Academic Argues For Permissibility of Cannibalism, You Racist

If you are here reading this, because some of you might not be here (if you follow me), be thankful you were not invited to Muzainy Shahiefisally’s house for Thanksgiving. You might have had the stuffing taken out of you—as the kiddies say, literally.

For Shahiefisally, a name which may be a fiction given the author purports to hail from Singapore, and that it is curiously an anagram for ‘All flesh is shy AI’, argues

…that cannibalism is, with certain constraints, legally permissible in both England and Singapore. It will be further argued that the cannibalism of corpses is morally permissible and should therefore continue to remain legally so in both jurisdictions.

Shahiefisally agrees you cannot lawfully bugger a corpse, nor desecrate one, because both of these acts are expressly illegal. But, he says, since neither the governments of England nor Singapore got around to outlawing cannibalism, that act “escapes the spectre of criminality.” So sharpen those incisors and whet your appetites, my friends, for Guess Who is on the menu.

That Shahiefisally is from Singapore might be significant. I have been to the wet markets in that country, and have formed the opinion that it is wise to doubt the origins of mystery meats hanging in the open air of Tekka Centre. Still, I don’t believe I have yet seen the choice cuts of anyone’s cousin displayed for use as satay.

And anyway, I’d worry more about England. Rulers there have embraced with grim glee the idea that if the native population is for it, they, the rulers, must be against it. So if you live in England, take some advice from your Uncle Sergeant Briggs: do not openly express displeasure in cannibalism. Especially since Shahiefisally has branded negative attitudes toward that practice as “racism”. And, he says, opinions about banning eating the dead “arrive at unduly Eurocentric conclusions that would necessarily marginalise cultures where ritualistic cannibalism is or was normalised”.

Protest too loudly and some wigged lady judge might demand you be wrapped in a gay package and put on the shelves of Marks & Spencer as Christmas mincemeat.

That cannibalism is not expressly illegal is not Shahiefisally’s sole argument for chomping down. He blames Kant. Lord knows that deceased gentleman has committed some mighty thought crimes. Yet this is the first time I’ve seen anybody cite him as a cannibal apologist.

Shahiefisally make his arguments in the peer-reviewed paper “Fit for Consumption: A Legal-Philosophical Inquiry into the Permissibility of Cannibalism” in the aptly named Journal of Controversial Ideas. Never forget that Modernists and post-Modernists alike see controversial in these contexts as a synonym for good.

Let’s step through highlights of Shahiefisally’s argument.

“Society has a long history of criminalizing acts that are regarded as socially repugnant.” As you know, the North American Serial Killer Alliance complains of this all the time.

Yet why should repugnance not be a basis of illegality? That different people at different times find different things repugnant is not proof that what some of peoples sometimes find repugnant ought not to be repugnant. That is at least the One True Spartacus Fallacy (a.k.a. Montaigne’s Monstrosity).

The real thrust of All Flesh Is Shy AI is “rights”. Once something in Western culture has been classed as a “right”, none can stand against it. So Shahiefisally is onto something here. Kant comes in for the blame on “rights”.

Few to none can ever recall that once a “right” has been invented a duty has been created. The two, right-duty, are an inseparable pair. The invention of “rights” explains the creeping inexorability of decadence.

Take gmarriage (government-defined marriage). Once a “right” for men to marry men was discovered lurking in a hidden corner of the Constitution, unseen for more than two centuries!, the duty to bake the cake was created. And also the duty to utter no discouraging word about gmarriage in any public setting. And the duty to let these men buy babies on the open market to introduce to their hobbies. And, well, you get the idea, ad infinitum.

Create a “right” to cannibalism necessarily creates duties. What might these be, positive or negative?

Posting guards at cemeteries must be condemned. Poorer cannibals could apply to the government to supply them with fresh meat. Or perhaps cured meat. (This might solve the homeless problem.) The law against desecration, in direct opposition, must be weakened, even practically or de jure eliminated.

Who are we to judge? Judgementalism has been judged wrong. Thus it is judged that it sinful to condemn those who are not like us as they engage in their customs of peeling chunks off of Aunt Edna. You won’t be made to do it anyway, so why complain?

Well, maybe the kids will be made to sample from a tray passed around on Cultural Awareness Day. HR will notice you didn’t put a celebratory Pride Day bone saw in your cubicle. Slim Jims will take on a whole new meaning.

You cannot argue with “rights”.

Here are the various ways to support this work:

• Subscribe at Substack (paid or free)
• Cash App: $WilliamMBriggs
• Zelle: use email: matt@wmbriggs.com
• Buy me a coffee
• Paypal
• Other credit card subscription or single donations
• Hire me
• Subscribe at YouTube
• PASS POSTS ON TO OTHERS