Is human cannibalism wrong? (Page 15)
hornchurchmale: pass on looking it up. as to a 'baby' when pregnancy is first found out! its just a minute collection of cells and not a self sustainable living person or even recognisable as a human form. ether IS a point medically agreed where a baby becomes both recognisable life form and with potential to grow to a point it can maintain life ( outside womb with life support) and that is a far cry form termination of a small clump of cells that many call 'baby' and having right to life. there are many reasons medical doctors etc agree that abortions ought to occur and are specific laws and reasons given after much argument and debate including religions and others that think even 2 cells with 'potential' to grow ought to be considered sacred 'life'. Nature itself aborts many 'babies' and only advanced medical care and attention can often intervene to save in a few instances. As subject lien is about human cannabalism it seem odd ot be even discussing abortion.
RavingRaven: This is sick question.. what kinda perverse dumbarse would think to eat humans ? my god white people are so fucking dumb..
Adam Southworth: What white group thought it was a good thing to stone women to death or burn wives on their husband's funeral pyre, Raven? You don't know the race of the person who asked the question, but you clearly have a titanic chip on your shoulder.
If you've not thought about these kind of questions, then I distrust you more than someone who's reached morally dubious conclusions. You know where you stand with them. They've faced these problems. I see no evidence you have.
RavingRaven: @Adam southworth My stand is that there are some things that shouldn't be debated with grey thoughts for something as vile as cannibalism. Thats a wild practice and in many countries its punishable as it is recognized as a vile act showing contempt or disregard for the dignity of a human corpse. Any civil-minded person would want to stay away from such conversations. The fact that the threadstarter brought it out means, they don't even fucking know its wrong. Like they have to be now taught that its wrong ? What, the World has to now hold a spoiled white man's pinky finger and show him whats right and wrong ? Shouldn't it be in someone's gut feeling that killing or eating another human is morally wrong and let alone a barbaric thing to do ? And imo, if people don't realise that its a horrible and fall into a grey category where they linger on thinking that it may be alright to eat human meat, they are dumb and barbaric to me. And buddy, don't bring muslims into this. I ain't a muslim for your fucking info. Christianity has its fair share of witch burning or people accused of heresy as well in the medieval century. So ? whats the point now ? I would trust a beggar who knows where his food choices fall rather than likes of you who start to ask questions like this without disgust. If you wanna know the answer, ask the threadstarter to go to Papua New Guinea where them folks eat human meat by dismembering them while alive. And then finally you would understand its even wrong to assume the idea that Cannibalism might be something worth considering you dumbass.
Adam Southworth: You brought all white people into the debate when you attacked all white people for an open question. You don't even know the race of the person who asked it. I won't risk a ban to fire back at someone beneath my contempt. However, I have a source who works with crime statistics, so believe me when I tell you you don't get the best of this. I could cite some repulsive things about members of your ostensible group, but that is beneath me. There are better examples of your group than you.
You appeal to moral instincts, but moral instincts aren't always reliable. There's some truth to Aristotle's claim that moral instincts come from habit. And unless you have some guarantee or argument your moral instincts are infallible, I think a moral agent should question those instincts.
You say a good person should avoid certain subjects. I believe a good person is someone whose positions have been tested, not someone who avoids things that make him cringe or shrinks from impurity like a superstitious savage. Christ and St Francis of Assisi embraced individuals who disgusted other people. No one was untouchable for them, whether slave, leper, publican or adulterer. They knew no inhuman castes. As the Cynic Diogenes said: "The Sun visits cesspools without being defiled."
As for the moral purity of your position, your stance is morally dubious. You just don't realize it. In the right context, your stance that cannibalism is an absolute evil never to be countenanced would allow a child to starve to death rather than eat what was available. You don't get out of some situations with that child and your gut. You sometimes have to choose. My argument is not that cannibalism is right. I simply think this fallen world presents us with situations where you should choose the lesser evil.
RavingRaven: " I could cite some repulsive things about members of your ostensible group, but that is beneath me. There are better examples of your group than you." --- My group ? What the fuck are you eating breakfast fer moron? I am not a muslim you dumbass. I don't like Muslims either. And once again, you jumping to conclusions just shows how much of an intellect you are. And don't talk about Christ and St Francis of Asissi or whatever the fuck thats called. I hardly know any BS about that. What I am saying is, Cannibalism is wrong..There are no 2nd thoughts about it. Don't just say words morally dubious for convenience to cover your flawed logic of saying Cannibalism should be allowed in worst case scenarios. Thats what a person with low morals would do. You don't even know what Morality means..so don't use the word as though you are a pro in arguments.
RavingRaven: There is no diversion but speaking on facts. You are the one who is diverting it with asking hypothetical questions. Now you are trying to generalize it with a question. Even if there is a choice, i won't stoop down to eat human flesh mate. Thats not me. I'd rather eat plants than human meat. Eating a corpse is pretty fatal concerning the medical decomposition process that happens in the body after death. Get your facts straight bruh
Adam Southworth: It's not necessarily fatal to eat cooked human flesh. People have done it since prehistoric times. There's nothing general about the counter-factual. It goes straight to the point. You claim a specific act is always wrong. I need give just one case where you find it acceptable or shows you the cost of your belief.
I don't think anyone can answer as you have and still claim perfect moral purity. You've sacrificed a child to an inner sense. Who can be sure the cannibal is objectively worse than someone who allows a child to starve to death?
RavingRaven: Prehistoric times? Bro prehistory is a period where history wasn't yet recorded. So nobody can be certain that it happened. So quit with the BS that you know about information before history. Even assuming cannibalism was practiced before history, what is the current stance around the modern world ? The consensus is that it is a horrible act of crime to consume human flesh. This is what you are not accepting. You refuse to accept the truth. Thats the stance of rule of law. And quit with your sick thinking that Cannibalism should be a possibility in the event of grave situation where food is scarce. For any humans, there must be a moral line where one should not cross. Otherwise, it defeats the purpose of being civilized in the first place. I appreciate you for carrying a honest debate. But the answer is very clear. Cannibalism is wrong. And you giving hypothetical situations where a child sacrificed isn't going to happen lol. Suppose the cannibal kills the child to devour and sate his hunger, isn't that considered horrible? or unwillingly eat the child against his wish ? thats what Im against. But you are supporting it. You are supporting the so called cannibalising of a child just to ensure the cannibal survival is there. I am against it because if the child dies by hunger, that is a natural death. A natural death has no ramifications for anyone. Nobody is found guilty for natural death. But if you devour another human even in grave situation, its an ethical crime and someone is always held accountable. So quit with the idiotic thinking bro. In any situation, cannibalism is not an option and should never be considered.
Adam Southworth: This may be my last message because our fundamental intuitions seem to conflict. You are not like people who deny bad things happen to win an argument at least when the evidence is well known. I don't have much time to waste on them.
We have fossils I find suggestive if not conclusive evidence of prehistoric cannibalism. This is an inference from the evidence we have. It doesn't matter whether that evidence is conclusive because I have written accounts of human cannibalism on every continent on Earth.
I think cannibalism might dehumanize the species. This is part of what I feel makes zombie films so nihilistic. The consumption of a human being by a mindless drone disturbs people who have a sense of human worth. Still, that is my subjective sense, not a universal fact. Not everyone feels that. The cannibals of the Americas felt the reverse - as I might too if they were my people. Indeed, they told European colonisers they felt it callous and inhuman to leave a loved one to rot in the cold Earth rather than take them with them.
I used to be more of a virtue ethicist. I believed like Kant that we should always treat all humans as ends in themselves, and with Mirandola that all humans have intrinsic worth. I admire the Stoic belief that virtue and integrity are the highest human values. If I were an island or a brain in a vat, I might have adhered to these creeds without qualification. Unfortunately, the world has made my search for moral truth more of a pilgrimage. The longer you live, the more trolley problems the world throws at you.
How do you know what will never happen? I don't recall a case where it explicitly said a child was forced to eat another human to survive, but there is nothing new under the Sun. I expect many, if not all things, consistent with the laws of nature have happened at some point in human history, including a child forced to eat another human or starve.
Cannibalism is technically legal in some countries. Regardless, I don't regard the law as an absolute moral standard. I agree with Antigone that human laws and conventions are subordinate to higher laws.
We could go into even darker territory where we move to a choice between the life of one child or the death of both, or the child and mankind or some section thereof. Which has more value then? The agonized screams of the child or the end of the species or group?
I wasn't talking about killing and eating the child to survive. I suspect I would rather starve to death than kill a child to survive...but perhaps I would surprise myself. If you have a choice between one child killing and eating a second child to save the first, then perhaps the first child should starve to death. That wasn't my counter-factual though. And I think if you claim something is a moral absolute, you must believe it holds in every situation that might take place. Surely a moral absolute is a principle you'd never violate, not one you hold until forced to adapt?
We should separate cannibalism from murder. The body the child would eat is dead. You seem to believe that the slow and painful death of a child is less bad than that child eat what is available; whereas I believe the latter is a necessary evil, since survival is sometimes a higher value than human laws or my own moral sense.
Big Bopper: Apparently, other food is better for you: