.

If you and I were stranded together without any food, would you eat me?

If you and I were stranded together without any food, would you eat me?

Well, I have heard that troll tastes a lot like chicken ;-)

Yeah, those Uruguayan rugby players and the members of the Donner party were all evil people.

IIRC, in both situations, the consumed were already dead.

Thus (hopefully) refuting the earlier statement

But I still stand by my statement that any cannabals should be swiftly shot in the head.

That is, there was irony involved in my statement.

touché

OK, it's been a while since I started all this, sorry about that.

Regarding the contract business, contracts are important in civil matters, not in criminal ones. Besides, verbal contracts are enforcable. Contract simply means an agreement, not the piece of paper that this agreement is written upon. In this case, it is not disputed that the two had voluntarily entered into an agreement even though it was not written down.

Anyway, the discussion is not about what is legal or illegal. I'm sure it's illegal, which is why the guy was arrested. The question a question of principles. Is it correct for the state to involve themselves in this matter?

Regarding the comments made earlier about suicide being illegal, remember that this goes back to feudal law and (I believe) proves my point. Suicide was (and remains) illegal because people were not their own property, they were the property of their feudal lord. In killing themselves, it was believed, the harmed the master by destroying his "property." It was similarly illegal for non-owners to kill slaves. This should be blatantly disgusting to most of us.

Self-ownership -- the idea that no person can be the property of another besides themselves is the very foundation of classic liberalism and is literally the foundational contribution of the Enlightenment. You are not the property of the state, nor the church, nor the establishment. You are your own property. Period. All "civil liberties" and personal freedom must stem from this basic idea.

Now, freedom implies the freedom to choose poorly. By calling others who do not make the same choices as we deem proper "mentally ill", we deprive them of their freedom and use this as justification to compel or punish them. This is a terrible trend in western societies today.

I accept that there are some circumstances where people are not competent to take care of themselves, but anyone who, according to the article, held down a job, had a home, and would seem completely normal to anyone meeting him can not possibly be considered incompetent.

The only way one could call this person, who has for at least 20 years taken care of themselves perfectly well, "mentally ill" is to do so exclusively on the basis of disagreeing with his decisions. Worse, disagreeing with them and being willing to use force to prevent him or punish him from making those decisions.

IMHO, there is a place for police, law, and punishment, but that is when a person's actions pose a clear and present threat to *others*, not to themselves.

Jim

In reply to:

---

but anyone who, according to the article, held down a job, had a home, and would seem completely normal to anyone meeting him can not possibly be considered incompetent.

---

One word... Congress

In reply to:

---

The only way one could call this person, who has for at least 20 years taken care of themselves perfectly well, "mentally ill" is to do so exclusively on the basis of disagreeing with his decisions. Worse, disagreeing with them and being willing to use force to prevent him or punish him from making those decisions.

---

Decisions and actions are the primary indicators of mental illness. How do you diagnose mental illness without physical actions that lead you to a conclusion?

I laughed when I saw "Congress." I agree, there is a particular form of incompetence at work there, but not the kind we are discussing. I think we can agree that while congressmen may be greedy and corrupt, they are not incapable of knowing right from wrong. In fact, that's the problem: they know better.

"Mental illness" is a metaphor that was used around the turn of the century to help get people imprisoned in asylums the status of "patients", which was an infinite improvement over how they were considered and treated before this change of thinking. The problem is, we have literalized the metaphor and now are busy searching for the "physical causes" of metaphorical diseases. "Mental illness" is not a disease like diabetes or polio or cancer, all of which have very specific, quantifyable physical pathology. It is a description we use for, as you point out, the decision to engage in undesirable or irritating behaviors. In the cases, such as alzeimer's disease, where there is a defined physical condition causing the odd behavior, we don't speak of "mental illness" we talk about the brain disease alzeimer's. "Mental illness" is a term reserved for strange or undesirable behavior with no known physical cause. Talking about the correlation of moods with certain neurotransmitters is very different from establishing a causal relationship.

My thinking on this issue has changed dramatically since reading Thomas Szasz' work. I strongly recommend him. He is hated and criticized by the medical pschyological establishment, but usually by people who have never read his work and they admit it. His writing is incredibly precise and rational and he takes grave exception to the conventional wisdom of "mental illness". In particular, his books "Schizophrenia" and "The Myth of Mental Illness" are addressed to these points in particular.

Whenever we call someone "mentally ill" we deny them the status of being responsible moral agents. We do this to deprive them of their freedom because they are using it in a way we find distasteful. As long as they don't involve others against their will, I think we could use a little more tolerance.

Jim

I guess I'm lucky:

This is all remarkably simple for those of us with a different worldview. It goes something like:

1. There are moral absolutes.
2. They have been revealed by God.
3. The revelation is clear regarding murder and the sanctity of human life.
4. This act was clearly wrong.

1. There are moral absolutes.
2. They have been revealed by God.
3. The revelation is clear regarding murder and the sanctity of human life.
4. This act was clearly wrong.

Well, I guess that algorithm copes with this simple situation, but it doesn't scale to the general case because it can deadlock at stage 2 against another process that's been told the opposite by their god. It's also something of a security risk, as it's wide-open to abuse by gods revealing stuff to promote their own agendas.

Peter

it's wide-open to abuse by gods revealing stuff to promote their own agendas

Or, of course, to priest-in-the-middle attacks.

Peter

Well, I guess that algorithm copes with this simple situation, but it doesn't scale to the general case because it can deadlock at stage 2 against another process that's been told the opposite by their god. It's also something of a security risk, as it's wide-open to abuse by gods revealing stuff to promote their own agendas.

Worse yet, many of these applications have proprietary extensions to the God superclass which suppsedly derive their behavior and attributes from God. Then, having no direct access to the God superclass, humans interact with these subclasses which sometimes have critical flaws, and give out the wrong advice, or lead them in ways that the original God class didn't intend.

No offense meant to the Reverend who inhabits the BBS, I'm sure his code is bug-free.

Or, of course, to priest-in-the-middle attacks.

Link for those who didn't get that one.

Well, I don't think that formula gets you out of the dillemma. I am not arguing that it wasn't "wrong". I am only arguing that (as long as others are not involuntarily harmed) it is between them and their conception of "God".

The question is what is the state's role in legislating and enforcing a particular moral code they feel has been revealed by their god. Does belief in a particular god and his revelations give anyone (including the state) the moral authority to impose those standards of behavior (forcefully) upon others? As long as no one else is involved, isn't the proper place for that discussion between them and their God?

If one sees their god as the *only* god, then one will probably answer yes, it is OK to forcefully compel others. That's the same intolerance that led to the inquisitions, 9/11, and many other acts of violent intolerance.

The revelation is clear regarding murder and the sanctity of human life.

Really?

Man, you go to lunch and all heaven breaks loose....(wink)
First of all it's very easy for everyone to jump all over Meatballman and claim we need to be understanding of other people's beliefs. But to do so is simply playing the crowd's sympathies and failing to address the issue. If you think you Superman and that you can jump of a building and fly away, then I am obligated to save you from yourself, if for no other reason than I would hope you do the same for me if someone slipped a mickey in my coke when I wasn't looking.

Second it doesn't matter if someone pretends to be a religious leader and isn't or they are but they're flawed (which is all of us by the way) it doesn't place God to blame for their actions. You are responsible for your beliefs. If I'm a sham and you choose me, that doesn't change or lessen the fact that you are wrong.

Third, the quoting of O.T. law out of it cultural home is unhelpful. While it may seem unclear to us, it was perfectly clear to them. And becomes clear to us with historical study.

Now with all of that said, we all believe in absolutes, rightness and wrongness only mucks up the argument until we agree to that. The very computer your looking at would be impossible without certain assumptions on which to base equations.

