When debating social issues in the marketplace of ideas (around the water cooler, at the neighborhood tennis match, etc.), there is one trump card that those advocating removal of societal restraints (legalizing drugs, prostitution, same-sex marriage, etc.) play often. That is…
If the activity is between consenting adults, then who are we to meddle?
This can be a tough one to argue against. Well, sometimes a counterexample that isolates just that factor out and shows its inability to carry the day is the best way to defeat it.
This article describes a man named Armin Meiwes in Germany who ran ads seeking people that he could torture, kill, and consume. Yes, you read that correctly. Well, as you might guess, in a corrupt, fallen world, people have responded to his ad and willingly subjected themselves to his request. Meiwes has carefully documented the killings with video tape showing that the victim was a willing, consenting party.
The German authorities had trouble prosecuting the man because according to German law, there is no murder if the other party consents. Under current US law, authorities would have no trouble prosecuting the man because consent does not excuse murder. But for how long will that remain the case here? Anyway, that’s another post for another day.
The key lesson here is that torture, murder and cannibalism is not justified by consent. (If the person you are talking to does not see that Meiwes was not morally justified, then this person has defective moral intuition.) This disturbing counterexample establishes that consent alone is not an adequate justification by itself. If it were, it would justify Meiwes’ actions.
Dang, chalk another one up for natural selection. 😉
Does this really fit in the definition of murder though? I’ve always thought that suicide being illegal was goofy.
David, that’s a good question. Here are few back… How do you define murder? What if one of people killed was a family member? Would you feel that some punishment would be in order for the one who carried it out (for the killing itself)?
Having had someone very close to me commit suicide, I can tell you that it is not a ‘victimless crime.’ It is a selfish act that is sad for the one doing it, but leaves a wake of pain and damage behind that few other acts do.
No doubt it’s not victimless but if you fail in an attempt does getting arrested solve anything? And it’s not like legal action is a big deterent or anything. I just don’t think it’s a place for the government to go.
I don’t really see this as murder. It’s more like someone choosing to die at the hands of another person instead of a gun, crocodile, or chemical.
I define murder as taking someone’s life out of anger or pride. (This does excuse all the people that kill because God “told them to” though – including the Israelites – but that’s kinda hard to prove in court.)
As for if it happened to a family member, just don’t see it as a crime with someone to blame. I think it’s grounds for having the guy put in a mental institution but not as a criminal, just as a sicko. :^)
David, a little self-censorship would be appropriate, I think – adding name-calling insult to the injuries of suicide is not helpful, even with a smiley.
…
To the question: there’s little doubt in my mind that visiting death upon a person is fair game for criminalization.
Human life must be respected; the image of God is sacred. I know I’m blurring that vaunted church-state line, but this is just crazy – we punish people who torture animals because of what it says about their respect for life. I don’t care if the person offering himself up to be eaten is personally marinading himself, there’s just no excusing, justifying, or explaining away this kind of thing.
Regarding the propriety of laws concerning suicide or euthanasia… I suppose it depends on what you ground you system of laws upon. Our system was originally based on the premise that God creates life and it is only His to extinguish. We pass laws to affect behavior and codify what is morally right. Just because one particular punishment (jail) does not apply well to one particular crime (suicide) has no bearing on the whether or not the law is just.
Sorry, I need to clarify my topics. My first paragraph is in regards to suicide. The rest of it is in regards to the article.
I guess I’m approaching this from a libertarian point of view. No, I don’t think suicide is moral or right (excluding radical circumstances*) but question if it should be legislated.
This particular case is a toughy cause you usally don’t run across that many people that CHOOSE to be killed by someone else – can’t even think of anything to relate it to.
*Should you find yourself the only one that can manually detonate the nuclear bomb implanted in the comet hurling toward earth.
Oops. Sorry for the “smackdown” David – I misunderstood your comment. It makes sense now.