Why is cannibalism morally wrong?

[Craterloads]

Neither cannibalism or incest are widely practiced in the animal world. Primarily for health reasons. It does happen but there are very few species that practice it regularly, especially higher order species.

I would say cannibalism is, a simple Google will show you that. Like you said it does happen and it is common, so not unnatural. Lions are known to eat their own cubs.

How much more unnatural is homosexuality to incest?

It isn't a non-issue at all. Diseases from animals are not actually all that easily transmitted cross species, but the closer you get genetically then the more risk there is. HIV is thought to have passed to humans via eating infected monkey meat for example. Whilst we would have the ability to test for a lot of diseases you would make meat prohibitively expensive and have no real chance of catching all diseases. Cow spinal material is still banned due to the risk of CJD as an example.

Is there any proof to suggest the closer we are genetically the greater the risk is? (not questioning your statement, just interested)

Some also think gay people were responsible for HIV at one point. In fact we have no clue where HIV came from. Have there been any studies showing diseases being past from consuming cooked human meat? Expense doesn’t negate the fact it’s preventable and easily too. Furthermore i disagree that it would be expensive or make the meat expensive, mass done like we currently do with animals.

Then you have the social harm that will arise from classifying human flesh just as "meat". Lessening the opinion of people and making them another commodity, even more so than they are now.

I can agree with this, but ultimatly it is just that. Will either be burnt or rot in the ground.

The fact that there are medical advances that can help mitigate the risk doesn't mean the risk isn't there. All those medical advances aren't stopping the increased incidence of genetic diseases in the Asian community due to the cultural habit of marrying first cousins as an example.

Well like i said, many options are available, which we forget conveniently for something we class as weird. Furthermore many of the advancements have come within the last few years, so is unfair to use statistics of children born before this time. Would be interesting seeing statistics of children of today, whose parents have sought professional advice and help. Ultimately in said relationships if the proper precautions are taken chances of healthy children increase, it’s a simple matter of not receiving that professional care. And as above other options exist, including adopting, insemination etc.

You are aware that anecdote is not the plural of data aren't you? Very few cases would arise where there isn't the possibility of abuse of trust, are they worth the risk of allowing incestuous relationships? Your black crime analogy is spurious because the vast majority of black people are not criminals.

It's not the actual allowing, since is legal in many countries. Maybe not a good analogy but I’m sure you get the point. And I’m sure you’re aware not all incestual relations are based on an abuse of trust? So why tar them all with the same brush? Like i said, case by case.

I actually find the first point to be quite scary to be honest. "It is wrong because my religion says so." is a horrible reason to be against something. It shows a lack of ability to think for yourself and come to your own conclusions.

I never said it's a good one, i said i understand.

 

[dpbadger]

I have always thought of making my own black pudding from my blood. My wife thinks I am weird for suggesting it. (This is in survival situations only).

 

[RDM]

I would say cannibalism is, a simple Google will show you that. Like you said it does happen and it is common, so not unnatural. Lions are known to eat their own cubs.

Not for food though. Cannibalism for food is a pretty unusual trait in the animal kingdom. Primarily because animals that practiced it wouldn't be high up on the evolutionary survival rate.

How much more unnatural is homosexuality to incest?

You need to make you your mind, is incest unnatural or not? You seem to be saying it is and it isn't. The comparison between the two? No idea, but genetically it is bad form to breed too closely related animals.

Is there any proof to suggest the closer we are genetically the greater the risk is? (not questioning your statement, just interested)

Yes, plenty, google it if you want.

Some also think gay people were responsible for HIV at one point.

And they were wrong.

In fact we have no clue where HIV came from.

We do, from Simian Immunodeficiency Virus.

Have there been any studies showing diseases being past from consuming cooked human meat? Expense doesn’t negate the fact it’s preventable and easily too. Furthermore i disagree that it would be expensive or make the meat expensive, mass done like we currently do with animals.

There have already been several links in this thread to diseases caused by cannibalism, why are you ignoring them? Also how on earth could the extensive testing and preparation not make it more expensive? Your last idea is laughable. Exactly how do we "mass farm" human beings for meat without massive human rights issues?

