Hey, don't try and use big text around me buddy. I was regarding some of you guys, the door does swing both ways. (hmm, perhaps I shouldn't say that? Especially with this THREAD)
Lest anyone think that the argument from mutual consent for the permissibility of cannibalism is purely theoretical, it is precisely what Meiwes’s defense lawyer is arguing in court. The case is a reductio ad absurdum of the philosophy according to which individual desire is the only thing that counts in deciding what is permissible in society. Brandes wanted to be killed and eaten; Meiwes wanted to kill and eat. Thanks to one of the wonders of modern technology, the Internet, they both could avoid that most debilitating of all human conditions, frustrated desire. What is wrong with that? Please answer from first principles only.
Cannibals believed when eaten your power or soul went into the eater. As such you become one new more powerful soul. This concentration of power in a sense could allow you to live for ever as the old and infirm are eaten.