Yeah, vore fetishists. Obviously almost none of them carry it out (and they seem like they’re most heavily represented in the furry community) the fetish does exist.
Yeah, vore fetishists. Obviously almost none of them carry it out
Wusses. :P
If they sign up for cryonics they may not even die from the process, with a suitable (“Not the brain, everything but the brain!”) compromise.
I wonder if it is legal to have a will (and or waiver when terminally ill) whereby you have your head frozen but your body is to be prepared as a feast for your closest friends. Kind of like a “do not resuscitate” only an emphasis on recycling.
I also wonder if there are any ethically motivated vegetarians who refuse to eat animals but don’t have a philosophical objection to eating human flesh (perhaps considering it a symmetric kind of justice).
I also wonder if there are any ethically motivated vegetarians who refuse to eat animals but don’t have a philosophical objection to eating human flesh (perhaps considering it a symmetric kind of justice).
I have no ethical qualms about eating humans, no. Assuming it is freely given, of course (animal flesh fails ethically on that point; interspecies communication is simply not good enough to convey consent).
Other classes of objection do apply, though—having been a vegetarian for seven years or so, could my digestive system handle flesh without being upset? What about pathogens—they’re bound to migrate more readily when predator and prey are the same species; will it be worth the risk? I think not.
What about pathogens—they’re bound to migrate more readily when predator and prey are the same species; will it be worth the risk?
It seems to depend on just how hungry you are! You would have to be extremely hungry (in the ‘starvation considerations’ sense) before it became worthwhile to, say, eat human brains. That is just asking for trouble.
I don’t think our society currently has or is capable of implementing a definition of consent strong enough for being cannibalized (or other forms of suicide). I wouldn’t consider anyone to have consented to die pointlessly unless they not only expressed their consent in writing, but also maintained that position through a year of competent therapy and antidepressants.
“but also maintained that position through a year of competent therapy and antidepressants.”
Having been on antidepressants for a year, I’d point out I’d be significantly more inclined to let someone cannibalize me if I was on them. Neurochemistry is fickle and individual, and those things do not always do what it says on the label...
Assisted suicide clinics exist legally in Switzerland, and they require large amounts of proof that wanting to die is sane under the circumstances (usually a sharp decrease in quality of life because of some chronic injury or illness, with no cure and that is slated to get worse over time). I’m pretty sure they don’t accept people suffering from ennui.
My point being, I think a strong enough version of consent already exists and is in use.
I’m sorry to be confusing; I see cannibalism as orthogonal to death; one can amputate one’s own leg and feed it to one’s friends, or one can die of natural causes and permit others to consume the remains. In the grandparent, I wasn’t considering dying being a part of the process of cannibalism.
As to dying for the purpose of being consumed, I don’t think sane humans can consent to that, but other intelligences could, as long as they felt that the cost of dying was not high (i.e., they are confident that their goals will be accomplished regardless of their death). This is unlikely, but at least possible in my conception.
Yeah, vore fetishists. Obviously almost none of them carry it out (and they seem like they’re most heavily represented in the furry community) the fetish does exist.
Wusses. :P
If they sign up for cryonics they may not even die from the process, with a suitable (“Not the brain, everything but the brain!”) compromise.
I wonder if it is legal to have a will (and or waiver when terminally ill) whereby you have your head frozen but your body is to be prepared as a feast for your closest friends. Kind of like a “do not resuscitate” only an emphasis on recycling.
I also wonder if there are any ethically motivated vegetarians who refuse to eat animals but don’t have a philosophical objection to eating human flesh (perhaps considering it a symmetric kind of justice).
I have no ethical qualms about eating humans, no. Assuming it is freely given, of course (animal flesh fails ethically on that point; interspecies communication is simply not good enough to convey consent).
Other classes of objection do apply, though—having been a vegetarian for seven years or so, could my digestive system handle flesh without being upset? What about pathogens—they’re bound to migrate more readily when predator and prey are the same species; will it be worth the risk? I think not.
It seems to depend on just how hungry you are! You would have to be extremely hungry (in the ‘starvation considerations’ sense) before it became worthwhile to, say, eat human brains. That is just asking for trouble.
I can’t think of a good ethical reason to object to consensual (for strong definitions of the word consensual) cannibalism.
On the other hand, while I eat fish and foul, I don’t eat mammals, and ethical objections make up a portion of my reasons.
I don’t think our society currently has or is capable of implementing a definition of consent strong enough for being cannibalized (or other forms of suicide). I wouldn’t consider anyone to have consented to die pointlessly unless they not only expressed their consent in writing, but also maintained that position through a year of competent therapy and antidepressants.
“but also maintained that position through a year of competent therapy and antidepressants.”
Having been on antidepressants for a year, I’d point out I’d be significantly more inclined to let someone cannibalize me if I was on them. Neurochemistry is fickle and individual, and those things do not always do what it says on the label...
Assisted suicide clinics exist legally in Switzerland, and they require large amounts of proof that wanting to die is sane under the circumstances (usually a sharp decrease in quality of life because of some chronic injury or illness, with no cure and that is slated to get worse over time). I’m pretty sure they don’t accept people suffering from ennui.
My point being, I think a strong enough version of consent already exists and is in use.
I’m sorry to be confusing; I see cannibalism as orthogonal to death; one can amputate one’s own leg and feed it to one’s friends, or one can die of natural causes and permit others to consume the remains. In the grandparent, I wasn’t considering dying being a part of the process of cannibalism.
As to dying for the purpose of being consumed, I don’t think sane humans can consent to that, but other intelligences could, as long as they felt that the cost of dying was not high (i.e., they are confident that their goals will be accomplished regardless of their death). This is unlikely, but at least possible in my conception.