I don’t question who killed whom. There isn’t much room for speculation there. The question I have surrounds the circumstances. If I have decided to end my life, I can’t see how the manner in which I do so changes whether or not it was suicide.
Why is it irrelevant? Surely killing someone who wants to die isn’t as serious a crime as killing someone who wants to live? Grotesque as this crime is, I don’t believe its as bad as the average murder, where the victim is just that.
I certainly wouldn’t agree with anyone who says that a serious crime hasn’t been commited though. Assisted killing of suicidal people is a complex issue. You may be able to justify it if they have a terminal illness, but I don’t see how you can justify helping someone with mental problems kill themselves.
Why is it irrelevant? Surely killing someone who wants to die isn’t as serious a crime as killing someone who wants to live? Grotesque as this crime is, I don’t believe its as bad as the average murder, where the victim is just that.
I certainly wouldn’t agree with anyone who says that a serious crime hasn’t been commited though. Assisted killing of suicidal people is a complex issue. You may be able to justify it if they have a terminal illness, but I don’t see how you can justify helping someone with mental problems kill themselves.
I’d agree with this with the small reservation that we don’t take “a person wants to kill themselves in the first place” as evidence of mental illness.
You may be right but that does not change the fact that a murder was committed and that Meiwes should have been punished as such.
Loopydude of course they were nuttier than fruitcakes. I was just focusing on the “A lesser charge because it was consensual argument”
My point exactly!!! Assisting the suicide of the terminal ill is a totally different animal.
Why not? Obviously such a person needs help.
The above assumes the person does not have extreme pain or a terminal illness
It is not “obvious” to me that every person must necessarily want to live, and that a lack of such desire is sufficient evidence of a disorder. Life requires a conceptually infinite number of choices every day which require or assume healthy consent, yet no one asks whether a person could simply not consent to live? Well, if that satisfies you, I really won’t try to argue the point. But for me, a person consents to live as much as they consent to do anything, and there are situations where I feel that consent may be withdrawn.
You earlier admitted that you intend to apply the same “base ethos” to all individuals and everyone sane MUST WANT to live if they’re in perfect health. I assume that means physical health. You don’t make the same exceptions for mental health (not that that’s necessarily an issue here).
Tn this case, our worldviews are different enough that there’s no point arguing further.
This is what for me makes it seem that Meiwes however abhorrent his actions were was not a murderer. If he was I would see no reason for him releasing those earlier people who changed their mind. It seems clear from this that Meiwes would only kill someone at their own request. This seems to me something that is not murder, whether it is manslaughter, assisted suicide, or some yet to be defined crime with yet to be defined consequences is the issue for me.
It seem to me that the act of abbeting Brandes delusion should be criminal, perhapse the act of taking advantage of Brandes’ mental delluision should also be illegal, not following the correct procedures for assisted suicide should have been illegal, missuse of the corpse should have been illegal. My beleif is Meiwes should have been charge with all those, and if found sane and guilty the combined sentance should have been at least 8years, followed by enforced psychological treatment for his dissorders. But I don’t see this as fitting my deffinition of Murder (unless of course Brandes concent was shown to have been forced or non existant.).
Sorry, I wasn’t trying to imply this - I used the term “mental problems”. What I meant to say was “mental health problems”. Happy, rational people don’t volunteer to be killed and eaten. This isn’t the same as mental illness (insanity) - although we can only speculate what Brandes’ problem was.
Depression and phobias are examples of mental health problems, but that certainly doesn’t make the sufferer insane.
Just aiming for clarity on my part, not necessarily confrontation, Uncivil. 
Just clarifying myself. 
I hearby nominate Uncivil for the “NoClueBoy not acting according to their username award”
A belief dressed up as an objective observation. Happiness and rationality aren’t related. And people who aren’t possessing both don’t necessarily suffer from a mental health problem.
Never said they were related, and I never said that lack of either or both constitutes a mental health problem.
A belief and not an objective observation? Thats a very weak argument, you could say that about anything posted on the internet ever.
Happy people don’t usually contemplate suicide. And how could volunteering to be eaten ever be considered rational?
Implication: People who aren’t happy and rational have mental health problems. Although, your actual intent seems to be to highlight rational and happy people as an example of people with no mental health problems. But that’s not how your post comes off.
True. You could say that about almost anything said ever, on any medium. I was just pointing out that your assertion is your premise and not an axiom.
But it’s possible?
If your ethos doesn’t place much value in life and the life experience, and doesn’t assign much weight to events and their perception after one’s perception and pain apparatus has ceased. After all, if a rational person can decide to die, how does it matter what’s the physical ritual after he’s killed? The “grossness” of this act is only gross to the living, who perceive. Unless you believe in an universal morality, decency and the afterlife. In which case, I can’t argue with you further.
You can imply all sorts of thing if you read things too literally. Its impossible to hold a decent conversation with someone without making some generalisations. We require a common frame of reference to communicate. Arguing minute points really gets us nowhere. If you are determined to mis-interpret what I’m saying, can’t stop you.
People who debate “Great debates” at opposing ends, often don’t share a mutual frame of reference. The initiator of the conversation must delineate that frame of reference. Or the follow-ups must clarify it. Else, the “debate” will veer into arguing about misguidedly (or conveniently) constructed straw-man arguments. Which is what happens a lot of the time, even here.
I disagree about the “minute” points part. Depending on the debate, minute differences can emerge to form larger (and crucial) disconnects later on. At which point, the reasons and the dissonance of the disconnect get clouded in complexity.
The only reason I picked on your post(s) was because you framed your arguments with premises as axioms and derived conclusions that aren’t necessarily valid when treating your assertions as premises.
While I won’t contest the first point at all (which is not to say I unreservedly agree with it), the second is a bit more touchy to me. I don’t see what rationality has to do with your own dead body. That’s like asking me if I consent to cremation after I’m dead: what am I going to do, file a lawsuit? No, I think in this case the question is, “Can he do with his life as he pleases, including ending it, without straining rationality?” If so, what he then permits be done with his corpse seems a matter of little consequence. (Of course, to the cannibal it is a matter of great consequence, but I don’t propose to argue whether cannibalism is “ok” in a general sense so forget that line of thought.) He may authorize what is done to his body as he pleases.
So, supposing it is already rational to authorize one’s own death, and supposing that “to put something to use is better than to leave that something to waste,” then permitting one’s corpse to be eaten seems to follow rationally, or at least be permitted without straining logic or presenting a contradiction.
To me, the question is whether it can ever be rational to choose to end one’s life, and what sufficient conditions are, and whether they apply in this case. MHO. Probably another thread, but it does depend on whether or not we believe the cannibal committed murder.