CANNIBALISM

**Warning: not for the faint of heart** Chris Bertram notes that the German internet cannibalism trial poses some problems for libertarians. See also this article in the Stuttgarter Nachrichten online. Even though I'm not a libertarian, I'm not sure that Bertram is right: I suppose that cannibalism could be an area in which consent is so hard to prove that one might want to prohibit the practice entirely. Moreover, a rule allowing cannibalism might prohibit cases where true consensus exists, but this harm would need to be balanced by the effects of a contrary rule allowing the practice, in which false positives allowing non-consensual cannibalism might occur more often and / or might be more harmful. I realize that I'm smuggling in a concept of harm here, but given that the question is not just what practices should be permitted but what rules should be used in allowing or prohibiting practices, I think the move is justified. Under conditions of uncertainty about consent, where rules are nonetheless unavoidable, factors other than consent need to be brought into the equation.