Philosophy Now Forum

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.

My answer: #1 yes it is immoral.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 1:23 am 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.

My answer: #1 yes it is immoral.

Murder (killing a person without just cause) is immoral; cannibalism (eating a dead person) is not. However, I couldn't knowingly eat a dead person: I simply couldn't stomach it.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 1:45 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 1:23 am 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.

My answer: #1 yes it is immoral.

Murder (killing a person without just cause) is immoral; cannibalism (eating a dead person) is not. However, I couldn't knowingly eat a dead person: I simply couldn't stomach it.

Fair enough. I feel the same way. I'm calling it "immoral" but "can't stomach it" sounds like a pretty fair synonym.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 1:23 am Is cannibalism immoral?

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

In WHAT SCENARIO?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 1:23 am If there are other options I have missed, then please include them below option #4.

If there ARE other options or NOT depends on HOW you are defining words here AND in what scenario or not.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 1:23 am My answer: #1 yes it is immoral.

Okay, but WHO CARES?

Here we have ANOTHER PRIME example of what lengths 'these people', back then, would GO TO to 'try to' "justify" their currently HELD BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

For example, this one BELIEVES or ASSUME that the "chinese" ARE COMING, and COMING TO TAKE 'us' OVER ('us' just referring to some human beings living in one little country of which a significant number of the population BELIEVE that 'they' ARE BETTER than "others" ARE and/or that 'that country' IS the BEST place on earth). This one has read just 'one' of COUNTLESS OTHER 'things' WRITTEN, and IS 'trying' 'its' VERY HARDEST to USE that 'one thing', which may NOT even be True ANYWAY, AGAINST "the other"/the "chinese" in an ATTEMPT to GARNISH MORE back up and support for 'its' OBVIOUSLY EARLIER STUPID BELIEF and ASSUMPTION.

ALL OF THE TIME WHILE COMPLETELY IGNORING WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED TO the ORIGINAL 'occupants' of the lands in which are 'now', very stupidly, called "the united states of america".

'These people, BACK THEN, WERE SO BLINDED and DEAFENED by their OWN BELIEFS that 'they', LITERALLY, could NOT SEE and HEAR the ACTUAL Truth OF 'things' EVEN WHEN 'It' WAS CLEARLY STATED, POINTED OUT, and SHOWN, TO 'them'.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 1:45 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 1:23 am 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.

My answer: #1 yes it is immoral.

Murder (killing a person without just cause)

LOL
LOL
LOL

Here we have ANOTHER one WITH the MOST STUPIDEST OF BELIEFS. That is; this one ACTUALLY BELIEVES that ENOUGH so-called 'just cause' FOR KILLING or MURDERING A 'human being' IS just the 'touching' of 'its' so-called 'toothpick'.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 1:45 am is immoral;

So, this one BELIEVES that it IS 'moral' to KILL A 'human being' DEAD if ANY one of 'them' 'touches its toothpick' but was NOT 'immoral' to TAKE and STEAL 'human beings' HOMES and ABILITY TO 'live' and 'survive'.

ONCE AGAIN, the HYPOCRISY, CONTRADICTIONS, and INCONSISTENCIES that 'this one' SHOWS and REVEALS here IS BREATHTAKING to say the least.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 1:45 am cannibalism (eating a dead person) is not. However, I couldn't knowingly eat a dead person: I simply couldn't stomach it.

LOL
LOL
LOL

This one, as can be CLEARLY SEEN here, is SO CONTROLLED by the OBVIOUSLY VERY DISTORTED 'thinking' WITHIN 'that body', that 'it' does NOT even KNOW WHEN 'it' IS being Truly ILLOGICAL or NOT.

This one, VERY LAUGHABLY, BELIEVES that 'it' WOULD JUST LET 'itself' 'die', INSTEAD OF 'survive', BECAUSE of IRRATIONAL, ILLOGICAL, and DISTORTED 'thinking', BUT WOULD SHOOT DEAD ANOTHER 'human being' just for 'touching' some 'thing', which 'it' BELIEVED and ASSUME what 'its'.

The ABSOLUTE STUPIDITY and IRRATIONALITY here, by 'this one', gets WORSE the MORE 'it' SPEAKS, and WRITES.

AND, what 'this one' WILL SHOW and REVEAL is that 'it', just like ALL of the OTHER ones here, WILL NOT SEEK OUT CLARITY AT ALL, and WILL INSTEAD MAKE UP MORE IRRATIONAL and ILLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS, which, LAUGHABLY, 'it' and 'they' END UP BELIEVING ARE TRUE.

Which is even MORE LAUGHABLE TO WATCH PLAY OUT, and OBSERVE, here.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 1:23 am 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.

My answer: #1 yes it is immoral.

Well, some things we know, some things we presume and some things we don't know at all. Firstly, it is illegal in Idaho, but not illegal in the other 49 states. Desecration of a corpse is illegal, but you don't need a corpse to engage in cannibalism. So usually not illegal.

It's definitely unethical, that is it clearly violates community ethical standards.

For most individuals it violates their moral code, so is usually immoral, though to a cannibal, it isn't immoral.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 7:04 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 1:23 am 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.

My answer: #1 yes it is immoral.

Well, some things we know, some things we presume and some things we don't know at all. Firstly, it is illegal in Idaho, but not illegal in the other 49 states. Desecration of a corpse is illegal, but you don't need a corpse to engage in cannibalism. So usually not illegal.

It's definitely unethical, that is it clearly violates community ethical standards.

In ALL communities?

If yes, then HOW DID 'cannibalism' come about?

But, if no, then WHICH community IS Right, or GOOD, or 'ethical'?

See, following 'your' 'logic' here, could one who lives in a community where cannibalism is 'normal' and 'all right', (like how murdering and killing IS, in the so-called "united states of america", in the days when this is being written), then could that one ALSO state and say, 'Cannibalism is definitely ethical, that is it clearly follows ethical standards', AND still be LOGICAL?

LuckyR wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 7:04 am For most individuals it violates their moral code, so is usually immoral, though to a cannibal, it isn't immoral.

AND, to a so-called "cannibal", and/or a 'cannibal community', it would not be unethical neither, right?

There are many reasons why it's extremely taboo, and not a single good reason why it would ever be ok. It's not a safe meat. There's a disease could kuru, similar to mad cow disease, that you can get from it.

''Kuru is a rare and incurable disease caused by prions and spread through cannibalism. It is a member of a group of prion diseases called spongiform encephalopathies. Incubation period is long, anywhere from 13 years up to 50 years. Early signs and symptoms include muscle tremors and loss of coordination. In late stages of kuru, individuals may also develop pain in the extremities, difficulty swallowing, slurred speech, and dementia. Kuru is a diagnosis of exclusion, based on patient history, clinical presentation, neurologic exam, and brain imaging.''
i.e. It turns your brain into a 'sponge'.

Apparently it wiped out a tribe in New Guinea in the 20th century. Cannibals are not the kind of people that normal human beings would ever want to associate with.

Age wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 8:00 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 7:04 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 1:23 am 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.

My answer: #1 yes it is immoral.

Well, some things we know, some things we presume and some things we don't know at all. Firstly, it is illegal in Idaho, but not illegal in the other 49 states. Desecration of a corpse is illegal, but you don't need a corpse to engage in cannibalism. So usually not illegal.

It's definitely unethical, that is it clearly violates community ethical standards.

In ALL communities?

If yes, then HOW DID 'cannibalism' come about?

But, if no, then WHICH community IS Right, or GOOD, or 'ethical'?

See, following 'your' 'logic' here, could one who lives in a community where cannibalism is 'normal' and 'all right', (like how murdering and killing IS, in the so-called "united states of america", in the days when this is being written), then could that one ALSO state and say, 'Cannibalism is definitely ethical, that is it clearly follows ethical standards', AND still be LOGICAL?

LuckyR wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 7:04 am For most individuals it violates their moral code, so is usually immoral, though to a cannibal, it isn't immoral.

AND, to a so-called "cannibal", and/or a 'cannibal community', it would not be unethical neither, right?

Oh of course in a "cannibal community" it would not violate that community's ethical standard. And when you show me such a community I'll amend my post.

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

LuckyR wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 6:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 8:00 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 7:04 am

Well, some things we know, some things we presume and some things we don't know at all. Firstly, it is illegal in Idaho, but not illegal in the other 49 states. Desecration of a corpse is illegal, but you don't need a corpse to engage in cannibalism. So usually not illegal.

It's definitely unethical, that is it clearly violates community ethical standards.

In ALL communities?

If yes, then HOW DID 'cannibalism' come about?

But, if no, then WHICH community IS Right, or GOOD, or 'ethical'?

See, following 'your' 'logic' here, could one who lives in a community where cannibalism is 'normal' and 'all right', (like how murdering and killing IS, in the so-called "united states of america", in the days when this is being written), then could that one ALSO state and say, 'Cannibalism is definitely ethical, that is it clearly follows ethical standards', AND still be LOGICAL?

LuckyR wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 7:04 am For most individuals it violates their moral code, so is usually immoral, though to a cannibal, it isn't immoral.

AND, to a so-called "cannibal", and/or a 'cannibal community', it would not be unethical neither, right?

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.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 6:24 am 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?

LuckyR wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 6:24 am 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".

LuckyR wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 6:24 am 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?

[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'.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 5:11 pm [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. 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). So even as a last resort, it doesn't come without a horrible price. But I can't judge someone who resorts to immorality under certain specific extreme circumstances. There but for the grace of God (or nature, or whoever/whatever is or isn't the ultimate judge) go I.


¯\_(*_*)_/¯

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 1:23 am 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.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 5:11 pm [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.

Trajk Logik wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 5:23 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 1:23 am 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.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 5:11 pm [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!

Age wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 8:06 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 6:24 am

Age wrote: ↑Mon Aug 28, 2023 8:00 am

In ALL communities?

If yes, then HOW DID 'cannibalism' come about?

But, if no, then WHICH community IS Right, or GOOD, or 'ethical'?

See, following 'your' 'logic' here, could one who lives in a community where cannibalism is 'normal' and 'all right', (like how murdering and killing IS, in the so-called "united states of america", in the days when this is being written), then could that one ALSO state and say, 'Cannibalism is definitely ethical, that is it clearly follows ethical standards', AND still be LOGICAL?


AND, to a so-called "cannibal", and/or a 'cannibal community', it would not be unethical neither, right?

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.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 6:24 am 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?

LuckyR wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 6:24 am 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".

LuckyR wrote: ↑Tue Aug 29, 2023 6:24 am 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. Though it's a bit disingenuous to state it as fact.

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

As to the definition of 'moral' and 'unethical', moral is something that follows an individual's personal moral code. Unethical is something that breaks a community's ethical standard. Obviously a community's ethical standard is not universally agreed upon by all members of the community, rather by a majority of members. 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.