I came across the example in a book of consensual cannibalism: Person A gave his willing and explicit consent to be killed and eaten by person B, in exchange for nothing but the experience of it (No dollar transaction was involved). Libertarian philosophy reasons that person B cannot be punished by law for killing and eating a willing participant.
I am finding it difficult to make a case for the punishment of Person B, although I have identified a direction this case could take:
- The "Killing is wrong" argument: the society must uphold a certain moral standard, which includes preventing people from eating each other. The Libertarian would argue that the society has no right to interfere with this private, consensual exchange between participants. Why is this act immoral? Kant, I suppose, could also provide an answer, although it seems to run against the grain of self-ownership.
There also exists in this scenario a question of where to draw the moral line, although this tangles with policy. This scenario took place in Rotenburg, Germany (between eater Armin Meiwes and eatee Bernd-Jurgen Brandes, should you wish to look up more information). Prostitution is legal in Germany -- Why should prostitution be legal and consensual killing not?