Why is cannibalism morally wrong?

[Craterloads]

You are pathetic createrloads, twice I have seen you asking this within a week.

Your attitude is, someone on the forum doesn't like what I'm saying so they must have been banned in the past.

Maybe the fella's post annoyed you because its true....

Who are you? Ohh **** arent you the guy who called for mass culling of Africans like we do to "anamals". Yes i am the one who is pathetic

 

[Sliver]

Religous morality aside. I'm a militant atheist by the way. I see no problem eating human flesh as long as the donor consented to the consumption. Some people want to be buried, some cremated, some left to medical science etc, so why not some for human consumption. It's not my bag baby, but I respect the right of others to indulge.

 

[The Dread Pirate]

Well I'd say the Act of Killing and then disposing of the evidence through consumption are the leagal issues. If the person was already dead not by your and their relatives don't mind his body being eaten then you'd technically not be commiting a crime.

 

[d_brennen]

If I have offended anyone in this thread I do apologise. I am truly sorry if you are thin skinned and have amoeba like reasoning skills. Truly.

 

[Craterloads]

amoeba like reasoning skills. Truly.

I refer you to this, do you not see the hypocrisy?

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?

If thats how one reasons...

Anyhow you have explained your logic, so lets move on shall we?

 

[semi-pro waster]

What i was getting at was the mere act of incest, you have nothing against as like you stated



Which is in stark contrast to that of others, whom see it as morally wrong in its entirety. Whilst i appreciate there are other factors which form your opinions on a whole which would make you perceive it wrong as a whole, ultimately bare and stripped away, you do not.

Why do I get the distinct impression that despite you saying you appreciate my opinion you don't really? There are levels of complexity in many issues that don't allow for a useful breakdown into a binary state - in a fantasy world where there are no harmful effects from incestous relationships then theoretically I could choose not to care as an individual, in the real world that will almost never be the case so as a member of society I do care. This position doesn't condone it, excuse it or in any way suggest it is "right" - what it does mean is that as an individual I don't seek to impose my morals onto other people.

 

[[FnG]magnolia]

A simple question, if I may.

Craterloads : what is your point?

I don't want the guff that goes with all of your threads. What's your point?

 

[Marky]

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.

 

[Raz]

You're rather conveniently glossing over the fact that Armin Meiwes also killed the man, you cannot legally consent to death except in very limited circumstances i.e. in a recognised centre for euthanasia and the law of the country must permit it in the first place. It's also worth pointing out that in those limited circumstances the person to administer the lethal dose usually has to be the person wishing to die - that is or was the case in regard to the most famous centre which would be Dignitas in Switzerland.

Not incidentally but Armin Meiwes wasn't actually convicted of cannabalism - I don't even know if that is an extant crime in Germany. He was however convicted of manslaughter which was then upgraded to murder at a retrial when the argument was accepted that his victim couldn't have given consent.

Homosexuality and cannabalism share basically nothing in common apart from the fact that you would appear to disagree with both of them, that doesn't make a good basis for an analogy.

That's all based on what's legal or not, rather than whether it's morally right or not. Homesexuality is legally allowed, but many would argue it's an immoral act.

 

[Raz]

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.

is it?

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...n#v=onepage&q=paleolithic cannibalism&f=false

bit of a wooley argument that.

 

[semi-pro waster]

That's all based on what's legal or not, rather than whether it's morally right or not. Homesexuality is legally allowed, but many would argue it's an immoral act.

Jason2 was trying to imply that Armin Meiwes was sentenced to life imprisonment for cannibalism - he was not, in fact he wasn't even charged with that. It was the killing of the victim that he was convicted of.

 

[Jason2]

Jason2 was trying to imply that Armin Meiwes was sentenced to life imprisonment for cannibalism - he was not, in fact he wasn't even charged with that. It was the killing of the victim that he was convicted of.

The man consented....so where's your problem? If two homosexuals are consenting it's OK but if a man consents to get murdered he's not mentally well lol. Why are homosexuals not classified as mentally ill then?

 

[Castiel]

The man consented....so where's your problem? If two homosexuals are consenting it's OK but if a man consents to get murdered he's not mentally well lol. Why are homosexuals not classified as mentally ill then?

Why are not two heterosexuals mentally ill then? What a stupid argument.

 

[Jason2]

Why are not two heterosexuals mentally ill then? What a stupid argument.

Because that's the normal thing to do. A man and a woman. It's how it's meant to be.

 

[Castiel]

Because that's the normal thing to do. A man and a woman. It's how it's meant to be.

Says who?

And you were stating that it was ok to murder someone with their consent simply because it was ok to have sex with their consent.

The two things are completely different.

 

[semi-pro waster]

The man consented....so where's your problem? If two homosexuals are consenting it's OK but if a man consents to get murdered he's not mentally well lol. Why are homosexuals not classified as mentally ill then?

You cannot consent to be murdered as I've already explained - that's a pretty fundamental problem. And while you might feel that homosexuality is morally wrong it's really not comparable with killing someone. If people are to be labelled as mentally ill purely for doing something that people disagree with then you'll shortly discover that almost everyone is mentally ill - we all do things and believe things that others view as wrong.

 

[Craterloads]

A simple question, if I may.

Craterloads : what is your point?

I don't want the guff that goes with all of your threads. What's your point?

Ok since you asked politely I’ll try my best to answer.

Quite simply I was trying to establish the reasoning behind why people find incest or cannibalism actually wrong. I was attempting to get scrape past the outer layer of “urgh it’s weird” and “it’s just sick” as, I’m am sure you would agree, is not sound reasoning, heck it’s not a reason at all. For example homosexuality, only 20 years ago, was “weird” and “sick” which again I’m sure you are aware of, is not a valid reason for homosexuality being wrong. The same could be said about many things, including inter-racial marriage and a host of others, just because you find it weird or sick doesn’t make it wrong.

Now for example I understand why someone like Jason would find Incest and cannibalism wrong, as it is simply against his religion. His wrongs and rights, morals are derived from his religion.

My interest was seeing the reasoning why people, who do not take their morals from religion (that could still be religious people, atheists or anything else), find such things wrong.

Now not a single person has been able to provide a reasonable answer why either is wrong. Many of the answers are simple it’s “weird”, others simply won’t answer or can’t answer, and some use unjust stigmas to blanket smear an entire subject. For instance: -

It’s unnatural

False, cannibalism is completely natural and has being practiced by humans for millennia to this current day, weather that is for survival and just for pleasure. That is a fact. It is also perfectly normal in the animal world, practiced for millions of years to this very day.

How much more unnatural is homosexuality to incest? I would go on a limb and say homosexuality is more unnatural than Incest considering same sex relationships do not and cannot form a natural pair. Furthermore incest has been practiced for millennia

In some societies, such as those of Ancient Egypt and others, brother–sister, father–daughter, and mother–son, cousin-cousin, uncle-niece, aunt-nephew, and other permutations of relations were practiced among royalty as a means of perpetuating the royal lineage.

Even Europeans Royals have practice incest as a way of preserving their lineage.

Brother-sister marriages were common during some Roman periods as some census records have shown

Medical

Non-Issue - No one has provided a shred of proof to suggest eating human flesh is bad for you, meat is meat. One potential issue raised is of passing on diseases, but surely given we have easily transmitted diseases from animals to human, this should be a non-issue. Furthermore we have the technology and the knowledge to prevent disease or diseased meat being consumed or spread.

As mentioned there is a higher rate of birth defects among incestual relationships, which is ironically perpetuated due to the social taboos surrounding the matter. Such couples are afraid because of these taboos to seek professional medical help which would negate any possibilities of birth defect to a normal level. Furthermore given today’s technology and science, any potential defects can be detected at early stages within the womb and necessary steps can be taken. Also interesting is we provide homosexual couples whom are not even capable of reproducing a myriad of options, from surrogate mothers, donor insemination, adoption, fostering yet when it comes to incestual couples do we forget all this? You can’t all be so blind to the numerous options available, if the already adequate and normal reproduction efforts fail?

Fiduciary relationships

As I mentioned earlier people are using known possibilities or common issues that typically associated with incestual relationships and applying a blanket ban to all incestual relationships. Surely you can see that is wrong as not all incestual relationships suffer from such. It’s like arresting all black people because statistically black people, to their proportion, commit more crimes. It’s also made out that any incestual relationships that do not suffer from such symptoms do not exist, as waster put it

a chance of happening that is vanishingly small (and broadly unprovable in terms of motivation)

This is quite simply not the case, even if you would like it to be that way so you can justify your viewpoint.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/shoc...hey-are-twins-separated-at-birth-6682411.html

Is just one case of many, which has unfolded in that particular manner.

There will be hundreds if not thousands of incestual relationships that are consenting and to not conform to the typically associated taboos. Wouldn’t it be better or fairer a judge case by case or do you think painting people by the same tainted brush is correct?

This is not a valid or justified reasoning.

So as you can see Magnolia, it’s just a simple exercise to see what people’s actual reasoning is once you scrape past all the reasons that are not actually reasons at all. I thought it was interesting and I also found some of the answers quite interesting too. For example a few posters don’t have issues with either or both, some do but it’s just the usual “it’s gross” and some don’t know. (well that's my particular take on it as it stands)

PS – Apologies to Cas for not understanding/digesting his replies and to D Brennen for acting a little immaturely.

 

[Nitefly]

Fiduciary relationships

lol I did not expect to see that phrase

 

[firehawk]

Go to Holland. it is perfectly legal there. other countries - not so much.

 

[RDM]

It’s unnatural

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.

[
Medical

Non-Issue - No one has provided a shred of proof to suggest eating human flesh is bad for you, meat is meat. One potential issue raised is of passing on diseases, but surely given we have easily transmitted diseases from animals to human, this should be a non-issue. Furthermore we have the technology and the knowledge to prevent disease or diseased meat being consumed or spread.

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.

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.

As mentioned there is a higher rate of birth defects among incestual relationships, which is ironically perpetuated due to the social taboos surrounding the matter. Such couples are afraid because of these taboos to seek professional medical help which would negate any possibilities of birth defect to a normal level. Furthermore given today’s technology and science, any potential defects can be detected at early stages within the womb and necessary steps can be taken. Also interesting is we provide homosexual couples whom are not even capable of reproducing a myriad of options, from surrogate mothers, donor insemination, adoption, fostering yet when it comes to incestual couples do we forget all this? You can’t all be so blind to the numerous options available, if the already adequate and normal reproduction efforts fail?

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.

Fiduciary relationships

As I mentioned earlier people are using known possibilities or common issues that typically associated with incestual relationships and applying a blanket ban to all incestual relationships. Surely you can see that is wrong as not all incestual relationships suffer from such. It’s like arresting all black people because statistically black people, to their proportion, commit more crimes. It’s also made out that any incestual relationships that do not suffer from such symptoms do not exist, as waster put it

This is quite simply not the case, even if you would like it to be that way so you can justify your viewpoint.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/shoc...hey-are-twins-separated-at-birth-6682411.html

Is just one case of many, which has unfolded in that particular manner.

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.

Now for example I understand why someone like Jason would find Incest and cannibalism wrong, as it is simply against his religion. His wrongs and rights, morals are derived from his religion.

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.