I can agree with this, but ultimatly it is just that. Will either be burnt or rot in the ground.

Except of course those bodies would be mostly useless for us, much like we don't generally eat old animals or animals that have died of diseases. Virtually all of our meat is slaughtered specifically for consumption.

It really does seem that you are now making up reasons as to why cannibalism isn't a bad thing other than because God tells you so.

Well like i said, many options are available, which we forget conveniently for something we class as weird. Furthermore many of the advancements have come within the last few years, so is unfair to use statistics of children born before this time. Would be interesting seeing statistics of children of today, whose parents have sought professional advice and help. Ultimately in said relationships if the proper precautions are taken chances of healthy children increase, it’s a simple matter of not receiving that professional care. And as above other options exist, including adopting, insemination etc.

The chances of healthy children do not increase, the chance of a child with an abnormality is exactly the same, the only thing that would increase would be the number of abortions and the number of children being born deformed.

It's not the actual allowing, since is legal in many countries. Maybe not a good analogy but I’m sure you get the point. And I’m sure you’re aware not all incestual relations are based on an abuse of trust? So why tar them all with the same brush? Like i said, case by case.

OK, feel free to design a law that allows incestuous relationships whilst stopping all of the abusive ones.

 

[Craterloads]

Not for food though. Cannibalism for food is a pretty unusual trait in the animal kingdom. Primarily because animals that practiced it wouldn't be high up on the evolutionary survival rate.

Cannibalism is a common ecological interaction in the animal kingdom and has been recorded for more than 1500 species.[1] It does not, as once believed, occur only as a result of extreme food shortages or artificial conditions, but commonly occurs under natural conditions in a variety of species.[1][2][3] Cannibalism seems to be especially prevalent in aquatic communities, in which up to approximately 90% of the organisms engage in cannibalism at some point of the life cycle. Cannibalism is also not restricted to carnivorous species, but is commonly found in herbivores and detritivores.[2]

Common and perfectly natural

However, a number of studies over the past decade have revealed that cannibalism is surprisingly widespread across the animal kingdom. Groups that occasionally eat members of their own species range from lowly protozoa, slime molds, and sea slugs to insects, spiders, fish, reptiles (including dinosaurs; dinosaur bones have been found bearing the teeth marks of their kind), amphibians, birds, and at least 100 species of mammals, such as hamsters, rats, squirrels, bats, seals and sea lions, otters, polar and grizzly bears, lions, tigers, and chimpanzees. Researchers in New Zealand have even found the remains of a giant squid tentacle within the stomach of another giant squid-evidence that it either ate its compatriot, or accidentally ingested itself. Either option, scientists say, is cannibalism.

You need to make you your mind, is incest unnatural or not? You seem to be saying it is and it isn't. The comparison between the two? No idea, but genetically it is bad form to breed too closely related animals.

Point being if homosexuality is perfectly normal and natural so is incest. In fact chimpanzees (a close relative of us) is known to practice incest. There is a plethora of information and studies documenting incest in the animal world, and as i have shown earlier has been practiced for millennia in humans.

Whats your take on adopting and insemination for these couples?

Yes, plenty, google it if you want.

It was your statement, but never mind.

And they were wrong.


We do, from Simian Immunodeficiency Virus.

And so could the monkey eating business, as like you said is simply just a "thought". In fact over the years the idea has arisen, debunked and arisen again.

There have already been several links in this thread to diseases caused by cannibalism, why are you ignoring them? Also how on earth could the extensive testing and preparation not make it more expensive? Your last idea is laughable. Exactly how do we "mass farm" human beings for meat without massive human rights issues?

Like i said expense doesn’t make something wrong. Heck there are plenty of millionaires out there. And like with everything else humans do, I’m sure we are capable of bringing the cost down and making the process more efficient. None of this effects the point anyway.

Except of course those bodies would be mostly useless for us, much like we don't generally eat old animals or animals that have died of diseases. Virtually all of our meat is slaughtered specifically for consumption.

There are many options available, donors for instance.

It really does seem that you are now making up reasons as to why cannibalism isn't a bad thing other than because God tells you so.

To me it seems like you are running out of justifcations to say its wrong, when nature, science and everthing else states otherwise. Everything you have stated has a variety of options making them a non issue, and it IS perfectly natural.

The chances of healthy children do not increase, the chance of a child with an abnormality is exactly the same, the only thing that would increase would be the number of abortions and the number of children being born deformed.

And thats a good thing. End result less children being born deformed. Thats the whole point. With proper medical care these deformities can be detected and aborted at an early stage, perfectly ethical and normal. Happens all the time with non incestual couples. And like ive said a dozen times there are a host of other options available, the same ones that are available to homosexual couples. Non issue.

OK, feel free to design a law that allows incestuous relationships whilst stopping all of the abusive ones.

The law doesn't interfere with wether something is morally wrong or right, should not be confused. As spoffle put it

Legal doesn't mean "right", I think more people should learn this.

 

[RDM]

Common and perfectly natural

Notice I said "Higher order species" earlier. There are very few mammals that practice cannibalism on a regular basis because of the health risks and the fact that it isn't all that good for survival of the species. When it does happen with mammals it tends to be for other reasons or in cases of extreme depravation.

Whats your take on adopting and insemination for these couples?

What's your take on the likelihood of incestuous relationships taking all the necessary precautions.

And so could the monkey eating business, as like you said is simply just a "thought". In fact over the years the idea has arisen, debunked and arisen again.

It isn't a "thought", HIV did not spontaneously arise due to homosexuality. It came to western notice in gay communities first but that certainly wasn't the case in Africa. The science is pretty strong when it comes to the link between SIV and HIV, it hasn't been debunked. But feel free to ignore anything that doesn't fit your view.

Like i said expense doesn’t make something wrong. Heck there are plenty of millionaires out there. And like with everything else humans do, I’m sure we are capable of bringing the cost down and making the process more efficient. None of this effects the point anyway.


There are many options available, donors for instance.

So if we ignore the health impact, ignore the cost implications and ignore the human rights issues of farming humans then there is no problem with cannibalism?

To me it seems like you are running out of justifcations to say its wrong, when nature, science and everthing else states otherwise. Everything you have stated has a variety of options making them a non issue, and it IS perfectly natural.

It seems more like you are ignoring justifications. Why? I have no idea. On the plus side at least we have finally made inroads into your homophobia and you are happily admitting homosexuality is a perfectly natural thing to do.

And thats a good thing. End result less children being born deformed. Thats the whole point. With proper medical care these deformities can be detected and aborted at an early stage, perfectly ethical and normal. Happens all the time with non incestual couples. And like ive said a dozen times there are a host of other options available, the same ones that are available to homosexual couples. Non issue.

Except it is an issue because, as can be proven with the Asian community, even when the increased risks are known people still ignore them.

The law doesn't interfere with wether something is morally wrong or right, should not be confused. As spoffle put it

No, but the law does currently protect vulnerable people from being exploited, you want to change that then come up with a law that works.

 

[uk_unbeliever]

I've not read the whole thread so might be going over old ground but people seem to be arguing about whether some of these things are legal or practical more than whether they are 'wrong'.


If you're asking for an argument why cannibalism (which involves no significant health consequences, doesn't upset other people to a greater degree than the cannibal benefits, doesn't involve deception, murder, manipulation etc, doesn't detriment the human species and could also meet these criteria if everyone turned cannibal) is wrong then I have no good arguments off the top of my head. I would doubt though that much cannibalism would meet these criteria. If it did meet these criteria I don't think any moral systems would find it wrong.


One interesting point possibly already discussed amongst the 'I ate your mum' comments is: assuming a person dies unrelated to any action of the cannibal, does any previous wish of the dead person hold any moral weight now they have no consciousness. In a weird way I guess a religious perspective should care little what happens to a body once the 'soul' is no longer there.

 

[Castiel]

To me it seems like you are running out of justifcations to say its wrong, when nature, science and everthing else states otherwise. Everything you have stated has a variety of options making them a non issue, and it IS perfectly natural.

