During the tragedy in Los Andes, those affected consumed human flesh; there were two situations of consumption: with consent, some decided that if they died they could feed on their body, and others without consent because they died in the accident or in the first days.

From a libertarian perspective, consensual cannibalism is legitimate, since the body is considered a transferable resource with the consent of the owner. While in cases without consent, it is argued that, upon death, the body becomes an ownerless resource, subject to rules of original appropriation, allowing its consumption by those who peacefully appropriate it without affecting others. In the situation that these people found themselves in the Andes, where there was no norm of inheriting the remains, the survivors were seen as the legitimate owners of the remains.

Clarification: I am not promoting cannibalism in any of its variants, I am only analyzing the situation that occurred from one perspective. Haters to me 🫡

nostr:note15zqxyv294frnkeg7ad5s0ep9g4g467h8lgplmr6xcfgr7xhzchgsrsued0