Sure.

You don't recognize that these mental diseases could inhibit ones ability to enter into a contract with even a moderate understanding of the consequences?

Of course mental diseases could make it impossible to recognize the consequences of a contract. But how is the cannibal supposed to know that this is such a case? And unless there is proof that the cannibal entered into the contract in bad faith (and the fact that he let others go after they decided against going through with it, not to mention the video, suggested that he was acting in good faith), it's hard to see how he was guilty of murder.

partial transcription of one of their online chats. full article requires subscription to harpers.

http://harpers.org/archive/2008/01/0081861

/agree

So you're saying some contracts can never be in someone's best interest, and committing to such a contract is sufficient evidence of a person's insanity? Feel free to substitute "set of preferences" in place of contracts.

Related issue: Is allowing a suicide a crime? (Not just assisted suicide, like with Kevorkian) Does it, and should it, rival the punishment for murder?

Oh wow, I bet no one's ever thought of it like that before.

All men seek happiness, This is without exception. Whatever different means they employ, they all tend to this end. The cause of some going to war, and of others avoiding it, is the same desire in both, attended with different views. The will never takes the least step but to this object. This is the motive of every action of every man, even of those who hang themselves.

I was actually stepping into the broader arena of insanity, not just limited to this case. You're probably right in this one, though.

But this led me to believe that whether someone was mentally sane or not was irrelevant to you.

I just wanted to clarify that the acceptance of the contract was the sole evidence of the insanity, and not further psychiatric evaluations/statements made.

The right to kill yourself when/where/if you choose is one of the most fundamental rights there is IMHO. I would guess that the gory details here played into the prosecution in a way that say, putting a pillow over grandma's head if she asked you to, wouldn't.

In this case, it's not actually important if the victim is mentally ill or not. The important question is if the cannibal thinks that the victim is competent to enter into the cannibalism contract or not.

That's not what you did. You offered the reductio ad absurdum that if a person doesn't believe in contracts in which one person is voluntarily cannibalized, then that person should also eschew any contract where one of the parties is taken advantage of. Or in other words, you apparently find logical equivalence between a person agreeing to amputate and consume his own penis prior to being cannibalized, and, for example, someone signing up for a credit card with a high APR.

Although posibly true this doesnt matter. People might seek happiness in their current mental state but there are certainly temporary mental states where we have a moral obligation to override their freedom.

If i see a guy take LSD then attempt to hang himself because he is so scared i have a moral obligation to stop him.

If I am working an office building and a coworker finds out he is going to lose his job and his house is being foreclosed I have an obligation to stop him from jumping out the window.


You have to be a truly sick person to let people in certain temporary situations kill themself just because "they are doing whatever makes them happiest".

Right..that's why in the post you quoted I said "you're probably right...but I was referring to the broader question..."

Good one Pascal!! i didn't know you were a member of this forum. Welcome even though I think your FOS on that whole "Wager" thingy

I guess I don't know what the broader question is.

If only we had an anarchocapitalist society in which one could freely ask someone to cut off one's penis to have as a snack.

In an AC society would mental illness be recognized as something that would void a contract?

No I don't think it would - but there's no way to tell really. Not that it matters, at all.

Depends, but sure sometimes you could. You couldn't say "I be depressed plz to be voiding my contract" but if your mental illness makes it impossible for you to understand what you're doing then sure. I don't think contract law would be all that different in ACland than it is in Stateville.

What?!? Perhaps re-read my post, because that wasn't the intent. I'm asking "Can certain contracts be evidence of insanity, in and of themselves, and thus be outlawed? Would a contract offering your body for cannibalism be one such example?" You're seeing something more in the inkblots, sir. If you want to talk about other contracts, then go ahead.

Edit: Would most of the examples of insanity listed above (organic brain syndromes, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and other psychotic disorders) be evident from behavior? I would think so. The behaviors would somehow be a manifestation of an abnormal perceived reality that the person is living in. They'd appear "insane." Are both sides of the cannibalism transaction that took place evidence of a type of insanity, since the behavior is such different behavior from societal norms. In other words, they could appear normal, rational, with this decision as the ONLY exception. So the reductio is that "certain decisions can ONLY be made by an insane person," which I am questioning.

Why would it be a level? He's completely right. Personally, I see Christians as "insane", but that doesn't mean I have the right to force them to not be Christian, or even the right to force them not to raise their children with their beliefs.

No one here could possibly know what the people would decide on this.