Why is cannibalism morally wrong?

Craterloads said:
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.
Click to expand...

Did you not read the part where I began "I personally...." Simply put, I don't know, and the reason I don't know is given in the explanation. It is a straight answer, it might not be the one you were hoping for, but there it is nonetheless.

Why is it morally wrong without hesitation...given the stipulations and narrow definition you supplied? Do you think Nitefly is immoral?
 
Last edited:
Question for Craterloads and Jason2 - would you orally pleasure each other, in turn, for the fun of it? I mean it's not like you're related or anything, any hole's a goal and all, or do you have something deep seated (ohh, er!) against man on man action?
 
Craterloads said:
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?
Click to expand...

Freak or attention seeker ? Un decided on which one. But most definitely one or the other.
 
d_brennen said:
Question for Craterloads and Jason2 - would you orally pleasure each other, in turn, for the fun of it? I mean it's not like you're related or anything, any hole's a goal and all, or do you have something deep seated (ohh, er!) against man on man action?
Click to expand...

You mean like how your mother orally pleases me? Need to understand the question see.
 
Craterloads said:
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.
Click to expand...

I see, so in a hypothetical situation with a chance of happening that is vanishingly small (and broadly unprovable in terms of motivation) the question is would I find it morally wrong? In that highly unlikely situation then I'm back to my usual position of "if it's not hurting anyone and it's between two (or more) consenting adults then I don't care much".

I might think it is weird but why should my morals (or therein lack of them) be a reason to impose on others where there is no harm caused. There's lots of things that are strange to me but that's not necessarily a good reason to stop them or legislate against them.

However that's just a personal viewpoint, society has a different one which is a blanket rule that incestous relationships are wrong - this is partly because the conditions you set out are so specific as to be almost impossible to find in the real world so it's not a particularly valid consideration but partly also because it is much easier to deal with a straightforward rule on the matter that covers all relationships with close family members.

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...

Please do feel free to link to these studies but note that we're talking about first degree relations, not first cousins or more distantly related.

You appear to be going for sweeping generalisations here by imputing a value system on a group of people who may have wildly different moral values, in case you missed it before moral values don't have to be codified in a book. Morals are frequently relative and conform to social norms - for there to be objective moral values then there would have to be absolutes of right and wrong, I think you'll struggle to prove that they exist. Most of the values that a number of religions hold to are arguably simply values that are/were necessary to promote functional societies rather than values that are right in and of themselves.
 
semi-pro waster said:
I see, so in a hypothetical situation with a chance of happening that is vanishingly small (and broadly unprovable in terms of motivation) the question is would I find it morally wrong? In that highly unlikely situation then I'm back to my usual position of "if it's not hurting anyone and it's between two (or more) consenting adults then I don't care much".

I might think it is weird but why should my morals (or therein lack of them) be a reason to impose on others where there is no harm caused. There's lots of things that are strange to me but that's not necessarily a good reason to stop them or legislate against them.

However that's just a personal viewpoint, society has a different one which is a blanket rule that incestous relationships are wrong - this is partly because the conditions you set out are so specific as to be almost impossible to find in the real world so it's not a particularly valid consideration but partly also because it is much easier to deal with a straightforward rule on the matter that covers all relationships with close family members.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Craterloads said:
Ok no i wouldnt :D

Now is your mum still free tonight, answer the question, without asking another question.
Click to expand...

Nah she's busy changing my man nappy. Nothing wrong with that.

May I ask why you wouldn't pleasure Jason2, if he was going to do the same to you? It's not morally wrong, you're both consenting adults (I assume...) and homosexuality isn't illegal. If you're getting your jollies why does it matter?

Could it be the same kind of thing as canabalism. That it's just plain wrong, unpleasant and bat**** crazy? Like meeting a man from a computer forum and going to work on his meat "just because"?
 
d_brennen said:
Nah she's busy changing my man nappy. Nothing wrong with that.

May I ask why you wouldn't pleasure Jason2, if he was going to do the same to you? It's not morally wrong, you're both consenting adults (I assume...) and homosexuality isn't illegal. If you're getting your jollies why does it matter?

Could it be the same kind of thing as canabalism. That it's just plain wrong, unpleasant and bat**** crazy? Like meeting a man from a computer forum and going to work on his meat "just because"?
Click to expand...

Can you ask her not to eat before i see her? my man sack is bursting full so she will get a good meal. Is it morally wrong for her to eat by unborn babies?

See what i did there... at least my insults were on topic, cannabilism/

Now do one.
 
Last edited:
Lol...Craterloads in another one of his meltdowns. Demanding answers yet refusing to accept (or even understand) the answers and refusing to answer questions posed to him in return....:D
 
Last edited:
I think it is the fact that humans, highly intelligent organisms, eating another human is very degrading and disrespectful. Because we are the same species we can relate to each other moreso than we can relate to any other species. We also have language, we can communicate our personalities to one another and in a way share someone else's life. By eating human meat, you are throwing all of that out of the window. It's like replacing "you're a nice person" with "you would be a really good source of protein".
 
Craterloads said:
Is this some sexual fantasy of yours :D I do not see this here.
Click to expand...

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.
 
[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...

It's funny all you have done in this thread is troll and taken digs at me, maybe you should stick to justin bieber and justin timberlake threads if you have nothing constructive to add to the thread? ;)
 
Constructive arguments do not go well with "your mother" jibes, outside of the playground at least.

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.

So you go do one, bro :rolleyes:

[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...

Nail on head
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom