Bree

I thought the whole point of the character was to illustrate the fact that the author believes there IS no such thing as pure good, or pure evil. Recall the passage in Silence (the book, not the film) where Lecter asks Starling about what Dr. Alan Bloom has written about him. Starling says that Bloom classifies Lecter as a "pure sociopath" - the conversation that ensues, IMHO, pretty much sums up Harris' beliefs on the subject.

Ensign Steve

Fine. Whatever you say.

Godless Dave

I don't eat human beings primarily because they are the same species as I am. Intelligence does enter into what animals I would eat: I wouldn't eat a gorilla, chimp, baboon, or orangatan, but in the right situation I would probably eat the meat of a small monkey. I wouldn't seek it out, but if I were in the Peace Corps or something and it was part of a social/cultural interaction I can see doing it.

However, the intelligence factor only comes into play for non-human animals. I wouldn't eat a brain-dead human or a severely retarded person.

Jennie

There are practical reasons not to eat other people too, because any diseases that people have are obviously communicable to other people. I think I remember that there was a cannibal society that passed on a particular brain disease by eating the brains of their dead. To some degree we have the same problem with eating the apes and monkeys, as I've heard that's how HIV was transferred. And again to a lesser degree with all mammals, think mad cow disease. You have to decide where your risk level is acceptable.

I think this is one reason most people (including myself) have a revulsion about eating people, whatever their level of intelligence. It's adaptive. I'm revolted about the idea of eating monkeys or apes at a much more emotional level than I am about eating dolphins, which are also very intelligent. I certainly would not seek out any of these meats to eat, but the gut revulsion is reserved for primates. So I don't think it's intelligence alone, at least not for me.

scigirl

Well that's a bit of a simplification of Hannibal's psyche. Of course I'm biased because I love those movies/books. The book Hannibal goes into more detail than the movies do. He did not eat people who were dumber than him - that is a fallacy.

What exactly do you mean by "higher plane?"

As a general answer: I don't think anyone here would come up with a moral code for all humans based on one person. We aren't Christians, remember!

scigirl

Ensign Steve

Yeah, that's a coincidence. He was so smart that most of the people he ate were dumber than him by default. But he never used that as justification for eating them.

Yeah, no shit! And if we were going to pick somebody, maybe pick somebody nicer than Hanibal Lecter.

scigirl

Heh, true. But I hear he makes a good liver and fava bean dish...

scigirl

nermal

Not to get too far afield, but I remember something from The Illustrated Man to the effect that no system can create a more sophisticated system than itself (Some IT "law" or something)
This certainly applies here, to whit: No Author Can Create a Character Smarter Than Himself.
Harris failed miserably in making Lecter a "genius." He should have remembered the lessons of Poe and Doyle--If your character is to be a genius, show as little of his genius as possible, or filter it through a person of average intelligence (ie. Watson.)

Ed

kctan

What you want to eat & what you don't, it's all about choice...

"One man's meat is another's poison".

Justification are only for fun & to tell others "look how my choice is superior to yours".

Adrammalech

If we attempt to create this system of who eats who, we have to set some standards. Intelligence alone doesn't qualify being on a "higher" plane. There are multiple factors involved. I suggest various batteries of emotional, social, and intelligence tests. Average the scores out and determine who lies where on the "food chain". Once we do that we have identification cards issued with the person's score. So whenever a person walks down the street and is feeling a bit peckish, the person should be allowed to kill an individual with a lower score. The added benefit of this is that we will create a society that is smarter and more socially and emotionally adept.

So anyone on board?