Why is cannibalism morally wrong?

[Craterloads]

I see what you mean, and this is why I am still unsure on the application of moral consideration in regard of incest and the ethical relativism of Cannibalism, I still think it is something that is more related to cultural and societal beliefs and taboos than being applicable to objective morality. This is what I was attempting to explain much early in the thread.

As for homosexuality, again I don't think it is a question of morality, but of custom. If the survival of the human race was impacted in any significant way then I may have a different opinion, but I do not think that homosexuality is currently comparable with either Cannibalism or Incest in regards to relative harm, either to the individual or to humanity at large.

Incest isnt going to impact the survival of the human race and niether is homosexuality.

You could say homosexuality is practiced in the natural world, yes so is incest.

You could say can have healthy children, yes so can these guys with the same methods used by same sex couples

You could say "as long as its not hurting anybody" you could say the same of these two as long as they are consenting.

As long as they love each other, yep

It's disgusting weird i hear you say, well don’t look then. Applies for both.

Aeroplanes are unnatural, yet you use them

Spreads aids (disease) where a condom, yep so can they

if everyone was gay we would be extinct, well not everyone’s gay or we can reproduce in other ways

Any other reason could be applied.

Anyhow tittering on a whole different topic, so best i stop.

 

[Craterloads]

I understand and accept what you believe, I was pointing out however that it is not that far removed from what others have been saying when they use justifications for their beliefs.

Difference being i felt they were reactionary positions that were technically incorrect. I suppose you could use my same logic that i'm applying to everyone elses rational and apply it to religion *if religion provided reasoning* sometimes it doesnt though, and can be a matter of "god knows best" but i get what your saying. For example if in a religious book states "it's not allowed because it's bad for the babies health" then one could use my line of reasoning and say well given todays tech, we could eliminate that possibilty.

I am surprised that you don't know some of those people were however, particularly Al Shafi'i and Abu Dawood particularly in relation to Islamic Law which you are using to inform your beliefs...I thought you were a Sunni, maybe I was mistaken.

Well i'm not very religous shall we say, i pray but that is about it right now.

 

[Castiel]

Difference being i felt they were reactionary positions that were technically incorrect. I suppose you could use my same logic that i'm applying to everyone elses rational and apply it to religion *if religion provided reasoning* sometimes it doesnt though, and can be a matter of "god knows best" but i get what your saying. For example if in a religious book states "it's not allowed because it's bad for the babies health" then one could use my line of reasoning and say well given todays tech, we could eliminate that possibilty.

I think this goes back to what I feel most people do in regards to such questions, they simply rely on tradition, culture and legislation...they rarely go beyond that to justify what they think about questions on subjects that don't affect them directly, such as cannibalism. Sometimes it is a matter of just because we can do a thing, doesn't mean we should do a thing.

Well i'm not very religous shall we say, i pray but that is about it right now.

Fair enough, but you might find it informative to understand why your religion says what it does, and also to see how different scholars and Imams interpret your faith and the laws that accompany it.

 

[Craterloads]

I think this goes back to what I feel most people do in regards to such questions, they simply rely on tradition, culture and legislation...they rarely go beyond that to justify what they think about questions on subjects that don't affect them directly, such as cannibalism. Sometimes it is a matter of just because we can do a thing, doesn't mean we should do a thing.

I get, it's not something people would put much thought into, hence the thread and people actually did put some thought into it. As far as I’m concerned though i don’t think there was anything said that was rational. Whilst people may fall onto tradition or culture if you asked them randomly on the street, fair enough. This isn’t the case and people have had the time to think about and come with their own reasons, which i find comparative to what people use to justify their opposition to homosexuality.

 

[Mickie]

hopefully im dead before you animals start wanting to eat people..

 

[RDM]

For example when opponents of homosexuality point out homosexuality is not normal or natural.

The typical answer you get is, homosexuality is practiced in the animal world? so is natural.

Something i found hypocritical from todays discussion with RDM was



He is perfectly willing to dismiss cannibalism as unnatural because as he says "isn't all that good for survival of the species" yet is willing to accept homosexuality which again isnt, just like cannibalism, isn't practiced that much because it "isn't all that good for survival of the species"

If you would like to point out where I said cannibalism or incest was unnatural? My argument was that it wasn't a common trait not that it didn't happen in the natural world.

Do you see what i mean? That is what i was getting at when i said the same answers that can be used to defend homosexuality can be used for cannibalism, and i find it hyprotical if you support one and not the other (more so with incest however). There are many similar quotes and hypocrisies i could highlight from todays debate.

The same goes for some reasoning why incest is not natural etc

Except I have always argued around harm rather than it being natural. Homosexuality does no harm. Incest and cannibalism do (even if you choose to ignore it for whatever reason). A stark difference and the reason behind differing views.

 

[jake9891]

It's wrong from my point of view. We are emotionally attached to people and it would feel wrong to eat them, I am sure you wouldn't eat members of your family or even your pet(s),because of that emotional attachment. Even if someone is a stranger to you, that person has/had people that care what happens with the body of the person they liked/loved and it would be morally wrong to eat them