CANNIBALISM, VEGETARIANISM, AND NARCISSISM

William B. Irvine Wright State University

Richar-d Huber, Treasury of Fantastic and .t!..\::1.hQ­ TOs~cal Creatu1:"i!s. New York: Dover, 1981 n this paper I will focus on two questions that people in general, and philosophers in particular, generally refuse to take seriously: Why is it morally wrong to kill people for trivial reasons (e.g., to barbecue them), and why is it morally permissible to kill animals (Le., non­ human animals) for trivial reasons? I will not attempt to answer these questions; rather, my interest is in why it is that so many people refuse to take them seriously. I will argue that when it comes to developing an "ethics of eating," the stomach all too often triumphs over the mind.

PHILOSOPHY

Between the Species 11 Winter 1989 CannibaliSID~ Vegetarianism~ and Narcissism

1. Two Modest Proposals have insufficient protein in their diets. I suggest that we remedy this situation - and When I teach introductory ethics, I like to make a profit at the same time - by acquir­ befuddle my students by proposing a business ing the bodies of people who died natural venture. I tell them that I have learned of the deaths and selling the meat abroad. (We existence of the Millionaire Gourmets' Club, might gain a "property right" to someone's which is willing to spend vast sums of money body by paying him today for the use of his to obtain nice fat babies to roast. I suggest body when he dies.) I point out that it is that we try to profit from my discovery by shamefully wasteful to dispose of corpses the starting a baby-ranching business. What we way we now do - namely, by contaminating would do is find women who, for money, are them with embalming fluid and then burying willing to become impregnated by paid sperm them in the ground. donors. Both the women and the sperm My students, on hearing this proposal, some­ donors would be fully informed about our times object that the meat of a dead person plans. Any babies produced would be placed would be unsafe to eat, inasmuch as it might be on our baby ranch; there we would fatten contaminated with germs, the very germs that them, slaughter them ("slaughter" is such an killed the person in question. In reply to this ugly word; perhaps we should instead say that claim, I have three things to say. First, I point we would "harvest" them), and then sell the out that we could be selective about which carcasses (whoops, another ugly word) to the corpses we sold; we could, for example, special­ Millionaire Gourmets' Club. ize in the relatively germ-free bodies of people My students, needless to say, are shocked by who had died of heart attacks. Second, even if my proposal. They tell me that my baby­ a corpse had some germs, most of these would ranching venture would be nothing more be killed by cooking the corpse. Third, even if than an institutionalized form of murder. we sold corpses that could not be disinfected by They tell me that they would have no part in cooking, we still might be justified in selling such a venture - and they often add that the them: for the starving people in many parts of whole idea is, to use their terminology, "gross the world, tainted meat is better than no food and disgusting." at all. What my students are objecting to is the Another common objection against passive active cannibalism that my baby-ranching cannibalism is that practicing it will, in the plan would involve - active because the long run, tend to reduce our respect for our people eaten are killed so that they can be fellow humans and will thereby make it more eaten. As it so happens, my students are also likely that we will violate the rights of our opposed to passive cannibalism, which fellows.! In reply to this objection I point out involves, for example, eating people who that there are documented cases in which died natural deaths. people have practiced passive cannibalism for My students' aversion to passive cannibal­ generations and have nevertheless main­ ism becomes apparent when I propose a tained their respect for their fellow humans.2 second business venture to them. I point out And even if it were possible that the practice that in many countries people are starving to of passive cannibalism would lessen our death and that in even more countries people respect for our fellow, isn't this potential evil

Between the Species 12 Winter 1989 ~aDnlhallsm~ VegetarlaDls~ and Narcissism outweighed by the actual evil that results It is interesting to note, though, that even from our burying perfectly good meat and though the public in some sense forgives acts thereby condemning distant peoples to death of non-recreational passive cannibalism, it by starvation? simultaneously finds these acts horrible. So My students are not alone in their aversion strong is our aversion to cannibalism - even to cannibalism. In our culture people in to non-recreational passive cannibalism ­ general feel a strong enough aversion to have that there have been many people who have made cannibalism a serious crime. In Ohio chosen to die rather than eat human flesh, (where I now reside) the law does not mention and many of those who have avoided death by cannibalism as such. One can nevertheless resorting to passive cannibalism have typical­ draw the conclusion that active cannibalism is ly suffered greatly before doing so. They pre­ illegal inasmuch as it involves murder, and one ferred to eat a shoe - or at least try to ­ suspects that passive cannibalism is also illegal, than eat human flesh. inasmuch as it involves abuse of a corpse. Although people are generally opposed to According to Ohio law, it is a fourth-degree eating people, they rarely (in our culture, at felony to "treat a human corpse in a way that any rate) share the same qualms about eating would outrage reasonable community sensibili­ animals. To be sure, people have pronounced ties."3 Judging from my students' reaction, likes and dislikes concerning animal flesh. people in my community do not look fondly Although beef, pork, and chicken are popular on acts of passive cannibalism. with Americans, relatively few of them will When we tum our attention to other cul­ eat frogs, rabbits, dogs, cats, or horses. Never­ tures, even "primitive" ones, we find that theless, they tend not to make a moral issue they, too, are generally opposed to cannibal­ out of their dislikes. As far as I can tell, in ism in either of its forms. And even before the much of America you can eat anything you spread of Christianity the practice of canni­ want as long as it isn't a fellow human being. balism was rare.4As taboos go, the cannibal­ There are laws against cruelty to animals, but ism taboo would seem to put the incest taboo the law says surprisingly little about the uses to shame. to which dead animals can be put. To be sure, the law and people in general By way of illustration, in Ohio there are distinguish between what might be termed laws dealing with the consumption of "higher recreational and non-recreational cannibal­ animals" (e.g., dogs and horses) by people; ism. There is, many would claim, an impor­ these laws, however, are intended not so tant moral difference between eating a dead much to prevent these higher animals from person simply to have a novel culinary experi­ being consumed as to prevent people from ence and eating a dead person to avoid starva­ unwittingly being sold or served the flesh of a tion. Various members of the Donner party, higher animal when they think they are for example, resorted to non-recreational eating, say, beef. Thus, the state of Ohio passive cannibalism when confronted with requires any establishment serving horse meat starvation; they were subsequently forgiven­ to post in a conspicuous place a sign, "which at least in the eyes of the law. It was only shall be white and not less than twelve by when active cannibalism was suspected that eighteen inches in size, upon which shall be legal action was even threatened.5 printed in plain black Roman letters, ...

Winter 1989 13 Between the Species C:;annibaIiSID~ VegetarlanislD,. and NarclsslslD

'Horse Meat Served Here'" 6 In Ohio it isn't a explain (even to someone as apparently dense crime to sell horse meat or to eat it; the crime as their instructor) the difference between is in passing off horse meat as some other kind cows and people - Le., the difference that of animal flesh. allows us to say that cattle ranching is morally permissible but that baby ranching is not. 2. Cows and People Here are some of the explanations they typi­ cally offer, together with the reason why these It is fairly clear, then, that in America and explanations are unacceptable. . in much of the world a human corpse is more (1) Caws don't mind being killed - or at any of a sacred thing than is a living cow: to rate, they don't protest when we kill them. This defile a corpse - which of course is inca­ answer won't do, though, since the babies pable of suffering - is a far greater crime involved in my baby-ranching scheme are than is causing a cow significant discomfort unlikely to protest when we kill them. Con­ and suffering simply so that one can enjoy a sequently, this "difference" isn't a difference Big Mac.7 at all. This raises an important question: is there (2) We kill cows in a painless way. One really that much difference between people wonders whether this is true, but even it if and cows that you can kill and eat cows and were, it won't do as an answer. Notice after (most Americans would claim) raise no all, that the babies in my baby-ranching important moral issues, but that you can't eat scheme will be killed in a painless way. So people (even ones who have died natural again, the alleged difference is not really a deaths) without committing acts of moral difference. depravity? We have now reached the heart of the issue: are there important (Le., morally sig­ t is fairly clear, then, that nificant) differences between cows and I in America and in much of people? And if so, what are they? Unless we the world a human corpse is are able to point out·such differences, then it would seem that we are inconsistent when more of a sacred thing than is a we hold - as people typically do - that it is living cow: to defile a corpse is morally permissible to eat cows but not people. Ifwe wish to be consistent, we would a far greater crime than is have to hold either (i) that both eating cows causing a cow significant dis.. and eating people are morally permissible or comfort and suffering simply so (ii) that neither eating cows nor eating people is morally permissible. If we choose the that one can enjoy a Big Mac. second alternative, we end up - if we are moral people, at any rate - as vegetarians, and if we choose the first alternative, we (3) We raise the cows just so we can eat them, must drop our objections to cannibalism, and since we bring the cows inw existence, we passive or otherwise. have the right w end their lives as we see fit. My students feel confident that they can Again, this answer won't do sirwe in my baby­

