Taking a stand

[Age]

[Here's my response from another thread in which you brought this up...]

So, the answer to "is cannibalism immoral" will vary depending on whether people are religious, or find the idea disgusting, or are survivors of a remote plane crash, or were raised as cannibals on an island, etc. I don't think it's immoral... but I think it's disgusting. Now if we were talking about a mortician sexually abusing dead bodies, I would think that's immoral. So I guess, for me, morality has to do with 'not abusing the living', and only using dead bodies for what's absolutely necessary...like food. So my answer is 'it depends'.

Well, as Veg brought up, there are horrible diseases that afflict those who engage in cannibalism.

Horrible diseases or side-effects can also be brought about from eating vegetables.

I'm sure the act itself does horrible things to a person's psyche as well (if not in the long run at the very least).

Are you sure eating ANY OTHER animal does NOT do horrible 'things' to a person's psyche, also?

If yes, then WHY do 'you' IMAGINE 'this' is?

Could it be because the human animal IS SEPARATING or DISTANCING "its" 'self' FROM the OTHER animals?

So even as a last resort, it doesn't come without a horrible price.

So, even one has survived long enough until help arrives, WHY, EXACTLY, 'it' HAS TO COME WITH A so-called 'horrible price'?

But I can't judge someone who resorts to immorality under certain specific extreme circumstances.

LOL If one does some 'thing' to STAY ALIVE and SURVIVE, and they have NOT ABUSED ANY 'thing', THEN WHERE, EXACTLY, is the 'immorality'?

There but for the grace of God (or nature, or whoever/whatever is or isn't the ultimate judge) go I.


¯\_(*_*)_/¯

[Age]

Is cannibalism immoral?

1. yes
2. no
3. not sure
4. Everyone is entitled to their own view

If there are other options I have missed, then please include them below option #4.

[Here's my response from another thread in which you brought this up...]

So, the answer to "is cannibalism immoral" will vary depending on whether people are religious, or find the idea disgusting, or are survivors of a remote plane crash, or were raised as cannibals on an island, etc. I don't think it's immoral... but I think it's disgusting. Now if we were talking about a mortician sexually abusing dead bodies, I would think that's immoral. So I guess, for me, morality has to do with 'not abusing the living', and only using dead bodies for what's absolutely necessary...like food. So my answer is 'it depends'.

Exactly. I remember seeing a movie years ago (can't remember if it was about a true story or not) where miners were buried alive in a cave-in. The survivors did not know if they were being rescued or how long it would take if they were. Many days passed and they ended up drawing straws to see who would be eaten to (hopefully) sustain the rest of the group long enough to be saved. They found that they could not bring themselves to kill and eat one of their group, but when one of them attempts to kill another in secret while everyone was asleep, they are exposed and they are killed and eaten instead.

So it does depend. There is no objective morality - where some rule holds true in every case.

BUT THERE IS.

WHY do you ASSUME there is NOT?

When it is best in most cases we usually agree on the moral implications, but there will be cases where the rule can't be applied because it conflicts with other moral rules that we have.

Will you provide ANY examples?

If no, then WHY NOT?

That is what an ethical dilemma is when two, or more, moral ideas come into conflict.

But there ARE NO two, or more, moral ideas.

There IS ONLY One 'moral idea'. That EVERY one AGREES WITH and ACCEPTS. Although 'this' IS NOT YET CONSCIOUSLY KNOWN, by most of 'you', human beings, in the days when this is being written.

It's amazing what effect starvation and survival have on our moral views.

REALLY?

Like 'what', EXACTLY?

The ones MADE UP in movies?

[Age]

Is cannibalism immoral?

1. yes
2. no
3. not sure
4. Everyone is entitled to their own view

If there are other options I have missed, then please include them below option #4.

[Here's my response from another thread in which you brought this up...]

So, the answer to "is cannibalism immoral" will vary depending on whether people are religious, or find the idea disgusting, or are survivors of a remote plane crash, or were raised as cannibals on an island, etc. I don't think it's immoral... but I think it's disgusting. Now if we were talking about a mortician sexually abusing dead bodies, I would think that's immoral. So I guess, for me, morality has to do with 'not abusing the living', and only using dead bodies for what's absolutely necessary...like food. So my answer is 'it depends'.

Exactly. I remember seeing a movie years ago (can't remember if it was about a true story or not) where miners were buried alive in a cave-in. The survivors did not know if they were being rescued or how long it would take if they were. Many days passed and they ended up drawing straws to see who would be eaten to (hopefully) sustain the rest of the group long enough to be saved. They found that they could not bring themselves to kill and eat one of their group, but when one of them attempts to kill another in secret while everyone was asleep, they are exposed and they are killed and eaten instead.

So it does depend. There is no objective morality - where some rule holds true in every case. When it is best in most cases we usually agree on the moral implications, but there will be cases where the rule can't be applied because it conflicts with other moral rules that we have. That is what an ethical dilemma is when two, or more, moral ideas come into conflict. It's amazing what effect starvation and survival have on our moral views.

Now that, is how a "social contract" ultimately works when subjected to atomic-moral colliders that expose the fundamental particles of reality! Great discovery, Trajk Logik!

Is 'this' 'the end'?

Or, would ANY one CARE TO DELVE INTO 'things' FURTHER here, WITH 'me'?

[Age]

Oh of course in a "cannibal community" it would not violate that community's ethical standard.

I am VERY HAPPY that you can SEE 'this' now, and thus HAVE AMENDED what you PREVIOUSLY STATED.

And when you show me such a community I'll amend my post.

Did you WANT me to SHOW you 'such a community' that exists in the days when this is being written, OR previously?

As to your murdering and killing analogy, in the community of the United States, murder is unethical, though you are correct that several individuals violate the community standard against murder (as individuals will do against every community standard in every community).

YET 'murdering' in some states is VERY LEGAL, and ACTUALLY ENFORCED, in those states, although 'it' may be named DIFFERENTLY.

And, 'murdering' in OTHER SITUATIONS IS ACTUALLY ENCOURAGED, and one can be seen AS WEAK or A COWARD IF they do NOT 'murder' or 'kill', or do NOT AGREE WITH the 'murdering' and/or 'killing' OF "others".

So to those individuals murder is moral though is unethical in the country in which they reside.

BUT 'murder' IS 'ethical' IN the country in which 'those individuals' 'murder'.

Also, and by the way, how are 'you' defining the words 'moral' and 'unethical' here, EXACTLY?

A controversial opinion but we're both aware of how someone could "use" headline stories to make the argument.

What do you ENVISION here is 'controversial', EXACTLY?

And, considering the Fact that NO so-called 'headline story' was used in the forming of my words above here, making the comparison is just DECEPTIVE.

Though it's a bit disingenuous to state it as fact.

But 'it' IS AN IRREFUTABLE Fact.

So, absolutely NOTHING disingenuous here AT ALL.

Feel free to try to make a convincing argument, if you want to. Otherwise I'll just ignore it as bluster.

you WILL IGNORE 'it' BECAUSE 'you' can NOT DISPUTE 'it', RATIONALLY NOR LOGICALLY, let alone REFUTE 'it' AT ALL.

But, PLEASE feel absolutely FREE TO COMPLETELY IGNORE what I SAID, and WROTE, above here and RUN AWAY.

As to the definition of 'moral' and 'unethical', moral is something that follows an individual's personal moral code.

USING the same word IN 'the definition', as the word being 'defined', NEVER ACTUALLY WORKS, SUCCESSFULLY, IN 'defining'.

Unethical is something that breaks a community's ethical standard.

'This' here MORE OR LESS causes the EXACT SAME OUTCOME as USING the EXACT SAME word in the definition as the word being defined.

Obviously a community's ethical standard is not universally agreed upon by all members of the community, rather by a majority of members.

LOL This here is just TO RIDICULOUS to reply to.

However, if ANY one would like me to POINT OUT and SHOW just how Truly LUDICROUS 'this' REALLY IS, then by all means let me know.

Thus why white cops have LEGALLY killed unarmed black male teens, but IMO it would be in error to label such events as evidence of such a practice as being ETHICAL since a majority of citizens do not support the practice.

