A gripping excerpt from Brennan and Jaworski’s new book on the philosophy of commodification:
…we present a range of sociological and anthropological evidence that
there is no essential meaning to money or market exchange. Instead, the
meaning of money is a contingent social construct. In the absence of
non-semiotic objections to markets, the social meaning of money, of
markets, and commodification, is relative, not objective. Note that we
are not saying that morality is relative or a social construct, but, rather that the meaning we attach to market exchanges is.[…]
There are facts about what symbols, words, and actions signal
respect. But–when there are no worries about exploitation, harm, rights,
and so on–these facts appear to vary from culture to culture. Consider
that King Darius of Persia asked the Greeks if they would be willing to
eat the dead bodies of their fathers. The Greeks balked. Of course, the
right thing to do was to burn the dead bodies on a funeral pyre. To eat
the dead would disrespect them, treating them like mere food. Darius
then asked the Callatians if they would be willing to burn their fathers
on a funeral pyre. The Callatians balked. The thing to do was to eat
one’s father, so that part of the father was always with the son.
Burning the dead would treat them like mere trash.The Greeks and Callatians agreed about what their obligations were.
They agreed that everyone has a moral obligation to signal respect for
their dead fathers… The issue
here is just that the Greeks and Callatians were, in effect, speaking
different (ritualistic) languages… Asking whether the Greek or Callatian practices are the
correct way to express respect is, at first glance, a bit like asking
whether English or French is the correct language.
Personally, I like the idea of being eaten by my family and friends after I die. But if that’s not your thing, don’t sweat it. 🙂
READER COMMENTS
Jim Glass
Jul 14 2015 at 1:24pm
“Personally, I like the idea of being eaten by my family and friends after I die.”
But would you enjoy eating them?
Brad
Jul 14 2015 at 2:16pm
Since Prof. Caplan is a betting man, let’s see if he really means it.
$100 for a copy of a signed will with instructions to be cooked and served upon your death. There’s a bonus ($$) for wine suggestions.
Floccina
Jul 14 2015 at 2:35pm
I jokingly tell my family to bury me under a fruit tree and eat the fruits and think of me.
Tracy W
Jul 15 2015 at 2:25am
Brad: what would be the point? A will can’t oblige anyone living to do anything. At the most it can make its gifts conditional, but I suspect it would take more than $100 for Bryan to risk his loved ones choosing to disinherit themselves.
Also Bryan could sign the will, collect the money and then tear up the will.
Jesse
Jul 15 2015 at 8:21pm
Tracy: Nobody would be obligated to eat the late Prof. Caplan, he just needs to make arrangements to be prepared and served.
Prof. Caplan: If you were to go through with such a thing, your loved ones should request you well-done, so as to hedge their bets Pascal-style. (Too much?)
Daniel Ford
Jul 16 2015 at 5:04pm
I recommend against having your friends and family eat you, as they can potentially contract prion diseases. The Fore people of Papua New Guinea discovered this the hard way with Kuru. A hard death from an incurable infection is a poor legacy for your loved ones.
Comments are closed.