Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
"I know it seems unimportant, but I'd rather not perpetrate the idea of cannibalism as inherently evil, lest people traumatized by having to eat others to survive become shunned more."
[citation needed]
I think it is perfectly fine to believe that cannibalism is inherently wrong if you believe that certain things (like morality or humanity) are more important than just living another day. Thus, I do not buy that there ever really is a time when people "need" to eat others in the sense that merely surviving should not always be the first priority. If anything, I feel like shaming people who engage in such practices for whatever reason is good because it stops people from getting stuck in the "ends always justify the means" trap.
Abyss_Worm,
I wonder if part of the issue is that for some "acceptance" connotes "fully support." There may be some lifestyle choices or opinions that people make or have which others do not support but which they can tolerate (political or philosophical differences for example). In those cases I think "tolerance" is a more accurate description than "acceptance." That being said, I do agree that sometimes people use "tolerance" to mean disrespect in all but name and that seems pretty problematic.
I for one don't see my body as something that is more valuable than the use it provides to myself and others. If I can save someone's life by letting them know I'm not upset with the knowledge that they'll eat my corpse after I die, it seems wrong not to.
I don't see what is especially moral in refusing to eat a man's corpse even if that is the only way for you to survive. To me, the idea that icky things are immoral is an even more dangerous "trap" than the one you present. It's the kind of idea that leads to stuff like the murder of gays.
I agree that saying something is immoral just because it is "icky" is problematic. After all, it seems pretty clear to me that just because one might find eating insects "icky" does not mean that doing so must automatically make it immoral.
However, I do not believe that cannibalism is immoral simply because it is "icky." I think it is inherently immoral because it goes against the principle of universal human dignity (i.e. every person has rights and worth) since it devalues people into just being a consumable food rather than thinking beings that deserve respect.
Cannibalism also allows one to justify killing others merely so one can live a bit longer. While I believe it may be possible to make arguments for harming others in self-defense, I do not think the benefits outweigh such costs in the case of eating human beings.
As long as we are on the topic of what that mindset can lead to, I think that the mindset that says "cannibalism is okay" can lead to people doing things like forcibly ending so-called "inferior" people's lives for the sake of their "superiors" or otherwise degrading other people's worth in favor of their own. I can appreciate the fact that we may have different views on what makes things valuable though.
But eating someone else who has passed to stay alive yourself? That's a bit more grey, and no one is really getting hurt in the process. Whereas if cannibalism didn't happen, you'd have two dead bodies instead of one.
On it desecrating human dignity: I can see where you're coming from, but I disagree. If you're dead, you're dead. You can't really be considered a person anymore. You're gone, all that's left is meat.
If that all seemed especially morbid or disjointed, it's probably because I haven't slept in two days and thinking is haaaard
Also, if one was at a point of starvation where cannibalism was the only way to survive, I think an aversion to eating a corpse would probably be nigh on non existent
I don't think we're talking about actually killing people for food. That's a whole different issue, and is definitely wrong.
Yeah, I kind of figured that out after making that comment. I guess what I said earlier seems a bit off-topic now, but I still feel like allowing people to eat other human beings can lead to people justifying killing living beings for the same purposes. I think saying "eating humans is wrong" is a much more effective way of stopping those kinds of killings than saying "eating humans is mostly wrong, but there are some situations where it is morally acceptable."
But eating someone else who has passed to stay alive yourself? That's a bit more grey, and no one is really getting hurt in the process. Whereas if cannibalism didn't happen, you'd have two dead bodies instead of one.
On it desecrating human dignity: I can see where you're coming from, but I disagree. If you're dead, you're dead. You can't really be considered a person anymore. You're gone, all that's left is meat.
The logic in your first comment makes some sense to me if your main consideration is body count. It might just be that our opinions on this are different enough that it is pretty tough for me to understand your position given my point of view and vice-versa.
As for the second part of what you said, I probably need to give that some more thought since I guess I have not really considered that argument much. While this might not be super clear or anything, I feel like respecting other people's bodies after death is related to respecting them when they are living. I view it as being similar to how when someone enters a vegetative state he or she still has moral worth or how a person who is severely mentally disabled is still as valuable as a person even in the event that his or her disability reduces that person's brain functioning to being equivalent to that of an animal.
Icalasari,
Also, if one was at a point of starvation where cannibalism was the
only way to survive, I think an aversion to eating a corpse would probably be nigh on non existent
This may sound like a dumb question, but why do you believe surviving should be considered that important?
I could say that it's immoral to wear a hat indoors because it's undignified, but unless I make it clear how I think that's harmful, it's going to seem like a silly opinion that can't be argued against.
For the record, I was thinking of cannibalism as "killing other people to eat" (as distinct from anthropophagy, eating the bodies of the already-deceased, though this is obviously a distinction that exists mainly in my own head). And the thread's kind of moved past that at this point anyway. But if you'd prefer to address the question with the personally-unsavory-and-unacceptable act of your choice substituted for cannibalism, feel free.
I apologize for being unclear before. The human dignity that I mentioned earlier entails acknowledging that everyone has rights and worth. That is why I brought up the examples of people who suffer from extreme mental disabilities or who are in a vegetative state. Basically, I think that just seeing deceased people as "meat" makes it quite easy for someone to justify seeing those other types of people as less than human. I believe that is problematic partly because it can allow people to decide who should live or die based on who they see as "valuable" and partially for some more emotional reasons that are probably not going to be persuasive.
I understand that you might see that as a bit of a leap, so I have another reason for believing that cannibalism is morally wrong. I think that there is moral worth in setting out certain characteristics and moral principles that separate humans from other animals. I believe that such distinctions should be made in order to avoid treating people as mere animals because dehumanization can be used to justify really awful things like massacring people who are seen as "cockroaches" or feeling no grief when people pass away wrongfully. Humans not eating each other seems like something that distinguishes people from animals and so I believe that maintaining it as a moral principle can help discourage dehumanization.
Additionally, I believe that the best way to prevent killing humans for food is to say that it is morally wrong to eat humans in all circumstances. I think that it is much easier for someone to try to justify that kind of behavior when you set up exceptions and say that it is alright to take that action when doing so could prolong one's life.
Plus, I feel like placing that high a value on prolonging one's life has problems of its own. Namely, it gives no moral safeguard against doing stuff like robbing hundreds of people to pay for an incredibly expensive operation that might give you a one in a million chance of a cure or following a command to torture people because there is a chance that not doing so could lead to your death.
Most of the stuff in this thread is pretty pointless though since I think the type of situation we are talking about is very improbable. Basically, there would need to be people who otherwise would die of starvation who have no access to food, yet for some reason access to deceased human bodies that if eaten would prolong one's life significantly.
I prioritize higher net pleasure as more moral, with loose definitions of pleasure. I don't see the dead as beings worth including, since their senses and brain activity are gone and they can't experience pain or pleasure. I see the consumption of these bodies where it would save a life as moral in most cases since it extends the life of the survivor and presents him with greater opportunity to enjoy life and do good things for others.
I will go on to say that I find it arbitrary to value a practice or abstinence from a practice more highly because it is something that animals do not do. Humans are quite different from other animals, but we are still animals. We need not do things differently just to make us feel different, and this is sometimes unwise, since what occurs in nature is very often tried and true and applicable to us.
Only if you're psychic?
Everybody can play with artifacts.
I think this is starting to get to the point where we're getting at where we draw definitions of morality from.
I agree and at the very least I have found this discussion very interesting. I hope I have not sounded overly harsh or disrespectful in my approach here.
I prioritize higher net pleasure as more moral, with loose definitions of pleasure. I don't see the dead as beings worth including, since their senses and brain activity are gone and they can't experience pain or pleasure. I see the consumption of these bodies where it would save a life as moral in most cases since it extends the life of the survivor and presents him with greater opportunity to enjoy life and do good things for others.
I think I can understand the pragmatic reasons you present for allowing the consumption of human beings, but I feel like the situations in which they would apply are rare enough to make those reasons fairly unconvincing. In my view, the physical benefit of being able to live for a few more days is outweighed by the cost of having a system of morals that devalues the individual to that great of an extent.
From what I can tell, part of the disagreement here may be related to differing conceptions of the role of individuals and community or society. For example, it is probably true that some of my reasons for finding eating humans objectionable are based on my belief that individualism is incredibly important. As a result, the idea of having value just in the sense of your physical use to others seems a little weird to me.
I will go on to say that I find it arbitrary to value a practice or abstinence from a practice more highly because it is something that animals do not do. Humans are quite different from other animals, but we are still animals. We need not do things differently just to make us feel different, and this is sometimes unwise, since what occurs in nature is very often tried and true and applicable to us.
I think you are right about there being much to learn from animals. I also do not believe that human exceptionalism means that animals do not deserve respectful treatment in general. However, humans are very different from animals. After all, we would not be able to have this discussion if you were a cheetah or a horse. Thus, I find it strange to look for lessons about morality from beings that do not seem to possess the ability to think about such a subject.
In any event, I imagine you may not want to talk about this much more, so do not feel obligated to if you do not wish to continue.
I meant to put a "not" in between the "have" and "sounded" there. Sorry about that.
I know that sometimes I treat some ideas with a lot of disdain, but I don't mean for
that to signal disdain for the person if that's a fair distinction to make. I guess there are exceptions, but I'm not about to look down on someone for disagreeing with me if they're keeping an open mind, especially when something as subjective as morality is involved.
I definitely appreciate your reasonableness here and I hope I can be similarly reasonable. In order to be completely honest, it is probably worthwhile to mention that I am not a fan of moral relativism, so I might not see morality as being quite that subjective. Still, I certainly do not believe I have all of the answers either.
I just don't see a lifeless body having value as a person, in part because it can't perform actions to help others, but also because it can't experience anything. Even so, I still think that it can be important to respect the wishes of the dead, since honestly demonstrating to a living person that they can feel confident that something that they wish to occur after they die will occur can make them a happier person. But just as with living people, there's a limit to how reasonable a request can be. I think it's rather selfish to deprive someone of their life just so you can feel at ease for the short remainder of yours that your body won't be eaten.
I agree with you about respecting the wishes of the dead and I think it makes sense to have some kind of guidelines about how far those wishes can go. After all, people can probably think of some pretty ridiculous and/or impractical requests and honoring those would be problematic. However, I do not believe that saying that one does not want to be eaten after death is an outrageous request at all.
To make a long story short, I do not see why a person or community should have right to eat a human body because I do not see how one can morally justify that body becoming another person's property.
I'll agree that humans are different from other animals in some very important ways, but the fact that an action occurs more frequently in other parts of the animal kingdom doesn't seem to be especially significant in terms of morality. I don't think it should be taken as evidence as to whether it is moral or immoral.
Sorry, I think I kind of went off point a bit. My point about the difference between animals and humans concerning morality may have been a bit unclear. Essentially, I believe that it is a fact that people treat animals and humans differently today, especially in terms of the value they place on their individual lives. Now, you may find that differential treatment somewhat arbitrary, but I think the fact of the matter is that it exists in present day societies.
Given the differential treatment I just mentioned, I believe that adopting a system of morality that allows people to eat deceased humans just as they eat deceased animals (aside from its other negative consequences) will break down the animal/human treatment distinction in a problematic way.
People tend to treat animals significantly worse than humans in the sense that the way they view and interact with animals would be considered grave human rights abuses if they became the norm for their interactions with humans. For example, people call certain animals pests and exterminate them, they keep others in captivity indefinitely, they hunt them for sport, they perform tests on live animals, they raise them just as a food source, and they otherwise do not view the deaths of animals as being quite as tragic as the deaths of humans. You may or may not believe that it is acceptable to treat animals in such ways, but I think that it is true that many people believe it is acceptable.
One of my biggest concerns about blurring the human/animal distinction or calling it morally arbitrary is that it will ultimately justify treating humans, especially severely disabled people, in all of the ways that I just mentioned people treat animals.