Okay.

[Gary Childress]

Is 'this' 'the end'?

Or, would ANY one CARE TO DELVE INTO 'things' FURTHER here, WITH 'me'?

Nothing is the end until the end occurs, that applies to solar systems, species, and individuals. If you're posting this then "this" is clearly NOT the end. What do you want to "delve into"? I'll try to "delve into" something if you want to "delve". I have a feeling that we are going to disagree on many things but--go for it--we'll find out.

[Age]

Is 'this' 'the end'?

Or, would ANY one CARE TO DELVE INTO 'things' FURTHER here, WITH 'me'?

Nothing is the end until the end occurs, that applies to solar systems, species, and individuals.

So, when 'you' WROTE, 'Now that, is how a "social contract" ULTIMATELY works when subjected to atomic-moral colliders that expose the fundamental particles of reality!'

Was 'this' 'the end', or NOT 'the end', in regards to HOW 'social contract' ULTIMATELY WORKS?

If you're posting this then "this" is clearly NOT the end.

Okay, but so we are BOTH CLEAR what does 'this' REFER TO, EXACTLY?

What do you want to "delve into"?

WHETHER what "trajik logic" WROTE IS HOW 'social construct' ACTUALLY ULTIMATELY WORKS or NOT.

I'll try to "delve into" something if you want to "delve".

Okay.

I have a feeling that we are going to disagree on many things but--go for it--we'll find out.

Okay.

[Gary Childress]

Is 'this' 'the end'?

Or, would ANY one CARE TO DELVE INTO 'things' FURTHER here, WITH 'me'?

Nothing is the end until the end occurs, that applies to solar systems, species, and individuals.

So, when 'you' WROTE, 'Now that, is how a "social contract" ULTIMATELY works when subjected to atomic-moral colliders that expose the fundamental particles of reality!'

Was 'this' 'the end', or NOT 'the end', in regards to HOW 'social contract' ULTIMATELY WORKS?

How are you tying "end" in with "social contract"?

[Age]

Nothing is the end until the end occurs, that applies to solar systems, species, and individuals.

So, when 'you' WROTE, 'Now that, is how a "social contract" ULTIMATELY works when subjected to atomic-moral colliders that expose the fundamental particles of reality!'

Was 'this' 'the end', or NOT 'the end', in regards to HOW 'social contract' ULTIMATELY WORKS?

How are you tying "end" in with "social contract"?

"trajik logik" wrote some words.

'you' then replied, 'Now that, is how a "social contract" ULTIMATELY WORKS when subjected to atomic-moral colliders that expose the fundamental particles of reality!'

Now, please correct me if I AM WRONG here, but, with the use of the words 'ultimately works', 'they' put a FINALITY, or AN END, to working out and/or discovering THE WAY some 'thing' WORKS, correct? With 'the some 'thing' here just being 'social contract', right?

[Gary Childress]

So, when 'you' WROTE, 'Now that, is how a "social contract" ULTIMATELY works when subjected to atomic-moral colliders that expose the fundamental particles of reality!'

Was 'this' 'the end', or NOT 'the end', in regards to HOW 'social contract' ULTIMATELY WORKS?

How are you tying "end" in with "social contract"?

"trajik logik" wrote some words.

'you' then replied, 'Now that, is how a "social contract" ULTIMATELY WORKS when subjected to atomic-moral colliders that expose the fundamental particles of reality!'

Now, please correct me if I AM WRONG here, but, with the use of the words 'ultimately works', 'they' put a FINALITY, or AN END, to working out and/or discovering THE WAY some 'thing' WORKS, correct? With 'the some 'thing' here just being 'social contract', right?

According to Trajik's scenario, the stakes are the ultimate (literally life and death). A group of miners are trapped in a collapsed mine and are starving. The only possible edible thing in the mine is each other. They haven't yet been rescued and are not sure if they will be rescued or not. They draw straws. After they draw straws they agree among themselves that the first person who kills someone is the one everyone remaining will kill. In other words, they will kill the killer.

That's my interpretation of things. In other words, ONLY if someone gets so desperate that they will kill another person for food, will that justify the others killing the person who killed for food.

But I think you bring up a good point. The scenario is not quite over yet. There would then be two dead people (the one who was killed for food and the one who killed that person for food). Now there's a choice for the remaining survivors who are trapped. Namely, what do they do with the two dead bodies? Do the remaining people, who are also starving, eat the dead bodies or do they abstain? And if they abstain, what might be the new "social contract" among them?

So perhaps you are pointing out that the scenario as presented does not give us the ULTIMATE way a "social contract" works. There is also a further contract that must be made among the survivors regarding the two dead bodies. What will they do with them and how can that be worked out in a way that is agreeable to all the remaining survivors?

So here's a question that perhaps we can provide an answer to: With two of the survivors dead and the remaining survivors starving in the mine in which they are trapped (without food) and rescue is uncertain, then what contract can the survivors draw up among themselves that will be agreeable among all of the remaining survivors? We in the forum here are obviously only spectators to this thought experiment. But it would be immoral to conduct an experiment using living people by trapping them in a mine and waiting to see what they work out with each other. However, when push comes to shove, is that not what is at the root of a "social contract" (life itself)?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

How are you tying "end" in with "social contract"?

"trajik logik" wrote some words.

'you' then replied, 'Now that, is how a "social contract" ULTIMATELY WORKS when subjected to atomic-moral colliders that expose the fundamental particles of reality!'

Now, please correct me if I AM WRONG here, but, with the use of the words 'ultimately works', 'they' put a FINALITY, or AN END, to working out and/or discovering THE WAY some 'thing' WORKS, correct? With 'the some 'thing' here just being 'social contract', right?

According to Trajik's scenario, the stakes are the ultimate (literally life and death). A group of miners are trapped in a collapsed mine and are starving. The only possible edible thing in the mine is each other. They haven't yet been rescued and are not sure if they will be rescued or not. They draw straws. After they draw straws they agree among themselves that the first person who kills someone is the one everyone remaining will kill. In other words, they will kill the killer.

That's my interpretation of things. In other words, ONLY if someone gets so desperate that they will kill another person for food, will that justify the others killing the person who killed for food.

But I think you bring up a good point. The scenario is not quite over yet. There would then be two dead people (the one who was killed for food and the one who killed that person for food). Now there's a choice for the remaining survivors who are trapped. Namely, what do they do with the two dead bodies? Do the remaining people, who are also starving, eat the dead bodies or do they abstain? And if they abstain, what might be the new "social contract" among them?

So perhaps you are pointing out that the scenario as presented does not give us the ULTIMATE way a "social contract" works. There is also a further contract that must be made among the survivors regarding the two dead bodies. What will they do with them and how can that be worked out in a way that is agreeable to all the remaining survivors?

So here's a question that perhaps we can provide an answer to: With two of the survivors dead and the remaining survivors starving in the mine in which they are trapped (without food) and rescue is uncertain, then what contract can the survivors draw up among themselves that will be agreeable among all of the remaining survivors? We in the forum here are obviously only spectators to this thought experiment. But it would be immoral to conduct an experiment using living people by trapping them in a mine and waiting to see what they work out with each other. However, when push comes to shove, is that not what is at the root of a "social contract" (life itself)?

I hate these stupid paradoxical 'thought experiments' that are never going to happen in reality. What if a mother is starving and she has some children? Is she going to eat them? Fucking ridiculous.

[Gary Childress]

"trajik logik" wrote some words.

'you' then replied, 'Now that, is how a "social contract" ULTIMATELY WORKS when subjected to atomic-moral colliders that expose the fundamental particles of reality!'

Now, please correct me if I AM WRONG here, but, with the use of the words 'ultimately works', 'they' put a FINALITY, or AN END, to working out and/or discovering THE WAY some 'thing' WORKS, correct? With 'the some 'thing' here just being 'social contract', right?

According to Trajik's scenario, the stakes are the ultimate (literally life and death). A group of miners are trapped in a collapsed mine and are starving. The only possible edible thing in the mine is each other. They haven't yet been rescued and are not sure if they will be rescued or not. They draw straws. After they draw straws they agree among themselves that the first person who kills someone is the one everyone remaining will kill. In other words, they will kill the killer.

That's my interpretation of things. In other words, ONLY if someone gets so desperate that they will kill another person for food, will that justify the others killing the person who killed for food.

But I think you bring up a good point. The scenario is not quite over yet. There would then be two dead people (the one who was killed for food and the one who killed that person for food). Now there's a choice for the remaining survivors who are trapped. Namely, what do they do with the two dead bodies? Do the remaining people, who are also starving, eat the dead bodies or do they abstain? And if they abstain, what might be the new "social contract" among them?

So perhaps you are pointing out that the scenario as presented does not give us the ULTIMATE way a "social contract" works. There is also a further contract that must be made among the survivors regarding the two dead bodies. What will they do with them and how can that be worked out in a way that is agreeable to all the remaining survivors?

So here's a question that perhaps we can provide an answer to: With two of the survivors dead and the remaining survivors starving in the mine in which they are trapped (without food) and rescue is uncertain, then what contract can the survivors draw up among themselves that will be agreeable among all of the remaining survivors? We in the forum here are obviously only spectators to this thought experiment. But it would be immoral to conduct an experiment using living people by trapping them in a mine and waiting to see what they work out with each other. However, when push comes to shove, is that not what is at the root of a "social contract" (life itself)?

I hate these stupid paradoxical 'thought experiments' that are never going to happen in reality. What if a mother is starving and she has some children? Is she going to eat them? Fucking ridiculous.

I don't see it as remarkably different from the "Trolley Problem" proposed by Philippa Foot. ¯\_(*_*)_/¯

[henry quirk]

I hate these stupid paradoxical 'thought experiments' that are never going to happen in reality. What if a mother is starving and she has some children? Is she going to eat them? Fucking ridiculous.

As your vagina: I agree.

[Gary Childress]

I hate these stupid paradoxical 'thought experiments' that are never going to happen in reality. What if a mother is starving and she has some children? Is she going to eat them? Fucking ridiculous.

As your vagina: I agree.

OK. So should I be talking to Veg or you?

[Immanuel Can]

My answer: #1 yes it is immoral.

Why?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

According to Trajik's scenario, the stakes are the ultimate (literally life and death). A group of miners are trapped in a collapsed mine and are starving. The only possible edible thing in the mine is each other. They haven't yet been rescued and are not sure if they will be rescued or not. They draw straws. After they draw straws they agree among themselves that the first person who kills someone is the one everyone remaining will kill. In other words, they will kill the killer.

That's my interpretation of things. In other words, ONLY if someone gets so desperate that they will kill another person for food, will that justify the others killing the person who killed for food.

But I think you bring up a good point. The scenario is not quite over yet. There would then be two dead people (the one who was killed for food and the one who killed that person for food). Now there's a choice for the remaining survivors who are trapped. Namely, what do they do with the two dead bodies? Do the remaining people, who are also starving, eat the dead bodies or do they abstain? And if they abstain, what might be the new "social contract" among them?

So perhaps you are pointing out that the scenario as presented does not give us the ULTIMATE way a "social contract" works. There is also a further contract that must be made among the survivors regarding the two dead bodies. What will they do with them and how can that be worked out in a way that is agreeable to all the remaining survivors?

So here's a question that perhaps we can provide an answer to: With two of the survivors dead and the remaining survivors starving in the mine in which they are trapped (without food) and rescue is uncertain, then what contract can the survivors draw up among themselves that will be agreeable among all of the remaining survivors? We in the forum here are obviously only spectators to this thought experiment. But it would be immoral to conduct an experiment using living people by trapping them in a mine and waiting to see what they work out with each other. However, when push comes to shove, is that not what is at the root of a "social contract" (life itself)?

I hate these stupid paradoxical 'thought experiments' that are never going to happen in reality. What if a mother is starving and she has some children? Is she going to eat them? Fucking ridiculous.

I don't see it as remarkably different from the "Trolley Problem" proposed by Philippa Foot. ¯\_(*_*)_/¯

I hate that one too, as if it's ever going to actually happen