Between the Species 14 Winter 1989 Cannibalism, Vegetarianism, and Narcissism ranching scheme we are bringing the babies biles, build bridges, paint pictures, program into existence that we eventually "harvest." computers, and write philosophy papers. We "made" these babies; few would go on to The problem with this line of response is infer, however, that this gives us the right to that it just pushes our inquiry back one step. kill and eat them. Now we must ask why the abilities just (4) People have souls; cows don't. The basic described are so important - and in what problem with this response is that souls are sense they are important. not observable, so the claim made does not If it be answered, as it often will, that appear to be one that we can test empirically. these abilities are important because they And although one can accept the above enable us to advance our interests (life is claim as a "leap of faith," it is a leap that easier if you can drive across a bridge instead many people are unwilling to take. of having to swim across a river), the narcis­ (5) People have a right to life; cows don't. sism of our value system becomes apparent: This is a terrific response but for one thing: to sayan action is good is to say it is good for it begs the question. What I am asking, after people.s It also becomes apparent how con­ all, is this: what difference is there between venient this line of response is for us as a people and cows that gives people but not species. cows a right to life? The answer to my ques­ A cynic might, at this point, suggest that tions cannot be that people have a right to what we have done in selecting the capacity life but cows don't. for rational thought as the thing that distin­ (6) People are capable of rational thought; guishes us from the other animals is to cows are not. This answer, by the way, is the demonstrate our superiority over the other one that many philosophers (including, I animals by choosing an ability that we have think, Kant) will give. and they lack and by saying that this ability is I agree that people do have a greater the one that matters. Why are we so great? capacity for rational thought than cows. Because we are like we are. Why are the (What I mean to say, of course, is that most other animals morally insignificant? Because people have a greater capacity for rational they are unlike us. thought than most cows.) The problem is There are, to be sure, other ways to answer that I don't agree that this difference is an the questions, "Why is rational thought so impcrrtant difference - or at least not one important?" I will not take time to describe important enough to account for the dispari­ these answers; I will, however, point out that ty between our views on the moral accept­ any such answer must not only presuppose a ability of eating people and our views on the value system but presumably a value system moral acceptability of eating cows. that is "biased" in favor of the interests of Why is capacity for rational thought such human beings. Before one can point to a dif­ an important thing? One answer that is com­ ference between cows and people as being monly given to this question is that capacity ethically significant, one must already have for rational thought is valuable and impor­ ethical values. For this reason, our attempt tant because it lets us do valuable and impor­ to point out the ethically significant differ­ tant things. What things? Well, things ence between people and cows raises more animals can't do, like manufacture automo- questions than it answers.

Winter 1989 15 Between the Species (;annibalisDl~ VegetarianisDl~ and NarcissisDl

