Why is cannibalism morally wrong?

d_brennen said:
Constructive arguments do not go well with "your mother" jibes, outside of the playground at least.
Click to expand...

And niether do remarks about pleasuring other forum members genitalia either. If you can't take it, dont dish it out. Hypocrite much?

As a society we have collective morals, stuff which is either blooming obvious like "incest is bad for the species, so don't do it, m'kay?", murdering someone can have dire consequences on others, the sanctity of your home as your castle to the less obvious like eating other humans is just plain wrong. You have the issue that the lump of meat on your table was once someone's son, daughter, partner or parent, and all the emotional attachment to their physical remains from loved ones, to the issue of diseases being easily passed on by consuming your own kind. Adults, ****, even primary school children can see this.
Click to expand...

It's a shame you didnt enter the thread in such a way, instead of insulting others.

"incest is bad for the species, so don't do it, m'kay?"
Click to expand...

That doesn’t make it morally wrong. And considering a few posters have said they dont think incest is morally wrong, your assumption "primary school children can see this" falls flat on its face.

A lot of the collective morals are derived from religion; one point put forward was why Atheist’s find it morally wrong, as eating meat is just that eating meat. We have diseases that can be passed on from consuming animals, yet we still do and can be managed like it could be for any kind of meat.
 
Last edited:
Craterloads said:
And niether do remarks about pleasuring other forum members genitalia either. If you can't take it, dont dish it out. Hypocrite much?
Click to expand...

Reductio ad absurdum, kiddo. Google it, fool

Religion is not the source of morals lol

I'd say that incest is quite safely in the immoral camp

Immoral and moral are themselves so ephemeral and flimsy that the only thing required to change one to the other is time and place. In a thousand years it might be the norm to boff your sister but it isn't now, ok?
 
d_brennen said:
Reductio ad absurdum, kiddo. Google it, fool
Click to expand...

Ironically i think you have misunderstood the concept, and just blurted out something offensive, unknowingly. Hence my reaction, so best not practice that in the future.

Religion is not the source of morals lol
Click to expand...

Not the, but A source for morals. Read next time ;) And its a fact religion is a contributing factor to many of our morals. Lol

I'd say that incest is quite safely in the immoral camp
Click to expand...

That is your view, others disagree with you. Why is it immoral to you? I have my own reasons, why i believe it's immoral.

Immoral and moral are themselves so ephemeral and flimsy that the only thing required to change one to the other is time and place. In a thousand years it might be the norm to boff your sister but it isn't now, ok?
Click to expand...

Being the norm or being socially accepted is a related but seperate issue from morals.
 
Last edited:
Jason2 said:
Aren't we already inbreds already though? Also your wrong about the consequences of inbreeding. There might be a slight more chance of a baby developing an handicap, but no different from the average couple. All babies can be born with deformities, shall be ban heterosexual relationships too? You also make the mistake that two close relatives are engaging in sexual intercourse for reproduction. That might not be true. So, again, your argument falls short. From the atheistic point of view, you cannot say that incest is morally wrong. You just can't.
Click to expand...

You are wrong about genetics and wrong about what atheism is. As a result, your conclusion is also wrong.
 
what if in the future you could clone a full grown female copy of yourself with 100% same DNA. Then you had sex, would it be considered incest or masterbation?
 
[FnG]magnolia;23536044 said:
Your pseudo intelligent threads asking the 'challenging questions of the day' (c'mon, level with us - this is how you think of them, isn't it) often end with the same outcome : people who know far more about the subject than you giving up in exasperation because you either cannot or will not understand the responses they give you.

It is not their fault if you don't understand the answers you're being given. It is entirely your faulty if you ask questions which you have, at best, a shaky understanding of.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
 
[FnG]magnolia;23536443 said:
It wouldn't be the same DNA then, would it?
Click to expand...

Clones have the same DNA. Your DNA that you have right now inside your body contains the instructions on how to make a vagina but the vagina genes are just not activated.
 
