Because we do not eat bodies of dead people - we ought not to eat them.

VIII. Arguments from Religious Ethics

The major monotheistic religions are curiously mute when it comes to cannibalism. Human sacrifice is denounced numerous times in Old Testament - but man-eating goes virtually unmentioned. The Eucharist in Christianity - when believers consume actual body and blood of Jesus - is an act of undisguised cannibalism:

"That consequence of Transubstantiation, as a conversion of total substance, is transition of entire substance of bread and wine into Body and Blood of Christ, is express doctrine of Church ...."

(Catholic Encyclopedia)

"CANON lI.-If any one saith, that, in sacred and holy sacrament of Eucharist, substance of bread and wine remains conjointly with body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of whole substance of bread into Body, and of whole substance of wine into Blood-the species Only of bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

CANON VIII.-lf any one saith, that Christ, given in Eucharist, is eaten spiritually only, and not also sacramentally and really; let him be anathema."

(The Council of Trent, The Thirteenth Session - The canons and decrees of sacred and oecumenical Council of Trent, Ed. and trans. J. Waterworth (London: Dolman, 1848), 75-91.)

Still, most systems of morality and ethics impute to Man a privileged position in scheme of things (having been created in "image of God"). Men and women are supposed to transcend their animal roots and inhibit their baser instincts (an idea incorporated into Freud's tripartite model of human psyche). The anthropocentric chauvinistic view is that it is permissible to kill all other animals in order to consume their flesh. Man, in this respect, is sui generis.

Yet, it is impossible to rigorously derive a prohibition to eat human flesh from any known moral system. As Richard Routley-Silvan observes in his essay "In Defence of Cannibalism", that something is innately repugnant does not make it morally prohibited. Moreover, that we find cannibalism nauseating is probably outcome of upbringing and conditioning rather than anything innate.

According to Greek mythology, Man was created from ashes of Titans, children of Uranus and Gaea, whom Zeus struck with thunderbolts for murdering his son, Zagreus, and then devouring his body. Mankind, therefore, is directly descendant from Titans, who may well have been first cannibals.

The Aztecs willingly volunteered to serve as human sacrifices (and to be tucked into afterwards). They firmly believed that they were offerings, chosen by gods themselves, thus being rendered immortal.

Dutiful sons and daughters in China made their amputated organs and sliced tissues (mainly liver) available to their sick parents (practices known as Ko Ku and Ko Kan). Such donation were considered remedial. Princess Miao Chuang who surrendered her severed hands to her ailing father was henceforth deified.

Non-consensual cannibalism is murder, pure and simple. The attendant act of cannibalism, though aesthetically and ethically reprehensible, cannot aggravate this supreme assault on all that we hold sacred.

But consensual cannibalism is a lot trickier. Modern medicine, for instance, has blurred already thin line between right and wrong.

What is ethical difference between consensual, post-mortem, organ harvesting and consensual, post-mortem cannibalism?

Why is stem cell harvesting (from aborted fetuses) morally superior to consensual post-mortem cannibalism?

When members of a plane-wrecked rugby team, stranded on an inaccessible, snow-piled, mountain range resort to eating each other in order to survive, we turn a blind eye to their repeated acts of cannibalism - but we condemn very same deed in harshest terms if it takes place between two consenting, and even eager adults in Germany. Surely, we don't treat murder, pedophilia, and incest same way!

As Auxiliary Bishop of Montevideo said after crash:

"... Eating someone who has died in order to survive is incorporating their substance, and it is quite possible to compare this with a graft. Flesh survives when assimilated by someone in extreme need, just as it does when an eye or heart of a dead man is grafted onto a living man..."

(Read, P.P. 1974. Alive. Avon, New York)

Complex ethical issues are involved in apparently straightforward practice of consensual cannibalism.

Consensual, in vivo, cannibalism (a-la Messrs. Meiwes and Brandes) resembles suicide. The cannibal is merely instrument of voluntary self-destruction. Why would we treat it different to way we treat any other form of suicide pact?

Consensual cannibalism is not equivalent of drug abuse because it has no social costs. Unlike junkies, cannibal and his meal are unlikely to harm others. What gives society right to intervene, therefore?

If we own our bodies and, thus, have right to smoke, drink, have an abortion, commit suicide, and will our organs to science after we die - why don't we possess inalienable right to will our delectable tissues to a discerning cannibal post-mortem (or to victims of famine in Africa)?

When does our right to dispose of our organs in any way we see fit crystallize? Is it when we die? Or after we are dead? If so, what is meaning and legal validity of a living will? And why can't we make a living will and bequeath our cadaverous selves to nearest cannibal?

Do dead people have rights and can they claim and invoke them while they are still alive? Is live person same as his dead body, does he "own" it, does state have any rights in it? Does corpse still retain its previous occupant's "personhood"? Are cadavers still human, in any sense of word?

We find all three culinary variants abhorrent. Yet, this instinctive repulsion is a curious matter. The onerous demands of survival should have encouraged cannibalism rather than make it a taboo. Human flesh is protein-rich. Most societies, past and present (with exception of industrialized West), need to make efficient use of rare protein-intensive resources.

If cannibalism enhances chances of survival - why is it universally prohibited? For many a reason.

I. The Sanctity of Life

Historically, cannibalism preceded, followed, or precipitated an act of murder or extreme deprivation (such as torture). It habitually clashed with principle of sanctity of life. Once allowed, even under strictest guidelines, cannibalism tended to debase and devalue human life and foster homicide, propelling its practitioners down a slippery ethical slope towards bloodlust and orgiastic massacres.

II. The Afterlife

Moreover, in life, human body and form are considered by most religions (and philosophers) to be abode of soul, divine spark that animates us all. The post-mortem integrity of this shrine is widely thought to guarantee a faster, unhindered access to afterlife, to immortality, and eventual reincarnation (or karmic cycle in eastern religions).

For this reason, to this very day, orthodox Jews refuse to subject their relatives to a post-mortem autopsy and organ harvesting. Fijians and Cook Islanders used to consume their enemies' carcasses in order to prevent their souls from joining hostile ancestors in heaven.

(continued)