Killing is perfectly natural, is that also right?

Incidently I have been looking into Cannibalism and European attitudes to it, and it appears that it is a recent ethical consideration, with people drinking human blood and making potions and other items from human skulls, brains, bones and fat. The practice died out during the 19th and early 20th Century when Science began to discover the issues with consuming human remains and attitudes changed culturally.

 

[uk_unbeliever]

Killing is perfectly natural, is that also right?

Killing is not right in most moral systems, either absolutely or in most situations, for reasons that don't necessarily apply to cannibalism. e.g it is not rational that it's ok for everyone to kill, but there doesn't seem a clear argument why that would be the case for eating an already dead person. The 'wrong' part could though be in how that person became dead!

 

[Castiel]

Killing is not right in most moral systems, either absolutely or in most situations, for reasons that don't necessarily apply to cannibalism. e.g it is not rational that it's ok for everyone to kill, but there doesn't seem a clear argument why that would be the case for eating an already dead person. The 'wrong' part could though be in how that person became dead!

However, Craterloads is suggesting that if it is natural, that is therefore you cannot justify it being wrong. Well, killing is perfectly natural, for a whole myriad of reasons, least of all Natural Selection particularly infanticide. No-one is suggesting that killing children either to ensure the success of your own offspring, or killing your own offspring to ensure only positive selection moves into the evolutionary chain is justified are they?

And that is the point, just because something is natural and happens in the Animal Kingdom doesn't justify it being a moral act.

Eating an already dead person has some specific issues, notably with Prion Diseases and Central Nervous System degenerative diseases such as Parkinson's. This also doesn't include issues such as cross-contamination/infection between species is quite difficult, between the same species it is extremely easy. There are also other more ethereal concerns such as the Rights of the Deceased and their Families, Cultural ethical values and beliefs. Of course, in the same way that Killing someone can be morally justified in certain circumstances without Killing being morally acceptable in all cases, the same can apply to Cannibalism.

And this is the problem, there is no objective definitive moral statement that can be applied in a blanket way. As I said earlier, it is Ethically Relativistic.

 

[Craterloads]

Notice I said "Higher order species" earlier. There are very few mammals that practice cannibalism on a regular basis because of the health risks and the fact that it isn't all that good for survival of the species. When it does happen with mammals it tends to be for other reasons or in cases of extreme depravation.

Did you miss the quotes or something?

studies over the past decade have revealed that cannibalism is surprisingly widespread across the animal kingdom.

It's practiced by a variety or animals including "higher order species" and done for a variety of reasons. Whether it's done consistently is not the point, point being it is done and is normal in the wild. And has also been practiced in humans for millennia.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16081214
http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/when-polar-bears-attack-other-polar-bears.htm

What's your take on the likelihood of incestuous relationships taking all the necessary precautions.

They are people after all and just like any loving parents would want the best for their children. And as mentioned early if the taboo surrounding the subject which is simply perpetuating the problem was removed, more incestual parents would have the courage to receive the necessary treatment or care. Do you not agree?

It isn't a "thought", HIV did not spontaneously arise due to homosexuality. It came to western notice in gay communities first but that certainly wasn't the case in Africa. The science is pretty strong when it comes to the link between SIV and HIV, it hasn't been debunked. But feel free to ignore anything that doesn't fit your view.

Maybe the term debunked threw you. Maybe should have said the idea has arisen before, replaced and arisen again. But like you say the science is sound for now so will happily accept that. A: Bush meat isn’t human meat and B: furthermore diseases can easily be identified and prevented from entering the human food source.

So if we ignore the health impact, ignore the cost implications and ignore the human rights issues of farming humans then there is no problem with cannibalism?

Farming humans? Who said anything about farming humans? There is no health impact with precautionary measures as we already deploy in eating animals, the costs does not affect weather it is right or wrong, and further as mentioned the costs you claim haven’t even been established. Not ignoring the fact we humans are good at bringing costs down and not forgetting there are many who could afford this hypothetical cost.

It seems more like you are ignoring justifications. Why? I have no idea. On the plus side at least we have finally made inroads into your homophobia and you are happily admitting homosexuality is a perfectly natural thing to do.

You have no justifications, and somehow because you are running out of options we are discussing something as ludicrous as costs because you have nothing else to offer. And as mentioned numerous times cost does not determine if something is wrong or right. Not ignoring the fact humans are notorious for making things make efficient and cost effective and not ignoring the fact many can simply afford it.

Except it is an issue because, as can be proven with the Asian community, even when the increased risks are known people still ignore them.

Statistics of children being born now would be nice or simply you are just making stuff up, as i mentioned the tech is fairly new. We have the technology, you have acknowledged this, and there is no sound reason why these risks shouldn’t be eradicated. And ill state it again, there are a myriad of options available if there is an apparent danger to the child. As i mentioned earlier, if there wasn’t a taboo surrounding the subject then maybe people would more willingly seek the help they need. Non-issue

No, but the law does currently protect vulnerable people from being exploited, you want to change that then come up with a law that works.

Not sure where you got the idea that i want to change the law? The law doesn’t making something wrong or right. Yes people get exploited, but why should two consenting adults be persecuted as a result of you thinking it’s weird? Whatever two people get up to (sexually wise), at their own discretion is none of your or the laws concern.

 

[Craterloads]

However, Craterloads is suggesting that if it is natural, that is therefore you cannot justify it being wrong. Well, killing is perfectly natural, for a whole myriad of reasons, least of all Natural Selection particularly infanticide. No-one is suggesting that killing children either to ensure the success of your own offspring, or killing your own offspring to ensure only positive selection moves into the evolutionary chain is justified are they?

And that is the point, just because something is natural and happens in the Animal Kingdom doesn't justify it being a moral act.

Quite simply that's not what i have said, nor have i used it as a justification. In fact it's the opposite with people saying it's unnatural and shouldn't be allowed or thats why it is wrong. With me merely pointing out that is in fact incorrect and is perfectly natural.

 

[edscdk]

The thought of it makes me feel a bit sick to be honest... It's human nature not to cannibalise. It's one of the many ways that makes us different from animals.

we are animals.. we are jsut a bit smarter than other animals... you will eat a person if there is nothing else to eat... (well most probably will, and it also assumes they don't kill /eat you first)

 

[Craterloads]

In a weird way I guess a religious perspective should care little what happens to a body once the 'soul' is no longer there.

Incorrect, in Islam it is believed the body feels everything after death and it is recommended to handle the body with care. Autopsies are a major issue because of this fact. I would assume other Abrahamic faiths share a similar view regarding the dead, so on a whole simply incorrect.

 

[Castiel]

Quite simply that's not what i have said, nor have i used it as a justification. In fact it's the opposite with people saying it's unnatural and shouldn't be allowed or thats why it is wrong. With me merely pointing out that is in fact incorrect and is perfectly natural.

Yet you seem to be suggesting that you cannot determine that without some kind of external authority...Allah and the Qu'ran in your case (although is there any actual prohibition in the Qu'ran, or is it merely implied), and just because something happens in the Animal Kingdom, it doesn't follow that Humans would find it acceptable, even within the Animal Kingdom not all species act in the same way and you cannot objectively determine anything about human morality from the Animal Kingdom.

You are saying that other people's reasons are insufficient and are not fully reasoned or based on flawed concepts, without explaining your own, what reasoning do you have?

 

[Craterloads]

Yet you seem to be suggesting that you cannot determine that without some kind of external authority...Allah and the Qu'ran in your case.

You are saying that other people's reasons are insufficient and are not fully reasoned or based on flawed concepts, without explaining your own, what reasoning do you have?

No not at all, i never stated such and i don’t believe that to be the case. Just interested, like i said earlier, in hearing people's actual opinions on the matter after we get past "it's weird" and the justications that are not justifications when broken down. Also i saw a similarity in attitudes towards homosexual relationships and its justifications as similar to that, that can be made for incestual relationships. The whole "if it isn’t hurting anyone one, who cares" should apply in both cases.

My own opinion on the matter, as I have all ready stated, i find both morally wrong because of my religion.

 

[Castiel]

No not at all, i never stated such and i don’t believe that to be the case. Just interested, like i said earlier, in hearing people's actual opinions on the matter after we get past "it's weird" and the justications that are not justifications when broken down. Also i saw a similarity in attitudes towards homosexual relationship and its there justifications as similar to that, that can be made for incestual relationships. The whole "if it isn’t hurting anyone one, who cares" should apply in both cases.

I doubt most people have really considered it, and just conform to the cultural ethics they are born into. I am increasingly of the opinion that cannibalism is generally wrong, but can be justified depending upon the circumstances, in the same way killing can be. Incest, I am not sure can even be objectively justified or condemned purely on ethics, again I think it is contextual. Homosexuality I feel is simply not comparable to either Incest or Cannibalism.

My own opinion on the matter, as I have all ready stated, i find both morally wrong because of my religion.

How does your religion justify it being morally wrong?

 

[Craterloads]

I doubt most people have really considered it, and just conform to the cultural ethics they are born into. I am increasingly of the opinion that cannibalism is generally wrong, but can be justified depending upon the circumstances, in the same way killing can be.


How does your religion justify it being morally wrong?

Dont know, simply says it is.

 

[Castiel]

Dont know, simply says it is.

Do you not think it is incumbent on you to find out how your morality is justified through your religion?

If I may, I will give you the words of Dr Shehzad Saleem, an Islamic Scholar with the Al-Mawrid Foundation.

Question:
I would be grateful if you could enlighten us on the subject of cannibalism and Islam.

Answer:

Islam has not made a comprehensive list of edibles which are prohibited to consume simply because human nature (if not perverted) instinctively knows what to eat and what not to eat. The innate guidance Islam provides human beings in this regard is enough to show them the way. As per this inborn instinctive guidance eating human flesh is something which is a detestable and abhorrent practice.


According then to Dr Saleem, Humans have an inborn instinctive natural abhorrence to eating Human Flesh. We simply innately know it is wrong......well, that would surely apply to all Human Beings, not only Muslims, I mean a Muslim is not another species after all.

So your justification applies to everyone, regardless of whether they are religious.

 

[Craterloads]

I doubt most people have really considered it, and just conform to the cultural ethics they are born into. I am increasingly of the opinion that cannibalism is generally wrong, but can be justified depending upon the circumstances, in the same way killing can be. Incest, I am not sure can even be objectively justified or condemned purely on ethics, again I think it is contextual. Homosexuality I feel is simply not comparable to either Incest or Cannibalism.

I find the way homosexuality is justified is similar to that of why incest could be justified given the right circumstances. For example

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-557600/Father-daughter-baby-30-year-separation.html

Who can really justify the above is wrong?


Cannibalism is not related to incest or homosexuality so is not comparable and is a seperate issue.

 

[Craterloads]

If I may, I will give you the words of Dr Shehzad Saleem, an Islamic Scholar with the Al-Mawrid Foundation.

Question:
I would be grateful if you could enlighten us on the subject of cannibalism and Islam.

Answer:

Islam has not made a comprehensive list of edibles which are prohibited to consume simply because human nature (if not perverted) instinctively knows what to eat and what not to eat. The innate guidance Islam provides human beings in this regard is enough to show them the way. As per this inborn instinctive guidance eating human flesh is something which is a detestable and abhorrent practice.


According then to Dr Saleem, Humans have an inborn instinctive natural abhorrence to eating Human Flesh. We simply innately know it is wrong......well, that would surely apply to all Human Beings, not only Muslims, I mean a Muslim is not another species after all.

So your justification applies to everyone, regardless of whether they are religious.

Maybe, we believe god provided animals and certain animals on this planet for consumption. That didnt include humans.

Plus i dont know who that guy is or how it reflects on people who are not followers of islam. But the above of being provided certain animals is point enough.

Do you not think it is incumbent on you to find out how your morality is justified through your religion?

As the saying goes, God knows best.