...we all believe in absolutes...

Hmmm. I don't know what you mean here. I certainly believe in some absolutes, (1=1, c/d==pi, etc.), and, possibly even some morla absolutes, but certainly not many. In fact, it is my belief that, generally, belief in absolutes is what leads people to be extremists, unwilling to accept anyone else's beliefs, and killing them because of it. (See the Crusades, Northern Ireland, Al Qaeda, etc.)

Of course, maybe that's not what you mean.

[T]he quoting of O.T. law out of it cultural home is unhelpful

I wasn't trying to imply its correctness, or lack thereof, but only show that the declaration that the Bible shows all life (we'll assume human) as sacred is wrong, as God ordered us to kill others.

Well, I guess that algorithm copes with this simple situation, but it doesn't scale to the general case because it can deadlock at stage 2 against another process that's been told the opposite by their god. It's also something of a security risk, as it's wide-open to abuse by gods revealing stuff to promote their own agendas.

Sounds like virus-like behavior to me. They're trying to bog down resources so that the one true process is lost in the mix of bad processes. Should be fixed when Norton Judgement™ comes out soon. They continue to insist that the release is imminent, but will not set a solid date.

Also, Reverend 1.6™ has been known to have the occasional memory leak and some problems with the interpreter from time to time. Should be fixed when Reverend Millenium Edition comes out.

I wasn't trying to imply its correctness, lack thereof, but only show that the declaration that the Bible shows all life (we'll assume human) as sacred is wrong, as God ordered us to kill others.

Although justice may require the taking of a life, it does not decrease the sanctity of life in any way. In fact, it is the only reason to take a life. But then again...you seem to be well read enough to know this...so I'm not sure why you posted that.

Sounds like virus-like behavior to me. They're trying to bog down resources so that the one true process is lost in the mix of bad processes.

Ah yes, a denial-of-services attack. It looks as if viruses of this type chew up so much CPU on some platforms that common sense is hardly getting to run at all.

Should be fixed when Norton Judgement? comes out soon. They continue to insist that the release is imminent, but will not set a solid date.

There's a word for projects like that: vapourware

Peter

There's a word for projects like that: vapourware

It's not...I assure you. I've seen the preview edtion, it's code-named Revelation™.

Although justice may require the taking of a life ...

A statement with which I do not agree

... it does not decrease the sanctity of life in any way

Again, I disagree.

Third, the quoting of O.T. law out of it cultural home is unhelpful. While it may seem unclear to us, it was perfectly clear to them. And becomes clear to us with historical study.

I'm not sure what's "unclear" about Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death that would be clarified by more historical study on our part. Or are you saying that that is a bad rule -- in the sense that it would be bad for society if applied in the modern day -- and it's "unclear", becoming clearer later, why the ancient Palestinians had rules like that?

Peter

I've seen the preview edtion, it's code-named Revelation.

I think those screen-shots were done in Photoshop. (You can see the join where the seven eagles' heads have been composited onto the whore of Babylon.) It's hard to imagine anything like that actually happening in-game.

Peter

I'm just saying that many laws in the Old Testament seem odd until you think about the time and situations. Cities of refuge for manslaughterers seems odd. However going there was better than someone killing you and it wasn't easy because you were separated from family, you wealth(which was mostly land based), and your tribe, not to mention that manslaughter in that day and time was somewhat different without manufacturing (faulty products) and machines (vehicles and such).

I'm not sure that justice requires the taking of life.... however capital punishment does protect the sanctity of life by permanently rendering a known murder from practicing his trade.

I think those screen-shots were done in Photoshop. (You can see the join where the seven eagles' heads have been composited onto the whore of Babylon.) It's hard to imagine anything like that actually happening in-game.

ROFL...*whew*....I love this place....

Having a falling out with one's parents being cause for execution seems a little more than simply odd.

capital punishment does protect the sanctity of life by permanently rendering a known murder[er] from practicing his trade

Which implies that the murderer's life is not sacred, which implies that his life is worth less than that of others, which seems to directly contradict many Christian beliefs, but now I'm conflating pre-Christian Jewish law and Christian ethos, so ....

Not exactly.... sacred (within Christian traditions) doesn't mean untouchable. It means set apart for a purpose. The sacred bread in the temple, the sacred tools around the alter, even the Inner temple were not untouchable. So the murderers life is sacred but that doesn't mean indespensible. His sacred life is being taken as a direct protection of the sacred lives around him.

But your example is an excellent one.... cursing doesn't equate with a simple falling out. Its literal damning them to hell.

I'll admit that I can't read the original text, and I might be wrong about this, but....

I think we'll agree that the word ``curse'' is not very precise in this usage. However, Young's Literal Translation uses the word ``revile'' instead, and the English Standard Version lists ``revile'' and ``dishonor'' in its notes about the usage of ``curse''. So I'd guess that you're wrong in that statement. Unless you can provide me with a translation that is more accurate than YLT.

It seems to be Strong's word number 7043 (qalal), if you've got one of those concordances lying around. Online stuff I've found would seem to support my supposition.

Just to put my two cents in. . .

Just because we've gone and made a mess of things (i.e.: the revelation of God) doesn't give us license to ignore it completely. It’s true enough that there are unclear passages in the bible, and there are also other claimed holy texts that people say are the "Word of God". I feel, however, that to say because the answers aren't immediately clear that whole thing is hopeless and now we should just do whatever feels right and there are no real moral absolutes . . . that's a dangerous path to be on.

I feel, however, that to say because the answers aren't immediately clear that whole thing is hopeless and now we should just do whatever feels right and there are no real moral absolutes . . . that's a dangerous path to be on.

Well, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But for my money, it's not half as dangerous a path as saying that the "Word of God" isn't immediately clear but we should follow it anyway. Nine times out of ten, if something isn't written clearly it's because it wasn't thought through properly in the first place. Unless you're from one of those religions which claims that an infallible being dictated the whole holy book word-for-word, this is tantamount to saying that the human authors of these "Words of God" probably screwed up some bits.

Which they did, of course. It's non-coincidental, but meaningless, that popular religions have rules that (in the social situations where they were forged) strengthen societies. Of course the religions that have survived from those times do that: the religions that don't, of which there were plenty, haven't survived -- they were out-evolved by the social-cohesion religions.

It's unlikely that even Moses or Christ, or anyone else in those times, was a good enough sociologist or anthropologist to realise that that's what they were doing -- and so Judaism and Christianity didn't have to compete against any soundly anthropologically designed religions. Survival of the fittest doesn't imply survival of the perfect.

Peter

"But for my money, it's not half as dangerous a path as saying that the 'Word of God' isn't immediately clear but we should follow it anyway."

I'll agree here. There are way too many people who make very bad decisions base on their interpretation of the "Word of God." I think this is an awful thing and flings more mud on Jesus than anyone "on the outside" can do. Many people who follow the bible do not take to heart the awesome responsibility it takes to read the scriptures with humility and responsibility.

That being said, it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to understand it. Nor does it mean we shouldn't investigate different religions on the basis of history, archeology, internal consistency, etc. in order to determine which, if any of them, might actually be true.

Nor does my above statement mean that there aren't some clear and plain statements that can be taken at face value and understood exactly as they were intended.

You're quite right. My statment was from memory, which should never be trusted when you have 14 bibles and countless resources sitting within 5 feet. I apologize.

Hey -- no apology needed. I suppose there would be fewer problems all around if bible translators had taken care to be less ambiguous.

I should find a print copy of YLT.

i gotta say folks... this is the first religous thread i've ever read on a BBS that was anywhere near coherent and worth reading. This place never ceases to amaze.