There are many [examples of cannibalism]( https://animalogic.ca/blog/11-animals-that-are-prone-to-cannibalism) within the animal kingdom. While some aspects such as sexual cannibalism and infanticide would most definitely be unethical under the correct circumstances cannibalism could be a moral thing to do. In the animal kingdom, a rabbit cannot go to Tesco for a meal they must survive by being the fittest. If that means eating one another that is what they will do. [there are also examples of humans doing the same] https://adventure.howstuffworks.com/survival/wilderness/10-true-stories-survival-cannibalism.htm) in tragic circumstances. It is not an immoral thing to want to survive. [With biosynthetic] (https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/meat-in-a-petri-dish/105115/#:~:text=Meat%20that%20comes%20from%20a,cells%20in%20a%20laboratory%20setting.) meat becoming increasingly popular and environmentally friendly human could be grown without a human host. This would remove the connection between a being and the flesh reducing the ethical debate.

This response assumes human cannibalism to avoid - for now - the poignant but tangential discussion on how we ascribe human standards of ethics to the animal kingdom. *Trigger Warning: Mild Gorey Imagery* Our species has believed in the medicinal qualities of our own flesh, fluid, and substance throughout history. While it paints a picture of savagery and survival, 'cannibalism' isn't only the barbarous practice of consuming another person's meat for food. There is evidence to suggest that European and Egyptian societies used the skin and blood of the dead to cure the living. Mummified bodies, stolen from Egypt, were a key source of ingredients for various tinctures. The notion of "like cures like" became prevalent as parts of the head or skull were used to treat ailments of the head. The skin of executed men was once sold to pregnant women, who wrapped it around their bellies in the belief that it would relieve pain. In Rome, the blood of slain gladiators was believed to confer the warrior's strength and vitality to the drinker. Let's say these medical practices, though pseudoscientific today, are effective and true. In taking from the dead, is medicinal cannibalism so different from organ donation after death? Though we may not be 'drinking' blood, is a blood transfusion today so different from the medicinal cannibalism of the past? With the right consent, can medicinal cannibalism be ethical?

TW// Violence and Murder **TL;DR: The ethics of cannibalism depend on consent** Cannibalism is unusual, and therefore attains a certain amount of stigma just from being against normal social practice. Most humans naturally [react with disgust](https://www.sciencealert.com/why-is-cannibalism-the-so-taboo-when-it-s-so-common-in-animals) to the idea of cannibalism – as we imagine our own bodies being eaten, we empathise with the victim and associate the act with pain and violence. However, some could argue that we cannibalise ourselves every day. We eat bits of ourselves all the time: we bite our nails, suck blood from papercuts, and pick our noses. Technically these habits are a form of cannibalism, albeit it self-cannibalism, as they involve consuming the flesh of our own species. Whilst these habits are sometimes seen as impolite or socially unacceptable, they are not judged to be unethical. The ethics of cannibalism therefore come down to consent. It is _not_ unethical to chew your fingernails because you do so under your own autonomy and without impacting anyone else negatively. It _is_ unethical to cannibalise other people for pleasure, like the serial killer [Jeffrey Dahmer](https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/cannibal-and-serial-killer-jeffrey-dahmer-is-caught), because his victims did not and could not consent to being murdered and eaten. There have been several instances of people with a [cannibalism fetish](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/cannibalism) giving consent to be cannibalised for their own pleasure. However, as most people perceive this as a mental illness, it has been found that the victim could not actually give consent to be cannibalised, and therefore this is unethical. There are also several sad cases of shipwreck and plane crash survivors eating the bodies of already-dead passengers in order to survive, such as the survivors of the [Uruguayan Air Force F-227 plane crash](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/160403-andes-uruguay-rugby-cannibal-plane-crash-canessa-ngbooktalk). As the people who were eaten were not killed by the survivors but already dead, this removes the unethical element inherent in murder. The initial survivors made a pact that if they died they gave consent to be eaten by the group for survival, and therefore most people can empathise with the survivors acts and perceive them as ethical.

As long as the cannibalism is consensual, I don't see why it'd be considered unethical. Why should someone else be able to decide what happens to my body after I die?

I've heard of small, tribalistic cultures that actually cannibalize a small portion of their loved ones. To symbolically and literally take their essence and combine it with their own. It's kind of silly to us, but it's how they cope with loss. We do weird funerals where we literally "plant" the dead for some bizarre reason. They do this instead. How could I possibly have a problem with something going on that isn't hurting anyone? Oh, but this meat REALLY should not be eaten raw (as iirc it often is). Humans are the most compatible creature to get pathogens from. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease) Edit: I for the life of me couldn't remember what this practice was called. "Endocannibalism" is a funny word. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocannibalism