How Wikipedia sees Cannibalism

Cannibalism (from Canibales, the Spanish name for the Carib people, a West Indies tribe formerly well known for their practice of cannibalism) is the act or practice of humans eating the flesh or internal organs of other human beings. It is also called anthropology. A person who practices cannibalism is called a cannibal. The expression "cannibalism" has been extended into zoology to mean one individual of a species consuming all or part of another individual of the same species as food, including sexual cannibalism.

Cannibalism was widespread in the past among humans in many parts of the world, continuing into the 19th century in some isolated South Pacific cultures, and to the present day in parts of tropical Africa. In a few cases in insular Melanesia, indigenous flesh-markets existed. Fiji was once known as the 'Cannibal Isles'. Cannibalism has been well documented around the world, from Fiji to the Amazon Basin to the Congo to Māori New Zealand. Neanderthals are believed to have practiced cannibalism, and Neanderthals may have been eaten by anatomically modern humans.

Cannibalism has recently been both practiced and fiercely condemned in several wars, especially in Liberia and Congo.Today, the Korowai are one of very few tribes still believed to eat human flesh as a cultural practice.It is also still known to be practiced as a ritual and in war in various Melanesian tribes. Historically, allegations of cannibalism were used by the Colonial powers to justify the subjugation of what were seen as primitive peoples; cannibalism has been said to test the bounds of cultural relativism as it challenges anthropologists "to define what is or is not beyond the pale of acceptable human behavior". Cannibalism is rare and is not illegal in most countries. People who eat human flesh are usually charged with crimes other than cannibalism, such as murder or desecration of a body.

Cannibalism in the Bible

In some cultures cannibalism has been encouraged, whether it be to gain the strength of their enemies which they devoured or just because the hungered for the flesh of their kind, but you wouldn't think the bible would sound so encouraging of the act of cannibalism.

Deuteronomy 28:53-57-
Because of the suffering that your enemy will inflict on you during the siege, you will eat the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the Lord your God has given you. Even the most gentle and sensitive man among you will have no compassion on his own brother or the wife he loves or his surviving children, and he will not give to one of them any of the flesh of his children that he is eating. It will be all he has left because of the suffering your enemy will inflict on you during the siege of all your cities. The most gentle and sensitive woman among you - so sensitive and gentle that she would not venture to touch the ground with the sole of her foot - will begrudge the husband she loves and her own son or daughter the afterbirth from her womb and the children she bears. For she intends to eat them secretly during the siege and in the distress that your enemy will inflict on you in your cities.


John 6:53-56
Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him.

In this day and age cannibalism is a taboo act.

To argue Cannibalism

What might happen if we do punish acts of consensual cannibalism as murder: instead of going to the trouble of finding apparently willing participants, those who have a strong desire to slaughter and eat humans will be much more likely to kill innocent people against their will - people who no one would argue gave their consent.

Of course, one might argue that by eating the "meal", The cannibal was infringing on his meal’s rights, and acting against his interests. But if the "meal" decided that it was in his interests to be eaten, and in general we believe that the individual, not the state, is the best judge of his own interests.

Ah, you say, but the "meal" was mad, and therefore not capable of judging what was in his own interests. What, though, is the evidence that he was mad? Well, the fact that he wanted the cannibal to eat him. And why did he want the cannibal to eat him? Because he was mad?

There is a circularity to this argument that robs it of force. It is highly likely that the "meal" did indeed have “emotional problems,” but if every person with emotional problems were denied the right to determine what is in his own interests, none of us would be self-determining in the eyes of the law, except those of us who had no emotions to have problems with.

If we take the incompetence gambit here, we're at risk of concluding that the victim's consent was invalid since he was incompetent, but that the cannibal was also not guilty because of his incompetence. And if cannibalism/willingness to be eaten are considered sufficient proofs of incompetence, without any other evidence, then this case has been defined out of existence. (I think of incompetence as a sort of fudge to sweep messy cases under the carpet, rather than a profound legal insight).

It does seem like there are two rather separate issues here: the ending of a life (by suicide, murder, etc.) and the consumption of a human being (cannibalism).

Regarding cannibalism, assuming that someone was either already dead or did voluntarily agree to be consumed post-death, it seems difficult to argue that cannibalism under those situations is always "wrong." One possible point, though, is that consuming human tissue does entail a much larger risk of disease transmission than consuming other species tissues. However, we clearly cannot ban all risky behavior, so I'm not sure where that leads...

-Micha Ghertner