An interesting case study we looked at in my human rights course was that of link, a German cannibal whose link
According to the UNDHR (link), human rights are inalienable and a person cannot even voluntarily give them up. This is a major point of controversy, and understandably so. We don't have the right... to give up our rights?
It was this main clause in the UNDHR that prompted German judges to convict Meiwes of torture and murder.
But it still begs the question... Should we have the right to voluntarily give up our human rights? If Meiwes victim truly wanted to be eaten , who are we to say he cannot do that? If Brandes (Miewes' victim) was in his right mind (and given, we can never truly be sure if he was یا not as he was never psychologically evaluated), and responded to Miewes' advertisement, then... is it really a crime?
Miewes گیا کیا پوسٹ an ad stating that he was "looking for a well-built 18 to 30-year-old to be slaughtered and then consumed," to which Brandes responded. Brandes was known for an interest in mutilation and for his activity in homosexual prostitution. A video tape detailing Brandes murder shows that the victim was, indeed, consensual and that Miewes gave him large amounts of pain killers and alcohol (see link for مزید details).
This particular case study was discussed at length in my class and was سے طرف کی the end of the گھنٹہ and a half session still unsettled. The class was divided into three parts, and almost equally. A third of the class believed that if Brandes truly was consensual, and if friends, family, یا doctors could vouch for his psychological health, than he should have the right to give up his own life (and body) to another. Another third of the class believed it was impossible to know, even from statements from people who knew him, if Brandes was in his right mind یا not, and were convinced that he was clearly insane, in which case he did not have the right to give up his life at all. They also believed that even if he was sane, he still shouldn't have the right to allow someone else to eat him and then kill him (Yes, Miewes did begin the meal before his victim died, and even shared bits of the meat with Brandes himself). Still the last third of the class, (the category into which I fell) believed that Brandes should-- but according to international law, does not-- have the right to allow himself to be eaten, however Miewes did inevitably commit a crime and therefor should be prosecuted for it.
I'm posing this to آپ guys. What do آپ think?
According to the UNDHR (link), human rights are inalienable and a person cannot even voluntarily give them up. This is a major point of controversy, and understandably so. We don't have the right... to give up our rights?
It was this main clause in the UNDHR that prompted German judges to convict Meiwes of torture and murder.
But it still begs the question... Should we have the right to voluntarily give up our human rights? If Meiwes victim truly wanted to be eaten , who are we to say he cannot do that? If Brandes (Miewes' victim) was in his right mind (and given, we can never truly be sure if he was یا not as he was never psychologically evaluated), and responded to Miewes' advertisement, then... is it really a crime?
Miewes گیا کیا پوسٹ an ad stating that he was "looking for a well-built 18 to 30-year-old to be slaughtered and then consumed," to which Brandes responded. Brandes was known for an interest in mutilation and for his activity in homosexual prostitution. A video tape detailing Brandes murder shows that the victim was, indeed, consensual and that Miewes gave him large amounts of pain killers and alcohol (see link for مزید details).
This particular case study was discussed at length in my class and was سے طرف کی the end of the گھنٹہ and a half session still unsettled. The class was divided into three parts, and almost equally. A third of the class believed that if Brandes truly was consensual, and if friends, family, یا doctors could vouch for his psychological health, than he should have the right to give up his own life (and body) to another. Another third of the class believed it was impossible to know, even from statements from people who knew him, if Brandes was in his right mind یا not, and were convinced that he was clearly insane, in which case he did not have the right to give up his life at all. They also believed that even if he was sane, he still shouldn't have the right to allow someone else to eat him and then kill him (Yes, Miewes did begin the meal before his victim died, and even shared bits of the meat with Brandes himself). Still the last third of the class, (the category into which I fell) believed that Brandes should-- but according to international law, does not-- have the right to allow himself to be eaten, however Miewes did inevitably commit a crime and therefor should be prosecuted for it.
I'm posing this to آپ guys. What do آپ think?