Why is cannibalism morally wrong?

[Craterloads]

Was just thinking, why is cannibalism actually morally wrong?

If you're a person of religion, you could say and it is, against your religion.

Anyhow putting religion aside, surely it's just a waste of meat, considering the mass food shortages around the world?

It's perfectly natural, considering cannibalism is widely practised in the animal world.

There are no negative effects from eating human meat, as far as I know? You're not going to turn into some horrid mutated creature from the movies. It’s healthy and nutritious. I can’t see any medical reasons not too.

Only thing I can think of is permission. Surely once dead, who cares? Once dead does our body actually belong to us? We don’t ask animals for their permission when we eat them. That aside many people may actually voluntarily give away their bodies prior to death, for consumption.

As an atheist, why do you see it as morally wrong? (Obviously aimed at atheists)

In general, do you think it’s morally wrong and why? Or if not why?

 

[Craterloads]

It is only mildly justified if the person died of natural causes, you are stuck without food somewhere and there is no one else around.

Any other time is...not good.

Why not? some died in a car crash, eat. Natural causes, eat?

 

[Craterloads]

Creepy, ya animals do the nasty with sisters to sometimes. You want to do that with your sister????

No, but would that even be morally wrong if both parties are consenting adults, with no pressure or dominant persons?

 

[Craterloads]

I imagine the genome is too similar and the body might think it is eating itself.

Is that just something you think or is there any scientific proof of such?

 

[Craterloads]

Alive. That was a true story too. I think it was the Uruguayan rugby team or something. Some of the survivors met those Chilean miners when they were rescued from that collapsed mine.

Also, I don't think cannibalism is actually a crime in this country.

Legal status is one thing, morally another.

 

[Craterloads]

You wouldn't really want to eat something or someone that has just died randomly or been in an accident.
So to get the meat you'd have to kill someone, i guess that's were it gets morally wrong.

Not really, millions of people die everyday and there are perfectly good avenues of obtaining human meat without killing.

 

[Craterloads]

Atheists are always telling me as long as two homosexuals are consenting then homosexuality itself is not wrong. I thought very well, and brought to their attention the case of Armin Meiwes. He ate someone who consented to being ate. Yet Armin Meiwes was arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment. I have asked the atheists numerous times to tell me why such an act is wrong if they were both consenting yet I've never heard one give me a good reason why. I can say it's truly wrong from my perspective, but atheists can certainly not, and that is a dangerous viewpoint.

The same could be said regarding incest.

If two adult brothers, both consenting, neither a dominant personality and 100% out of their own free will and desire decide to have an incestual relationship, why is it morally wrong?

You, a Christian, would say it’s against your religion.

An atheist, ??

 

[Craterloads]

• Why does poo smell?
• Can you eat electricity?
• How does the colour red sound to you?

Is this what you want?

If you think topic is rubbish, then do one? You dont have to post here do you?

 

[Craterloads]

That brings me to another point: Why is incest wrong?

See post above

The same could be said regarding incest.

If two adult brothers, both consenting, neither a dominant personality and 100% out of their own free will and desire decide to have an incestual relationship, why is it morally wrong?

You, a Christian, would say it’s against your religion.

An atheist, ??

 

[Craterloads]

Incest has consequences associated with inbreeding. Which is reason enough on its own.

Not if they are homosexual incesters!

 

[Craterloads]

In Craterloads' example there would be no offspring to potentially suffer from a lack of genetic variety but it is still something that society would normally condemn.

Why

 

[Craterloads]

You would still have the issue of coercion, even if both siblings were outwardly consensual you cannot assume that were was not coercion. This is why incest often runs not only to siblings, but to step-siblings, adopted and foster siblings as well. (As well as other family members of course).

Ok if there was none of that, like i said 100% of freewill and desire?

 

[Craterloads]

Are you asking why society would condemn such a relationship? It's probably as simple a reason as over time it has been deemed unacceptable, that may be partly because of the risk of genetic abnormalities, partly the fiduciary relationship and partly because it is not something that society wanted to encourage.

In regards to why would it be morally wrong. Two consenting brothers, with no coercion, pressure or anything else decide to embark on a relationship, would it be morrally wrong? Theres no genetic abnormalities to worry about or fiduciary relationships concerns, just love.

 

[Craterloads]

I wouldn't find that morally wrong... but it would be ****ing weird.

I find it ****** weird you dont think it's morally wrong. And why would it be weird? as opposed to normal homosexuals?

Anyhow, do one surely. What are you still doing here?

 

[Craterloads]

It's not usual for brothers and sisters to sexually desire each other.

:'(

It's not usual/common or normal to be homosexual in comparison to heterosexuals, yet that wouldn’t be weird.

Anyhow regardless, you wouldn't have a moral issue with it, so kind of answered.

 

[Craterloads]

Then it would simply be down to cultural and societal taboos and behaviour. Has anyone every read Time Enough For Love by Robert Heinlein?

So you dont think it is wrong? or morally wrong?

 

[Craterloads]

It is ethically relativistic, as many broadly applied moral taboos are. Personally I haven't really given it enough thought, however I would say that the problem would be ensuring a fully equitable relationship between the two (or more) individuals, also I am not sure we can even consider Incest in moralistic terms, it is more about societal taboos.

Why do we apply such a standard for one relation yet not for others? These things happen all the time with heterosexual couples, yet it seems we are unfairly holding incestrial couples to a much higher standard.

It's quite a simple question really, which you have consistently avoided to answer. I'm sure last year on the same subject you answered you’re "morally ambiguous" on the matter, which is pretty much as good as sitting on the fence. Not sure even if its a question that requires much thought.

Well it could be said it's a bit of both, but one could say some social taboos are derived from moralistic values to begin with.

 

[Craterloads]

I have answered it, it is ethical relativistic. Just because you don't accept or understand the answer is your problem, not mine, I'm not getting to a personal tete a tete just because you want me to say what you want me to say.

Finally I would guess that it depends on the specific example and context and like I said I have not given it enough thought so I personally remain ambivalent on whether incest is ultimately morally wrong objectively, I suspect it is as I said, ethically relativistic given the myriad of different attitudes in different soctirs both today and historically.

I mentioned Time Enough For Love for a reason.

I'm not about to be off and read a book to find out you're answer.

It's a simple yes or no question, which from your last post i gather you're not willing to answer. Hinting and skirting around an answer, doesnt qualify im afraid.

 

[Craterloads]

Not everything can be easily answered with a yes or a no. The world is more complicated than that.

Nitefly managed to fine enough, if you cant offer your own personal opinion on the matter without interference from other aspects, is rather poor.

 

[Craterloads]

The book deals with ethical relativism, particularly in regards to incestuous relationships and how they are defined when there is relatively little harm on the procreation front. It isn't my answer, it is an example of the relative nature of what you are asking.

And I gave you my answer, it was a qualified answer with my reasoning why it was my answer. You asked if homosexual incest was wrong, or morally wrong. I said it was ethically relativistic, it depends on societal taboos and traditions, I also stated that personally I have not given the issue enough thought to give an informed objective answer on whether I would say it was morally wrong or not as I am not not really convinced it can be assessed by an objective morality, at least not easily.

Do you think it is morally right or wrong?

I said it was ethically relativistic, it depends on societal taboos and traditions,

That's not an answer though, for you personally.

Anyhow seems you would rather go around in circles then answering a simply question by deflecting elsewhere, so i wont bother trying to get a straight answer from you.

I would answer, it is morally wrong without hesitation.