Cannibalism: The Human Animal

In modernity, the act of cannibalism is a social taboo of the highest order; an act considered so vile that it commonly captures our imagination in the horrors of fiction in the form of human devouring monsters. But what about cannibalism terrifies us so, to the point where the act is reviled by society and subject to harsh punishment of law? In the US, while there are no laws that forbid cannibalism per se, there are state laws regarding the desecration of the body that would prohibit a person from engaging in cannibalism. And throughout the rest of the world, cannibalism is universally condemned as a violation of social norms and a thing of illegality. In contrast, within the animal (and insect) kingdom, occurrences of cannibalism is a fact of life, where the want for survival trumps all, and our humanly disposition against cannibalism is an oddity rather than a norm of living organisms.

The Case of a Stranded Boat
Historically, there have been famous cases where the social norms and laws against cannibalism were tested, and perhaps one of the most well known is the case of Her Majesty the Queen v. Tom Dudley and Edwin Stephens. In short, a crew of four were sailing a yacht when they encountered unfavorable weather which rendered their boat inoperable, and the Captain ordered the lifeboat be lowered and the crew abandoned ship. The crew then had to survive on the lifeboat in dangerous conditions with very limited supplies until they were rescued after 24 days. During this time, one of the member fell seriously ill and was comatose (presumed to be fated to death soon thereafter by the remaining crew), and with their rations depleted, Dudley and Stephens decided to kill the man and consume him. The remaining member of the crew, Edmund Brooks, abstained in the killing and eating. After their rescue, the two men who engaged in cannibalism were put on trial, though their sentences were reduced from the death penalty to 60 days in prison.

The case against the men were that they had committed homicide, and the defense being that the men had acted in their own defense of their live, which incidentally was through murder. And so, this became a classic case of taking another's life for the preservation of self, putting into question just how far the concept of "self-defense" extended in a legal sense. Beyond the legality of it however, there is also the ethical question behind the act of desperate cannibalism. In retrospect, we know that the men may have survived even if they did not engage in cannibalism, given that 4~5 days after killing and eating their former member, the remaining crew were rescued. What is important though is the motives behind the act, and in this case, Dudley and Stephens acted with the belief that if they did not kill and eat Parker, they themselves would eventually meet the same fate.

If we were to suppose that without killing Parker, the rest of the crew would have eventually succumbed to starvation and death, and by killing Parker, they were able to live sufficiently long enough for rescue to arrive, does this change the answer to the morality behind taking another's life for one's own?

The Cannibal
In the case above, there was a irreconcilable difference between what is dictated as just deserts by law, and what was believed to be justice accordance to social principles (the reality of the ruling is more nuanced than that, I admit, but for simplicity of the argument, I will focus on the nature of law and justice and its relation to social norms). That is to say, while murder is a social taboo, the peculiar circumstances in which, the murder of Parker was believed to be necessary to the crew's survival, made the issue far more complicated. And furthermore, the contention did not end at the murder, but also in the act of cannibalism, which has a quality to it unlike others to trigger such a revulsion, violating the very sense of what defines us as humans.

What is it about cannibalism rouses such a response? From an objective point of view, the consumption of meat is a necessity to one's survival, and we as humans partake in the consumption of meat of other dead beings without raising an eye brow (with the exception of vegans, and particular religious prohibition of certain kind of meats, which is a interesting point to consider as well). If we are capable of consuming the meat of cows and chickens, how is this materially different from that of consuming humans? And even before that, why are certain acts considered "desecration" of the dead? Are they not already far removed from the world of the living, no longer drawing breath to know or care what we do with their corpse?

One explanation behind this human "peculiarity" may lie with our higher cognitive capabilities that allow us to experience a range of emotions, from empathy to various levels of kinship (ranging from the smallest unit of the familial all the way to a sense of single unity as humans). And with our higher cognitive capabilities, we have imbued the dead with the characteristics of the living, elevating a heap of corpse to that of what we call to be "human". In India, we see this mechanism employed to elevate the status of cows to that of a respected being, and therefore, making it a being not appropriate for consumption. And of course, there is religion to consider, among innumerable others, which I will not explore for the sake of brevity; the important point is that cannibalism does not seem to be an adverse behavior as far as reproduction is considered. If the revulsion of cannibalism is an element of social norms without a biological component, is the transgression of these norms worthy of punishment even in circumstances of life and death?

Apart from basic biological necessities (food, water and shelter), human society is tightly bound by rules and norms to uphold the principles that make up our "humanity", away from the animalistic behavior based on primal instinct. In that sense, our proclivity to safeguard these principles is a defense of what defines us as humans, lest we become slave to the "rules of nature" where survival and procreation dictate all. And to those who violate these norms, society is eager to shun, as if to protect and preserve their notion of superiority as "humans" beyond simple biological machines that act in accordance to their natural making.

Conclusion
In the case of the lifeboat, the argument of the murder as a necessary defense of one's own life is a very contentious matter. It is true that in our society, certain acts of violence are permissible (at least legally speaking) if the perpetrator was acting in credible defense of their own life. And yet, the act of cannibalism, or in this case, a murder for the purpose of cannibalism seems to evoke a revulsion as if the act is a kind of attack on our identity as humans. Post-apocalypse fiction is a genre that often tackles this very question of what it means to be human, and when thrust upon the most trying conditions, when we forgo the conventions of our societal norms for the sake of survival become a thing that is less than human?