I, for one, suspect that the differences burying it. If we value the lives of people and between people and cows are not that great animals, shouldn't we in these cases advocate - and certainly not great enough to justify the consumption of animal flesh? the disparity between our moral views con­ Indeed, I know of one author who argues cerning people and our moral views concern­ that we are guilty of waste when we bury the ing cows. Unless we assume that people are millions of dogs and cats we annually destroy.9 terrific and cows aren't, I doubt that we will This author would, of course, prefer that we ever be able to prove as much. not destroy these animals, but once we have destroyed them, does it make sense to dispose 3. Concluding Remarks of their meat as if it were so much garbage? In short, the hard-core vegetarian who Some might, at this point, wonder whether declares that it is never morally permissible to the above remarks constitute an ethical argu­ consume animal flesh might be guilty of ment for vegetarianism - or at least show inconsistency. Of course, few vegetarians are that the ethical beliefs of the vegetarian are "hard core" in the sense intended. more consistent than those of the non-vege­ If what I have said in this paper is correct, tarian. I wish they did, but I fear they do not. many people have an inconsistent "ethics of Notice, once again, that from the view that eating." Why the inconsistency? Because, I there are no important differences between think, they have allowed their stomachs to people and cows, it does not follow that vege­ triumph over their minds. Our food preju­ tarianism is morally obligatory. What does dices are so strong that we will typically follow, as was mentioned above, is one of two reject any ethical system that disagrees with things: either vegetarianism is morally obliga­ them - even though doing so means falling tory, ar cannibalism is morally permissible. It into inconsistency. will take funher argument to establish one of Although they would typically be reluc­ these disjuncts as the correct view. tant to admit it, many grown-up philoso­ Another thing to realize is that in the phers have a hard time reasoning their way same way as a non-vegetarian might be guilty around their upbringing. Someone raised on of inconsistency when she refuses to engage Big Macs might, on obtaining his philosophy in cannibalism (passive or otherwise), a veg­ Ph.D., find it easy to prove that cows lack a etarian might also be guilty of inconsistency right to life. At the same time, though, one when she refuses to eat the meat of an can imagine that if his culture had been dif­ animal who lived a "natural life" and died a ferent - if, for example, this philosopher "natural death." had been raised to think of cows as sacred ­ Suppose, then, that some animal has lived a he would, as an adult, be able to invent any natural life and died a natural death. As a number of arguments to show that both cows result we find ourselves with a body to dispose and people have rights. Similarly, if human of. We can eat it, or we can feed it to carnivo­ physiology required us to engage periodically rous animals, or we can bury it. What I want in cannibalistic acts to remain healthy, our to suggest is that in a world with starving ethicists would probably come up with per­ people - and starving animals, for that matter suasive arguments in favor of cannibalism. - it makes little sense to waste this food by Am I suggesting, then, that much of moral

Between the Species 16 Winter 1989 CannihaiisID9 VegetarianisID9 and NarcissislD

philosophy is little more than an attempt to "rationalize" our moral intuitions? Indeed I am. I strongly suspect that our ethical "gut 1 Kant and Aquinas, for example, take this line. feelings" - about murder, about cannibalism, For more on this point see Tom Regan's "Ethical about the value of human life in general­ Vegetarianism and Commercial Animal Farming," are the "data" against which we test ethical Today's Moral Problems, 3rd ed., Richard A. theories. When an ethical theory doesn't Wasserstrom, ed., (New York: Macmillan Publish­ properly "account for" our favored set of ing Company, 1985), pp. 461-2. ethical data (Le., our ethical "gut feelings"), 2 See, for example, Peggy Reeves Sanday's we reject the theory. It can also happen that accounts of the passive cannibalism in Divine we discard ethical data in light of an ethical Hunger: Cannibalism as a Cultural System (Cam­ bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986). Of par­ theory, but this is much less common. ticular interest is her account of the passive I suspect that some of my readers have cannibalism of the Gimi women of New Guinea. found this a disgusting paper, a paper not to 3 Ohio Revised Code, sec. 2927.01. It is, by the read before mealtime. I apologize for this, but way, interesting to note how the use of a "commu­ at the same time I urge my readers to examine nity standards" yardstick in this law parallels that their feelings of disgust and to ask whether in obscenity laws. these feelings have had any significant'influ­ 4 Indeed, one anthropologist has gone so far as ence on their ethical views. And to those of to claim that cannibalism has never existed. See you who have been led to vegetarianism by Sanday's discussion of this issue on pp. 8-10 of ethical arguments, let me offer a piece of Divine Hunger. advice: your real job is not so much to per­ 5 See George R. Steward's Ordeal by Hunger: suade the minds of carnivores as to persuade The Story of the Donner Party, new ed., rev. and their stomachs. Where their stomachs go, enl., (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1960),. their minds will surely follow. pp.287-93. 6 Ohio Revised Code, sec. 919.07. 7 A related claim can be made about medical experi­ mentation. Recently there was a public rutery concern­ ing medical experimentation on brain-dead human beings. (See, for example, Richard Kcenig's "futors U~ Brain-Dead Patient to Test Centocor Inc.'s New Anti­ dotting Drug," WallStreet]ourrol, 17 October 1988, p. m.) Many cithere who would complain aboot this sort ciexperimentation would have few qualms aboot similar experimentation on living animals. This is further evi­ dence that much d the world cares more aboot dead humans than aboot living animals. 8 This feature of our value system has also been referred to as speciesism and anthropocentrism; I prefer "narcissism." 9 Calvin W. Schwabe, Unmentionable Cuisine Carol Belanger Grafton, (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, Old-Fashioned Animal Cuts. 1979), p. 167. New York: Dover, 1987

Winter 1989 17 Between the Species