I think that there would be nothing wrong, from the standpoint of whether one would be causing any direct harm to a conscious being, with eating a dead human body. That doesn’t mean, as some people seem to think it means, that it would be good to eat dead human bodies, or that there are not other compelling reasons to not eat dead human bodies. Prof. Gary L. Francione, originator of the “Abolitionist Approach to Animal Rights” seems to be committed to agreeing with me.

On the FAQ’s page of his website there appears this question:

Question 10: Do nonsentient humans, such as those who are irreversibly brain dead, have a right not to be treated as things?

To which Francione responds:

Answer: If a human is really nonsentient–not conscious or aware of anything at all and will not regain consciousness or awareness of anything–then, by definition, the human cannot have an interest in not suffering (or in anything else). In such a situation, a compelling argument could be made that it is morally acceptable to use the organs of such a human to save others–and it is common practice to do so if the human has previously agreed to donate her organs or if the family consents.

We should, of course, be concerned about whether an ostensibly brain-dead human really does lack all cognitive activity. We ought also to be sensitive to the concerns of those related to the comatose human; they may oppose the instrumental use of the human for various reasons, such as religious opposition to organ transplantation. But humans who are really irreversibly brain dead are really no different from plants; they are alive but they are not conscious and have no interests to protect. According such humans a basic right not to be treated as the resources of others makes no sense.

Now, if Francione is correct that those who are “really nonsentient … cannot have an interest in not suffering (or anything else)” then, by extension, he must be committed to accept that those who are no longer alive can have no such interest either. Equally, if a compelling argument could be made that it is morally acceptable to use those living “nonsentient” human beings instrumentally, then that same compelling argument must extend to those who are no longer even alive. A dead body can’t possibly have interests when a living “nonsentient” body has none.

Francione is correct, the “nonsentient” have no interests; to reiterate his words they “are really no different from plants”. Moreover, there is a compelling argument that it is morally acceptable to use such beings instrumentally and that argument obviously extends to those who are no longer alive. As Francione says, there may be other reasons to oppose the instrumental use of “nonsentient” (or dead) human beings, but according such things “a basic right not to be treated as the resources of others makes no sense.”

Since it is unlikely that anyone will be rushing out to eat dead human bodies anytime soon, how does any of this matter?

It matters because if living “nonsentient” human bodies haven’t any basic rights, and if dead human bodies haven’t any basic rights, then inert physical stuff such as honey and eggs hasn’t any basic rights either. If there is something morally wrong with humans eating honey and eggs, the wrongness must be grounded in the something other than the nonexistent interests or rights of the honey or eggs. It is morally wrong to eat honey or eggs when to eat honey or eggs causes harm to bees or birds – that is, when it disadvantageously disrespects the interests or violates the rights of bees or birds.

Because almost all commercially available honey and eggs are produced in ways that cause direct harms to conscious beings (assuming that bees are minimally, if not phenomenally, conscious) then it’s almost always better, in terms of the harms caused to others, to not eat honey or eggs. However, unless it can be successfully argued that every instance of acquiring honey or eggs is necessarily harmful to bees or birds, then one can live as a vegan and still, if only in certain limited circumstances, eat honey or eggs without causing harm. But, it can’t be successfully argued that every instance of acquiring honey or eggs is necessarily harmful to bees or birds and therefore it is possible, if only in limited circumstances, for a person to eat honey or eggs and still be vegan. Of course, just in case it isn’t wrong to do something, that doesn’t mean that it is necessarily good to do something, and so many people will not eat honey or eggs (or dead bodies) no matter how those things may be acquired.

People may wonder why a vegan like me would care to consider when it wouldn’t be wrong (or “non-vegan”) to eat dead bodies or the stuff that others produce when they are alive. It would be easier, many (most?) would say, and more in keeping with the “spirit of veganism” for a vegan like me to simply say that vegans never eat honey, eggs or dead bodies, at all, ever. That’s the definition of veganism and that’s what veganism has come to stand for over the years, after all. However, that doesn’t satisfy me and it ought not to satisfy anyone else either.

It can’t be wrong to eat something just because others claim that it is; it can’t be wrong to eat something just because others define it as wrong, no matter who those others are, how many they are, or for how long they’ve been making claims and definitions. (Is being gay wrong just because most people for the longest time have claimed that it is and have defined it as such? Of course not.)

If it’s wrong to eat something – whether it be honey, eggs or dead bodies (human or otherwise) then it must be because to eat that something has caused or will cause some harm to someone. Inert physical stuff such as honey, eggs and dead bodies simply cannot be harmed, because those things have no interests and hold no rights – they are just things. There’s nothing wrong just in the eating of those things, because they are just things.

There is something wrong in the causing of harm to other conscious beings, when causing such harm matters to them. When people want to construct the meaning of veganism on the foundation of what we as humans consume, I believe they are making a mistake. The foundation for veganism (and animal rights in general) is that other animals ought not to be harmed in ways that matter to them. Veganism, after all, isn’t just about the diet, right? I believe that Francione and I agree on that as well.