Bloody Nose for a Cracked Fist

With the lack of progress in achieving a non-military solution to the DPRK's continued belligerence in regards to nuclear development, the possibility of a limited attack (bloody nose) looms menacingly above our heads. In its essence, the use of violence is the physical manifestation of political discourse. That is to say, violence is never a means and an end to itself, but rather, a continuation, and most often, the apex of a conversation between two states. As such, the pursuit of military action must not be an invocation of emotional response, and instead, must be part of a considered and deliberate stratagem to elicit specific reactions.

The Feasibility of Limited Attack
The doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D.) tells us that the possession of weapons of mass destruction between opposing parties will lead to a scenario in which use of the weapons will result in a full-scale exchange, ensuring the total annihilation of all parties involved. And interestingly, the scale of the destructive power of nuclear weapons allows for a equilibrium between parties of asymmetric nuclear capability. This is in part due to the relative "risk" that is involved in a nuclear exchange, and the asymmetry of "pain tolerance" between states of very disproportionate economic power. To use a silly analogy, a nuclear fight is like that of two people in a pit of oil, one with a single match, and the other, with a whole box of matches.

However, the existence of nuclear weapons is not an end to traditional forms of conflict, and certainly not an end to limited military actions or exchanges between nations. As history has shown us, the military rivalry between the US and Soviet Union did not spell an end to the conflict, and while it did have the effect of preventing a full-out war between the two nations, conflict via proxies took the stage as the language of violence during the Cold War. And similarly, the history between the US (and by association, the ROK) and the DPRK is riddled with small exchanges, and although the DPRK lacked the means of a nuclear strike against either US or ROK in the past, they were not foreign to showing their willingness to use military action.

If the US were to hold itself to its words, the possibility of a limited attack seems very real. With the US unwilling to yield in its demand for de-nuclearization, the continued development of both delivery methods and stockpile may force a response. Alternatively, there is also the possibility that the ordeal with the DPRK will end similarly to Obama's administration's demand for Assad to step down. This demand was not reasonable given the scale of commitment of the US (which severely hampered our ability to leverage our wants in the situation), and despite that, the US maintained this position until the problem became obsolete with the change of the Presidency (though the new incumbent may feel less regard for upholding the threats and promises of the previous administration, the inability to enforce the "red line" serves to undermine US leadership and credibility). Like Syria, the current administration may elect for the same "solution", opting for no real actions while the DPRK continues to defy the US.

The Carrot and Stick
The Trump administration's policy towards the DPRK is as follows: There is no acceptable alternative for the US but for complete de-nuclearization of the DPRK. And unfortunately, there has been no clear details as to what form of de-nuclearization would be acceptable to the US, making it not only a categorical antithesis to the nuclear policy of the DPRK, but also a non-negotiable starting point.

In the use of a limited attack, the US would have to communicate clear terms under which the US will exercise the use of further violence if demands are not met. These terms however, cannot be total de-nuclearization of the country, and must allow for a condition that can reasonably be fulfilled by the opposing party (or at least a demand that can be entertained and perhaps negotiated upon). However, diplomacy has a pre-requisition of mutual trust, and with the hostility and clear lack of trust shown between the two countries, the likelihood of success seem dim (from the perspective of the DPRK, it would be prudent to wait for a new administration that more closely embodies the traditional inclinations of the US, which would make far stabler grounds for negotiations).

Furthermore, the recent successes of talks between the DPRK and ROK will be a challenging roadblock for the US in terms of negotiating with the DPRK. ROK's breakaway from the bloc of US led sanctions against DPRK weakens US bargaining position, especially given the fact that any limited attack against DPRK would require close cooperation and buy-in to the plan by the ROK. And having finally managed to find some common ground and deescalation to the situation, a move to introduce military action into the situation would likely garner harsh repudiation by the international community, isolating the US in its negotiation efforts and possibly endangering the sanctions regime (which is already faltering for innumerable reasons).

Conclusion
In the present scenario, it is difficult to imagine a positive outcome to a limited attack, which would only serve to validate DPRK's efforts for self defense, isolate the US from its allies in negotiations, and escalate tensions when it was just on its way down. As discussed in previous works, the DPRK is not in a position to be negotiated to total nuclear disarmament and a limited attack with such preconditions would necessitate a hard reaction from the DPRK. And with the talks with DPRK and ROK progressing, a limited attack would serve to derail those talks, sour our relation with the ROK, and would ultimately do disservice to the effort of pacifying the peninsula.

While the likelihood of a positive outcome from a limited attack is very slim, the US has maneuvered itself into a terrible position, where we must choose from bad and worse options. And with the credibility of the US at risk, and with the long term dangers of "kicking the can" down the road yet again, military action is still a very real possibility. There is also the added domestic political situation to consider, where the need for domestic approval for midterm elections and a second term Presidency may trump (no pun intended) the negative consequences of such actions.