https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donner_Party These people were not evil. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Butt_Naked probably is evil but at least he's trying to repent.

If we're going to try to come up with a system, mine is simply (borrowed[1]): I like beef and broccoli, mind your business. I readily admit this doesn't cover every corner case, but I don't think there can be a satisfactory system that does. Many things have to be determined by context and taste, and usually aren't even worth thinking about if you're not in a position of power and responsibility over the lives of others.

[1] http://genius.com/Immortal-technique-beef-and-broccoli-lyric...

What if it is the actual wish of the people involved?

What if a person whose fantasy was to kill and cook another person met a person who fantasy was to be killed and cooked? Then this happened. What penalty should ensue for the (well-fed) survivor?

And lest you think this is some weird hypothetical, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes may enlighten you otherwise.

In this case it's a mental disorder or illness and I'd consider it manslaughter.

What about euthanasia?

Person A kills person B and B wants to be dead/killed.

Well, I'm controversial with some - it's still against the law in many jurisdictions so it's murder. But I consider euthanasia to be hugely unethical, so I'd consider it manslaughter.

What about meat grown in a lab, so no being had to die for it.

...what about human meat grown in a lab...?

as someone who considers themselves an animal-rights moderate, I am 100% OK with lab meat. No sentient beings suffering = no problem!

That will happen. There will be two aspects to it.

Firstly, the wealthy (and then the middle classes) will have meat prepared that is genetically identical to themselves, and will serve it to dinner guests.

Secondly, one will be able to buy celebrity meat at the supermarket. The future equivalent of a Tom Cruise burger, or a Scarlett Johansson steak.

The third one, "full personal, civic, and environmental responsibility for those decisions" would include criminal charges and jail-time for the decision to eat a human as it would constitute murder.

If someone said "I'm comfortable with the legal consequences of cannibalism and murder along with the possibility that the person may actually kill me before I get to them" and they actually are held to those postulations, including say, life-imprisonment AND they still want to do it all just so they can eat human for supper, then sure, go for it!

In that case, your first and third statements certainly seem in conflict. You don't actually believe in any practical sense that people should be able to make their own (unhindered) decision on what to eat if you're going to punish them for it and prevent them from doing it again.

It's about understanding the costs of the decisions and accepting them.

If you say "Well nobody would be ok with industrial slaughterhouses or a number of other things" I say, "yes, that's kinda the point here."

Why would we care if someone accepts the costs or not? I find our justice system to be incredibly flawed, but ultimately we jail people because we (as a society) don't want the action they committed to take place. The mentality you seem to be espousing seems to ignore that for... reasons?

So if we're willing to say a specific action is worth jailing someone for the rest of their life, why shouldn't we say "This action is not okay and we're going to do our best to prevent it"?

What you're describing is an extended version of the Problem of Evil. Also related is the moral and limitation of government itself (human chose to give up certain liberty for government).

Basically, free will (and the physical manifestation of it: liberty) is argued to be more important than the lack of evil. And you can't have realistic free will and liberty without accepting that bad things will happen.

No. I'm merely pointing out the absurdity of saying describing something as "okay" when it's anything but. The word has become meaningless in this conversation.

This is a philosophical difference. I think adults should be at liberty to shoot themselves in the foot.