Consenting Adults: Responding to a Cannibal

BreakPoint with Charles Colson ^ | 19 March 04 | Charles Colson

[Mr. Silverback]

Three years ago in Germany, Armin Meiwes placed a personal ad on the Internet, seeking “a young, well-built man who wants to be eaten.”

That’s twisted all by itself, but it’s not the worst part of the story. The worst part is that someone answered the ad.

Bernd Brandes, a man who is said to have had an obsession with pain, allowed himself to be killed and eaten by Meiwes. As a psychiatrist later determined, Meiwes had severe “emotional problems,” and last month, he was sentenced to eight-and-a-half years in prison.

But some argue that he didn’t commit a crime. In fact, the case raises some very disturbing questions for a society like Germany’s and ours. The idea of an unchangeable moral law given by God has been abandoned. The idea today is that we’re autonomous—we’re free to do whatever we want, as long as we don’t hurt somebody else. That puts us in an awkward position when we try to determine just what Meiwes did wrong. By what standard can a modern secularist argue that Meiwes did anything wrong?

But didn’t Meiwes hurt Brandes? That depends on whom you ask. Meiwes’s lawyer argued that this was a case of “killing on request.” Brandes wished to die, and Meiwes accommodated him. In Holland and in Oregon, for that matter, it is legal to help fulfill such a wish.

Perhaps the secularist could say that he finds killing and cannibalism repulsive. But that’s no argument. Some pro-choice activists, when pressed, will admit that they find a procedure like partial-birth abortion repulsive. But they’ll fight for it because they believe any restrictions on abortions are a blow to their personal autonomy. So how can they object to the way these two men exercised their personal autonomy, even if it was repulsive?

Columnist and physician Theodore Dalrymple makes exactly this point in City Journal. Dalrymple writes, “Meiwes and Brandes were consenting adults: By what right, therefore, has the state interfered in their slightly odd relationship? Of course, one might argue that by eating Brandes, Meiwes was infringing on his meal’s rights, and acting against his interests. But Brandes 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.”

Once we stop believing in the sanctity of human life, or in the dignity of each person created in the image of God, or in an absolute moral law, how can we argue with an individual’s decision to throw away his own life? How can we ask the state to step in to protect his life, to save him from himself?

I’m reminded of the U.S. Supreme Court decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which Justice Kennedy famously wrote, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” Armin Meiwes and Bernd Brandes took that morally bankrupt definition of liberty to its logical—if extreme and repulsive—conclusion. And the frightening part is that a world that has largely abandoned the Christian worldview has no meaningful response to give to them.

[Mr. Silverback]

Armin certainly didn't hurt his victim. The guy was unconscious (intentional cough syrup overdose) and was stabbed right in the ol' ticker.

So hey, consenting adults, who cares, right?

[Mr. Silverback]

BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[Unam Sanctam]

Isn't cannibalism something like slavery, where the consenting adult paradigm should not hold?

[mitchbert]

their slightly odd relationship?

Um, slightly odd? I'd go a little further than that, dude.

[Mr. Silverback]

The "victim" in this situation saw an ad, answered it and agreed with the process. Can we say that about, say, Frederick Douglass, Harriett Tubman or Kunta Kinte?

And, if Bob runs an ad for a slave, and Bill agrees to become his slave, from where do we get the authority to say that's wrong? Consenting adults, right? And if we say, "you can't buy his servitude, slavery's illegal," what if they call each other "master" and "slave" and no money changes hands while Bill works for Bob for free in perpetua? Consenting adults, right?

[Blood of Tyrants]

When you go down the slippery slope of "assisted suicide", this is what you get.

[monday]

"So hey, consenting adults, who cares, right?"

Who said Brandes consented to be eaten? The cannibal?

Unless Armin has video tape showing Brandes stating his wish to be eaten and a couple of psychiatrists who had examined Brandes and found him to be of sound mind, what Armin says Brandes wanted shouldn't matter.

If he is believed, then every murderer could claim his victim wanted to be killed.

[wildbill]

This method sounds fictitious to me. If the guy was really into pain, wouldn't he have wanted to experience the ecstasy of at least watching a few choice morsels carved off and served with a properly decanted vintage red wine?

How do we know that wasn't the case--and that at some point he might have said, "Gott in himmel, I've made a mistake. No more for me, thanks."

We're supposed to rely on the cannibal's word?

I've never understood it before, but perhaps suicide does indicate extreme mental illness and that's what elevates the injury of oneself to a crime.

[Wicket]

From what I understand, there was video showing consent, showing the "willing victim" participating in the ceremonies, with details that are too gross to believe.

[DuncanWaring]

No more for me, thanks...

No more for me?

Or perhaps "No more of me." :-)

[Mr. Silverback]

When you go down the slippery slope of "assisted suicide", this is what you get

Roger that.

[Mr. Silverback]

If he is believed, then every murderer could claim his victim wanted to be killed.

Perhaps, but you miss the point, which is in this sentence from the article, stuff in brackets added by me: "By what standard can a modern secularist [or a society running on modern secularist principles] argue that Meiwes did anything wrong?"

The German court found (after viewing a tape of the killing and considering a doctor's testimony) that Meiwes did in fact get permission from his victim. So Colson's question still stands. Got an answer?

[Mr. Silverback]

This method sounds fictitious to me. If the guy was really into pain, wouldn't he have wanted to experience the ecstasy of at least watching a few choice morsels carved off and served with a properly decanted vintage red wine?

Says he was obsessed with pain, not into pain. there's a difference, especially when pain's involved.

How do we know that wasn't the case--and that at some point he might have said, "Gott in himmel, I've made a mistake. No more for me, thanks." We're supposed to rely on the cannibal's word?

The court found that his consent was real, and a videotape of the killing was part of the evidence.

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Ping + Where eliminating moral absolutes will take us.

(Actually it will take us evern further into the abyss.)

let me know if you want on/off this pinglist.

[He Rides A White Horse]

The idea today is that we’re autonomous—we’re free to do whatever we want, as long as we don’t hurt somebody else.

This concept is espoused by our libertarian friends; sooner or later, life offers up a situation that will put such a doctrine to the test.

[He Rides A White Horse]

There are no formulas that will enable us to abandon moral judgement in certain areas..........not everything can be boiled down to a legalistic idea.

[boris]

I'll have the Chili con Hombre and the Lady Fingers, please.

[monday]

"Got an answer?"

The answer is no sane person would agree to be killed unless their life was so miserable that it was not worth living. He must have been insane or worse.

[Mr. Silverback]

The answer is no sane person would agree to be killed unless their life was so miserable that it was not worth living. He must have been insane or worse.

Yes, but why was it wrong for the other guy to help him? Why is he headed to jail?

[Mr. Silverback]

A few years back, the Grudge Match website did a cookoff match between Hannibal Lechter and Jeffrey Dahmer. Almost every response included a reference to lady fingers...