M
MindOverMatter
Guest
If you were trapped on a desert island, and there was no food around, and you friend had just died, would it be morally acceptable to eat your friends body, assuming that you had your friends consent?
- Status
L
LilyM
Guest
As long as you didn’t kill them to obtain their meat, yes.
This issue was raised after the plane crash in the Andes that forms the basis of the movie Alive. Many of the crash survivors were staunch Catholics. Some opted not to eat the bodies of the deceased crash victims and, if memory serves, died because of it. The others did eat and survived.
After their rescue (again, if memory serves) the church came out and made a statement that those who ate committed no sin in so doing.
This issue was raised after the plane crash in the Andes that forms the basis of the movie Alive. Many of the crash survivors were staunch Catholics. Some opted not to eat the bodies of the deceased crash victims and, if memory serves, died because of it. The others did eat and survived.
After their rescue (again, if memory serves) the church came out and made a statement that those who ate committed no sin in so doing.
X
xHanahx
Guest
I agree with Lily. I guess it would be okay as long as you didn’t kill them.
B
bbentrup
Guest
I think it might be sinful if you didn’t expect reasonable chances of survival anyways. That is, if you’re just going to run out of food again some days later to starve to death again, what’s the point? However, if it’s simply a matter of timing before a likely rescue, then it does seem permissable to eat your friend’s corpse (as a last resort), and possibly somewhat sinful not to, since we have a certain moral obligation to take care of ourselves.
This is an interesting case where the noble thing to do (from a first glance, anyways) may not be the moral thing to do.
L
LordMaddie
Guest
X
xHanahx
Guest
Unless Bakura is a cow, I don’t think this counts as cannibalism.
L
LordMaddie
Guest
I was merley using that pic to demonstrate the fact that would indeed eat my friend’s body.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
X
xHanahx
Guest
I see…
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
Wow. I was not expecting this answer!
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
I agree. At first glance it does seem immoral, but in a sense, human meat is no different to the meat of other animals; plus the friend is not needing his body anymore, and so…i guess i will start cooking. I wish i had brought some herbs with me; they say it tastes like chicken!!!
R
Rolltide
Guest
This, in a bizarre way, probably falls under the same rules as organ donation. As long as the donor is already dead, how is it different than harvesting a kidney to save your life? It’s a donation of human tissue to keep another person alive.
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
Good analogy. I think you are right.
L
Luke_K
Guest
Exactly, and another analogy is blood transfusion. How is donating blood through the arm to someone all that different from consuming blood through the mouth? It’s okay as long as the other person is not harmed in the process.
L
LilyM
Guest
It might not help you survive until you’re rescued, but it might possibly help you survive until you can find some other food source or something. In these situations you just can’t predict outcomes accurately enough to say that a few days won’t make a difference.
Besides which, saying ‘I’m going to die anyway, it doesn’t matter whether it’s today or in a few days time’ kinda makes euthanasia seem fine. After all, when someone is at a stage where they’re ‘going to die in a few days anyway’ then wny waste any good food feeding them?
B
bbentrup
Guest
According to the OP, there was no other food around, not “as far as I can tell, there is no other food around”. I agree that could make a difference, but he is the omnipotent power behind his hypothetical so I have to take his case as he presents it.
In case anyone thinks I’m condoning euthanasia, according to Lily’s take, please forget it - euthanasia is an intrinsically moral evil. By not eating your friend’s corpse (which ordinarily is a good thing), but expecting to die a few days later due to starvation, you can still be operating under the hope that food will come - like a bird falls from the sky with an “Eat me” sign attached to it. This is very different from even passive euthanasia. Hopefully, the deserted island has a priest you could visit to consult with on this difficult moral issue.
M
Matrix_Refugee
Guest
Mm, it might be a kind of indirect suicide to not eat the flesh of the corpse, just as excessive smoking, taking illegal drugs, and/or reckless driving can also be forms of indirect suicide.According to the OP, there was no other food around, not “as far as I can tell, there is no other food around”. I agree that could make a difference, but he is the omnipotent power behind his hypothetical so I have to take his case as he presents it.
B
bbentrup
Guest
I specifically addressed passive euthanasia, and no, this is not it, since you would gladly eat food readily offered from other sources, and in this case would eat the corpse as an alternative if there were reasonable expectations of a useful prolongation of survival.
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
I recall a case some years ago of a plane crash in the Andes. The survivors ate the corpses of those killed to survive until rescue came. I don’t recall any criticism or condemnation of their action.
S
survive
Guest
I hear it tastes like pork, but anyhow spices are out – no other food around, remember?
If it’s OK just so long as it’s necessary and you didn’t kill them to get the meat, then what about if you have looked for other food sources, you are faint and weak and unsure whether you could gather other foods even if you found them (say there are ants at the bottom of a ravine but you don’t have the strength to climb it and you don’t know whether you ever will), and rescue could be minutes away or not coming at all – you have no clue.
I would find it hard, I think. I’d try to climb to the ants first.
If it’s OK just so long as it’s necessary and you didn’t kill them to get the meat, then what about if you have looked for other food sources, you are faint and weak and unsure whether you could gather other foods even if you found them (say there are ants at the bottom of a ravine but you don’t have the strength to climb it and you don’t know whether you ever will), and rescue could be minutes away or not coming at all – you have no clue.
I would find it hard, I think. I’d try to climb to the ants first.
K
Katholish
Guest
I am actually inclined to disagree with the majority here, though I do so with reservation not entirely be sure of my position at this point.
According to the Principle of Double Effect, which would most certainly have to be operative were a case like this to be considered moral, the good result of the action (preserving your life) cannot be produced directly from an evil result or action. An evil consequence may be permitted however, provided the good is of sufficient gravity, etc.
In this case, it appears the good result does indeed come directly from the evil result or action–that of desecration of the human body.
One of the earlier posters made the claim that human flesh isn’t all that different from animal flesh. I must strongly disagree insofar as the body is an integral part of a human being, and even though the soul is seperated from it for a time, the Church has always been most vigorous in asserting that the body is due a high degree of respect in recognition of the Resurrection, which is way the Church has insisted on burial and outlawed cremation for so many years.
Lest you be tempted to think that since the Church allows cremation in cases of necessity, and this could be considered a case of necessity and allowed as well, the Church is very clear that burning the body is not objectively inconsistent with its dignity (whereas ingestion most certainly is).
I do not have access at the moment to my moral theology manuals and will do some research, either to support my inclination or to step away from it.
According to the Principle of Double Effect, which would most certainly have to be operative were a case like this to be considered moral, the good result of the action (preserving your life) cannot be produced directly from an evil result or action. An evil consequence may be permitted however, provided the good is of sufficient gravity, etc.
In this case, it appears the good result does indeed come directly from the evil result or action–that of desecration of the human body.
One of the earlier posters made the claim that human flesh isn’t all that different from animal flesh. I must strongly disagree insofar as the body is an integral part of a human being, and even though the soul is seperated from it for a time, the Church has always been most vigorous in asserting that the body is due a high degree of respect in recognition of the Resurrection, which is way the Church has insisted on burial and outlawed cremation for so many years.
Lest you be tempted to think that since the Church allows cremation in cases of necessity, and this could be considered a case of necessity and allowed as well, the Church is very clear that burning the body is not objectively inconsistent with its dignity (whereas ingestion most certainly is).
I do not have access at the moment to my moral theology manuals and will do some research, either to support my inclination or to step away from it.
- Status