In 2003, a German citizen, Armin Meiwes appeared in court for his crimes of murder and cannibalism. Although Mr. Meiwes confessed to these crimes, the case was not as straightforward as it sounds. The major twist to the story is that the victim in this instance, Bernd-Jurgen Brandes, willingly volunteered to take part in these gruesome acts. This case threw the German legal system for a loop. While the prosecution argued that since Mr. Meiwes killed a man and then proceeded to consume the victim over a period of time, he should be convicted of murder. However, the defense countered this argument by stressing that since the victim volunteered and was willingly to be killed, no murder took place. This then raised the question as to whether or
…show more content…
Put plainly, if an action (P) causes pain or death on another individual (Q) then the action is morally wrong and should not be done. In this case there is a very clear violation of this premise. Not only does the murderer cause physical pain to his victim by maiming him, he ended by killing his victim and then, to make things worse, consumed some of the victims flesh. So it is clear that since the actions of Mr. Meiwes (p) inflicted suffering and ultimately death on his victim, Mr. Brandes, the event was morally wrong and Mr. Meiwes could not have been acting in any morally acceptable way. This premise is true due to the fact that since no one would willingly bring any sort of suffering upon themselves, it is completely wrong to bring any suffering on another person. Moreover, I believe that there are things that are objectively right or wrong. One of those things that is always wrong and immoral is hurting people in any way. There is no scenario in which creating pain in another human is right. This is the case is this situation where Mr. Meiwes maims and kills his victim regardless of the victim’s supposed agreement to the …show more content…
This premise stems from the reasoning of a German philosopher, Emmanuel Kant. According to Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative, “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.” Kant is saying that when interacting with other people, one should not treat them as simply a way to get what he or she wants. Instead, he encourages everyone to treat everyone as if they are an end in themselves. He also continues of that interactions with certain individuals, such as a cashier at a store, technically do violate this formulation, but are permissible as they are voluntary and necessary. I agree with Kant based on the fact that every individual has a basic human dignity and should be treated as more than just a way to accomplish a goal. In this case, Mr. Meiwes did exactly what Kant did not want us to do. He used the victim as a means to achieve his sick ends. While some people may argue that Kant may allow this since it was voluntary, I have already established above that the voluntary aspect of the murder should be discounted. This proves that since he violated Kant’s second formulation, which is meant as a sort of guide for moral reasoning, his actions were morally unacceptable. So this premise can
Put plainly, if an action (P) causes pain or death on another individual (Q) then the action is morally wrong and should not be done. In this case there is a very clear violation of this premise. Not only does the murderer cause physical pain to his victim by maiming him, he ended by killing his victim and then, to make things worse, consumed some of the victims flesh. So it is clear that since the actions of Mr. Meiwes (p) inflicted suffering and ultimately death on his victim, Mr. Brandes, the event was morally wrong and Mr. Meiwes could not have been acting in any morally acceptable way. This premise is true due to the fact that since no one would willingly bring any sort of suffering upon themselves, it is completely wrong to bring any suffering on another person. Moreover, I believe that there are things that are objectively right or wrong. One of those things that is always wrong and immoral is hurting people in any way. There is no scenario in which creating pain in another human is right. This is the case is this situation where Mr. Meiwes maims and kills his victim regardless of the victim’s supposed agreement to the …show more content…
This premise stems from the reasoning of a German philosopher, Emmanuel Kant. According to Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative, “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.” Kant is saying that when interacting with other people, one should not treat them as simply a way to get what he or she wants. Instead, he encourages everyone to treat everyone as if they are an end in themselves. He also continues of that interactions with certain individuals, such as a cashier at a store, technically do violate this formulation, but are permissible as they are voluntary and necessary. I agree with Kant based on the fact that every individual has a basic human dignity and should be treated as more than just a way to accomplish a goal. In this case, Mr. Meiwes did exactly what Kant did not want us to do. He used the victim as a means to achieve his sick ends. While some people may argue that Kant may allow this since it was voluntary, I have already established above that the voluntary aspect of the murder should be discounted. This proves that since he violated Kant’s second formulation, which is meant as a sort of guide for moral reasoning, his actions were morally unacceptable. So this premise can