Comments on: Armin Meiwes: Metzgermeister

By: Augur

Augur — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 23:59:43 +0000

Honestly with all the ills of the world, I think that this an acceptable arrangement morally. Why is everyone else concerned so much with another person’s personal choice to have a particular set of experiences? Especially when the lines of victim and perpetrator are so clearly defined and manufactured in order to accomplish a specific task. No true harm is done given the consensual nature of the arrangement. Personally if we allow for these mutual expressions to exist I am sure that it would create more “healthy” manifestations of these darker urges within humanity.

By: cachorrita

cachorrita — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:06:52 +0000

where can i watch the video

By: tmct0x

tmct0x — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 06:46:27 +0000

Bernd did actually agree to being killed. He never intended to live through this experience. In the video itself at one point he is seen saying after his genitals were amputated that “if im still alive in the morning we should eat my balls”.

He must have been a very disturbed person (both of them to be clear) and obviously not in his right mind. Which should be taken into account. If he had received some sort of help or treatment there is no way of knowing if this fantasy of being eaten alive would have remained. I think in a situation like this his consent should be taken with a grain of salt in determining if it is murder or not.

The fact that even after the pain and experience of losing his penis had subsided he was still insistant on more is frightening. One would imagine that the fantasy of this and the reality would greatly differ and he would have changed his mind after realizing this. Again i repeat they both were VERY disturbed to begin and to finish something of this nature.

By: surreybint

surreybint — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:28:54 +0000

Surely for this to be considered a mercy killing it should fulfill certain criteria i.e. terminal condition, level of pain, and consent. As Brandes did not have a terminal condition, nor from the film was it mentioned he was living with constant pain, then despite giving his consent it should not count as a mercy killing and Meives did not euthanise him.

Also, in the film it showed franky and cator’s correspondence and cator agreed to being eaten but not to being slaughtered which is in fact what Meives did. Does this not constitute murder?

Finally, as part of our moral duty are we not required to live our lives to our full potential and therefore we should not be signing away those duties by agreeing to be killed. If, as I believe Fabian said in one of the earlier lectures, we have a moral duty not to sign our rights away to a live a life of slavery, we certainly should have a moral duty not to end that life at all?