Why is cannibalism morally wrong?

Castiel, numerous studies have been done and there is only around 2% higher chance of a baby developing an abnormality in incest relations compared to the average couple. This alone is not reason for you to say it's wrong. If you believe it is, then why not ban disabled people from having children, or people with hereditary diseases or women over 40? No one ever says they are wrong.

So again, why is incest wrong?

I find it amusing that atheists reject objective moral values yet live as if they do exist.
 
Castiel said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
If they put some of that sauce they put onto the McDonalds Big Tasty burgers then I would gladly eat someone...

On a serious note, it all depends on the situation, animals kill other animals to survive, if you were put into the situation where eating someone (who consented on death) guaranteed your survival I'm sure most would do it... Just like I'm almost certain that if you offered animals a decent meal they wouldn't resort to eating each other :D
 
Jason2 said:
Castiel, numerous studies have been done and there is only around 2% higher chance of a baby developing an abnormality in incest relations compared to the average couple. This alone is not reason for you to say it's wrong. If you believe it is, then why not ban disabled people from having children, or people with hereditary diseases or women over 40? No one ever says they are wrong.

So again, why is incest wrong?

I find it amusing that atheists reject objective moral values yet live as if they do exist.
Click to expand...

I'm not an atheist, again!!!

Sorry you are incorrect, the incidence for genetic abnormalities etc is sufficient that society legislates for it, not to mention the greater issues of coercion and negative influence on close family members.

Societies have often tried to stop the disabled from having children, societies including our own often debate the issue of older mothers, whether genetic screening is ethical and so on....however it is not simply a single ethical consideration, but one relative to society and their taboos, including religious objections which almost always are in opposition to screening and terminations.
 
Last edited:
Craterloads said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 into 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 societies both today and historically.

I mentioned Time Enough For Love for a reason.
 
Last edited:
[FnG]magnolia;23534311 said:
Wiki by the look of it.
Click to expand...

It is a shame then that he can't assimilate information very well:

wiki said:
A 1994 study found a mean excess mortality with inbreeding among first cousins of 4.4%. Children of parent-child or sibling-sibling unions are at increased risk compared to cousin-cousin unions. Studies suggest that 20-36% of these children will die or have major disability due to the inbreeding. A study of 29 offspring resulting from brother-sister or father-daughter incest found that 20 had congenital abnormalities, including four directly attributable to autosomal recessive alleles.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to figure out why certain people are trying to justify incest one way or another.....particularly as this was about Cannabalism..:eek::p
 
Castiel said:
I'm trying to figure out why certain people are trying to justify incest one way or another.....particularly as this was about Cannabalism..:eek::p
Click to expand...

With this and the over thread recently on morals there do seem to be certain posters that really do need to continue believing in God for all our sakes!
 
Castiel said:
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.
Click to expand...

:D 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 said:
:D 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.
Click to expand...

Not everything can be easily answered with a yes or a no. The world is more complicated than that.
 
Craterloads said:
:D I'm not about to be off and read a book to find out you're answer.

Its 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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Craterloads said:
Why not? some died in a car crash, eat. Natural causes, eat?
Click to expand...

Because when you get a taste of it, you might then decide it's a good idea to start killing so you have a supply of quality meat. We don't eat animals who die of natural causes. We'd be worried there was something wrong with them and we're not that nice about carnivorism.

Either way, this is the worst "I wanna eat people" thread yet.
 
Castiel said:
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?
Click to expand...

I said it was ethically relativistic, it depends on societal taboos and traditions,
Click to expand...

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.
 
[FnG]magnolia;23534513 said:
You mean other sources which might and perhaps should inform your personal opinion?

You're not the brightest, are you darling?
Click to expand...

Huh? Can you not differentiate your own opinion from social or cultural taboos?

Seems you're not the brightest if that's the case.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom