Ethics and the Professions - Case Analysis
1. Name / e-mail: Simon Kurtz / skurtz@uark.edu
2. Semester: Spring ‘04
3. Case #: 1
4. Reference: “CNN.Com”
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/01/30/germany.cannibal/index.html
5. Summary: A recent case in Germany made national news regarding an alleged cannibal, Armin
Meiwes, who was accused of murdering, butchering and consuming his victim, Bernd Juergen Brandes.
Interestingly, the act of cannibalism was not the mostly discussed fact of the case as the victim was
believed to have asked for the treatment he then received. Many details of the case have shown that the
victim not only accepted the consequences of his wishes, but had actively pursued them on internet
message boards and through other media. He also met Meiwes before the act and left to drive back to
Berlin as he believed Meiwes was not capable of what he had previously advertised. Brandes, however,
returned later and victimized himself.
As Germany neither applies nor endorses the death penalty and this case was unprecedented in the
history of the German judicial system, the penalty had to be chosen between a lifelong sentence for
murder or a reduced sentence up to five years for manslaughter, the latter being the case. Whereas the
prosecution’s argument was that of murder of a mentally-challenged person, the defense pursued the
path of euthanasia.
This case may now be escalated to the highest German court as it still seems unclear what action should
be taken even though a verdict has already been reached.
6. Profession, Professional, or Public Servant for whom there is an ethical issue:
A court, judge and judicial system
7. Normative Ethical Question: Should Meiwes be granted a reduced sentence due to euthanasia or
should he be tried as a murderer?
8. Broader Ethical Issues:




Is it right or wrong to kill?
Should you help others in need?
Should you break with one moral to pursue another?
Should you consume one of your kind?
9. Answer: No, Meiwes should not have fulfilled Brandes’ death wish and should not have pursued his
own wishes.
10. Reasons Supporting Answer:
I interpret the case as an action of to mentally ill parties – a perpetrator and a victim. Based on moral
principles commonly accepted by societies, in this case primarily the German society, Meiwes actions
were morally wrong. Not only took Meiwes the right upon himself to take someone else’s life, but he
also consumed respective person afterwards. Not only did Meiwes pursue Brandes’ wish but also his
own fantasies, which he admitted to have had for years prior to the murder. This is unacceptable in our
society (I can refer to the German society as “our” society as I am German myself. Obviously, listed
morals apply to other societies as well.) and must therefore be punished as such. Simply put, Meiwes
killed and ate the victim.
Argument:
General Moral Principle: It is wrong to kill a human being.
Factual Claim: Meiwes killed a human being.
Conclusion: Therefore, Meiwes’ action of killing Brandes was wrong.
11. Alternative Answer: Meiwes helped a peer who needed help to fulfill his sought-after wish.
12. Reasons Supporting Alternative:
Meiwes offered a solution to Brandes’ desire and was therefore helping the victim to achieve what he
could not achieve by himself. Meiwes clearly stated what he would do to Brandes, who agreed to the
procedure. Brandes had full knowledge and desire of the upcoming action. Meiwes action was just and
admirable as he had the courage to fulfill the victim’s wants. Therefore, Meiwes should still serve a
sentence for killing another human being but a reduced one for euthanasia as he acted to help.
General Moral Principle: It is right to help someone in need.
Factual Claim: Meiwes helped Brandes.
Conclusion: Thus, Meiwes’ action of helping Brandes was right.
13. Which facts, if otherwise, would change the answer?
The fact that Meiwes’ wish was just as present in the act is pertinent to the case together with the fact
that Meiwes proceeded to butcher and consume his victim. Had Meiwes ended Brandes’ life in order to
just fulfill Brandes’ wish and had Meiwes done so more gracefully than he did (the murder also included
the separation of Brandes’ genitals from his body prior to the death of Brandes – this was also discussed
previously as named genitals were then supposed to be eaten by both Brandes and Meiwes), which
invokes the question of what may be considered “graceful euthanasia”, could have changed the answer. I
consider a doctor acting on a patient’s full and conscious will and gracefully ending a patient’s life an
honorable person with courage to do what may oppose his profession. I would consider Meiwes’ action
morally right had the action be performed without Meiwes’ willingness to fulfill his own fantasy and
done so in a more humane manner.
14. Further Comments:
Though not new the act of euthanasia is an ever- and omni-present issue, similar to that of abortion.
Germany as well as many other societies struggle to define laws for such events, keeping it a work in
progress. Germany has had a history of euthanasia, particular in the Third Reich under the dictatorship
of Adolf Hitler. However, the context in years prior to 1945 was different and the goal was to achieve a
healthier race overall. Such form of “euthanasia” is clearly not an accepted method and morally wrong.
However, the argument stands that euthanasia is an act of helping someone in need as long as the act is
consensual. We will see more struggles and laws around the term and will have to wait years if not
decades to clearly classify the act of euthanasia.
15. Indicate one:
X I give permission for this to be posted and attributed to me.
_ I give permission for this to be posted, but anonymously.
_ Please do not post this.