I have not heard good arguments against suicide if the person is fully aware of his situation, as in Brandes’ case. Of course people’s major contention would be that one cannot, at all and ever commit suicide. However, if Brandes felt no pain, I am not sure this would have any relevance. Perhaps Meiwes did not want Brandes’ corpse contaminated with any more drugs (though Brandes had already taken sleeping pills, so this seems to nullify that argument). For the second, there are less-painful ways to end life. About the first, we can have concerns for Meiwes psychological well-being, which can be investigated but is, for present purposes, not my concern. The two troubling parts, aside from the posthumous cannibalism (which we’ll soon look at), appears to be (1) sharing the penis with Brandes and (2) the method of killing – Meiwes stabbed Brandes in the neck. He was not trying to cause suffering to innocent people, it seems. In fact, when other candidates discovered Meiwes’ real intensions – which he did make clear, though it is obviously so shocking people thought it a metaphor – he let them go. Before we come to cannibalism itself, let us briefly look at the situation so far.ĭid Meiwes act immorally? He (1) sought consent, (2) made his intensions clear, and (3) did not torture his “victim”. What seems to make this case controversial is the act of cannibalism following Brandes’ death. Brandes, according to our definition, was not murdered in fact, “assisted suicide” is a good definition of what occurred, since A.S., like euthanasia, is indeed the opposite of murder within our moral spectrum evaluating killing (since killing is itself a neutral term). Alan Hall reports on the day of Meiwes’ conviction that he “was jailed for eight-and-a-half years today after judges returned a surprise verdict of manslaughter instead of murder.”Īs we defined murder above, and as many law dictionaries define it, it is “the unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.” As usual in ethical concern, we must suspend what the law says in order to gain moral clarity. So they opted for a murder indictment.” Things changed, though, when the conviction came back. Initially “espite the fact that the victim willingly agreed to be killed, prosecutors said the case could not be considered ‘assisted suicide’. He was charged with “manslaughter”, which apparently surprised many people. Meiwes was discovered, since all his searching and advertisement occurred online, after police were tipped off. Eventually, Meiwes killed (not “murdered”) Brandes, chopped him into pieces, and ate him over several days. Meiwes cut off Brandes’ penis, cooked it, and ate it with Brandes (eventually it was given to the dog apparently because of a poor recipe choice). After all these final sentences of conscious human experience were given their appropriate full-stops and commas, Brandes ingested sleeping-tablets. Also, Meiwes video-taped both Brandes whilst alive and later, after his death. Brandes had drawn up a will and testament, where his money and estate would go to his live-in partner. Meiwes “let them” leave and was not impressed with another, who he found sexually unappealing.Īfter finally meeting Brandes, they started up the ritual that would lead to Brandes’ death and devouring. Four candidates travelled to Meiwes’ house, but eventually were told the seriousness of the description. The other potential candidates thought that “being gobbled up” was a metaphor concerning sexual-actions. Brandes was a year older than his killer, but this didn’t seem to faze Meiwes who held auditions for the position. Meiwes had advertised on online chat-rooms, without euphemism or innuendo, his seeking a “young well-built man, who wanted to be eaten”. In March 2001, Meiwes killed and ate a willing, consenting man, Bernd Brandes. I say this because I think we need clarity in the case of infamous German cannibal, Armin Meiwes. If she does not wish to die, but still has her life taken away – violently or not is beside the point – then she was murdered. How we assess this is also another matter, but for humans we can infer in most instances whether or not someone willingly wants to die. ‘Murder’ falls within the category of ‘killing’, in that the organism in question is killed but did not want to be killed. It is another matter whether it is all or certain forms of organic life we are concerned with. Surprising as it may seem, it is most helpful for discussions on killing if we recognise that the word itself is mostly and simply ‘the taking of organic life’. ‘Murder’ differs from ‘killing’ – and must differ for the words to have their moral impact – because killing is a neutral term.