Craterloads said:
Great, at least you have the **** to state your opinion, which i can respect.

On a side note, said specific hypothetical situation was created to stop people from squirming out from answering the question. You could remove the specifics, and ultimately from your answer i gather you are not morally against any incestual relationship, as long as both partners are consensual. As you would be with heterosexual partners and homosexual partners, I would assume your strict guidelines for a valid relationship also applies to them as similar situation arise in said relationships too and not just for incestual relationships.
Click to expand...

You could draw that inference but it's an extrapolation and as such is subject to all the problems inherent in extrapolations e.g. at the time of Elvis' death in 1957 there were 170 Elvis impersonators, by the year 2000 there were approximately 85,000 Elvis impersonators, if we extrapolate from that rate of growth then sometime around 2019 there will be approximately 2.5 billion Elvis impersonators or to put it another way around 1/3 of the World's population will be impersonating him. It's a possibility but not necessarily a likely one or a helpful one to base a working hypothesis on.

This seemingly constant drive from you to render the World into a binary state i.e. black/white, right/wrong allows you effectively no room for interpretation or an acceptance that the World with all the various beings in it might be more complex than you've allowed for. The motivators and influences that exist within the World often resist simple classification so I would hazard a guess that you will regularly be disappointed or confused by their refusal to conform to the most simple view of opposing states.

To explain a bit further as a private individual I have the luxury of not caring what people choose to do to or with each other where it is not harmful. This may well be different from my views and responsibilities as a member of society - in my role as a member of society I am well aware that most incestous relationships are harmful to the individuals involved and to society more generally plus have a much greater incidence of genetic abnormalities/morbidity in any offspring so for that reason I'd have to be against them. This position is in keeping with that of the wider society, I do not and will not agree with all positions society (as an amorphous group) takes but here I can understand and agree with the reasoning for the blanket rule so I support it as a member of the society.

You might be inclined to see a dichotomy here but it is perfectly possible to acknowledge that while an individual belief may be logically sound, in and of itself, it may not be an acceptable viewpoint for a society to hold. For example I can believe that the principle requirement for nationality is that you genuinely feel an attachment to the place and think of it as your home - that's completely unworkable currently (and perhaps always will be) as a basis for nationality so it could not be a viewpoint supported by nations.
 
This is quite possibly the most disturbing thread I've read on the internet to date.

So far we've had cannabilism, incest, homosexuality. How long until the inevitable mention of the Nazi's.
 
norm said:
This is quite possibly the most disturbing thread I've read on the internet to date.

So far we've had cannabilism, incest, homosexuality. How long until the inevitable mention of the Nazi's.
Click to expand...

I'm sure homosexuals would be delighted to be included in that list.
 
This entire discussion is fundamentally flawed!

Morals and Ethics simply do not exist in any objective sense, they are merely cultural costume jewellery.

Cannibalism has (And does) existed in many forms throughout the millennia. Sometimes it is about inflicting a final act of humiliation on a defeated enemy, Sometimes it is about survival, sometimes it is seen as a way of absorbing knowledge or strength, sometimes it is a sacred ceremony that allows the souls of the departed to continue to live within the surviving tribe. And This is only some of it!

Sometimes it is seen as a bad thing, sometimes a good and sometimes simply a necessity.

To attempt to ascribe some sort of fundamental moral significance to the act simply makes no sense and is basically irrelevent.
 
I thought cannibals shake after eating too much human meat.




Though that could just be from 'The Book of Eli'...
 
norm said:
This is quite possibly the most disturbing thread I've read on the internet to date.

So far we've had cannabilism, incest, homosexuality. How long until the inevitable mention of the Nazi's.
Click to expand...

Are you saying homosexuality is on par with cannibalism, incest and large scale genocide?
 
I have mooted Human black pudding in my office before now. Blood and Fat are legally obtainable, we're genetically very similar fleshwise to pigs.
Would you try it if it were made?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom