Why Exactly Is Cannibalism Wrong?

Aside from the obvious: You have to kill someone to eat them. (I personally believe murder to be wrong.)

I do not believe that humans have a soul, seperate from the body. I also do not think that people corner the market on things like pain, fear, amusement or joy. Yet, we choose to eat animals that experience all these same emotions.

In fact, we humans are simply highly intelligent animals. Is that the only reason it's wrong to eat our kind? What exactly is morally wrong with eating humans?

(I'm not jonesing for human flesh or anything. Just wondering, BTW....)

Aside from the whole murder thing (which is probably why I've never given the topic much consideration) I can't see anything wrong with cannibalism. Hmm.... I'm sure I'll give this some thought throughout the day.

Look online and you'll find out why....did you know that most serial killers that are cannibals won't admit it. It's even too taboo for them. It is also a form of ultimate control and domination Morally is what you are asking for not why it is so bad for physically right? Cause physically it can be very bad for you. When I was in college about 15 years ago I did a paper on Cannabalism, it covered everything from the Donner Party, to tribal cannabalism.

Why would you ask such a question? Are you hungry or something...lol

Dude, cannibalism isn't wrong. Add a little salt to that shit and it tastes just like chicken.

found this on wiki:

The New York Times reporter William Buehler Seabrook, in the interests of research, obtained from a hospital intern at the Sorbonne a chunk of human meat from the body of a healthy human killed by accident, and cooked and ate it. He reported that, "It was like good, fully developed veal, not young, but not yet beef. It was very definitely like that, and it was not like any other meat I had ever tasted. It was so nearly like good, fully developed veal that I think no person with a palate of ordinary, normal sensitiveness could distinguish it from veal. It was mild, good meat with no other sharply defined or highly characteristic taste such as for instance, goat, high game, and pork have. The steak was slightly tougher than prime veal, a little stringy, but not too tough or stringy to be agreeably edible. The roast, from which I cut and ate a central slice, was tender, and in color, texture, smell as well as taste, strengthened my certainty that of all the meats we habitually know, veal is the one meat to which this meat is accurately comparable."

Should he be in prison?

Baked Jesus said:

Dude, cannibalism isn't wrong. Add a little salt to that shit and it tastes just like chicken.

Click to expand...

What if you don't like chicken. C'mon Jesus you can't be eating people it's not in your nature...lol

Can't you supposedly make food and water anyway?

Gygax - I still do not see a moral argument against cannabalism in your post.

So most cannibalistic serial killers wont admit to eating humans because they feel it's taboo. So? Taboos are social constructs, so unless you advocate some sort of cultural relativism regarding morality, this fact is irrelevant (even with cultural relativism such a fact is irrelevant due to the existence of tribal cannibalism).
As for cannibalism being a form of control and domination, again, so what? The murder would be morally wrong, yes, but the eating of the flesh is a side note - at most the simple eating of the flesh is harmful to the one who is consuming the flesh.

closet.cult said:

found this on wiki:

The New York Times reporter William Buehler Seabrook, in the interests of research, obtained from a hospital intern at the Sorbonne a chunk of human meat from the body of a healthy human killed by accident, and cooked and ate it. He reported that, "It was like good, fully developed veal, not young, but not yet beef. It was very definitely like that, and it was not like any other meat I had ever tasted. It was so nearly like good, fully developed veal that I think no person with a palate of ordinary, normal sensitiveness could distinguish it from veal. It was mild, good meat with no other sharply defined or highly characteristic taste such as for instance, goat, high game, and pork have. The steak was slightly tougher than prime veal, a little stringy, but not too tough or stringy to be agreeably edible. The roast, from which I cut and ate a central slice, was tender, and in color, texture, smell as well as taste, strengthened my certainty that of all the meats we habitually know, veal is the one meat to which this meat is accurately comparable."

Should he be in prison?

Click to expand...

I don't know about prison but I wouldn't make that info public. There is just something taboo about it. I wonder if he still gets dates after he tells them that he ate human flesh and then actually reported on it. Aren't there more important things to write about...lol.

I think the question is would you eat it if you had to for survival?

Someone who choses to eat it just because is certainly sick.
Research or no dude is wack.

I am sorry if you are on a plane with me and it goes down.

I will pay my respect and eat you after roasting you on a fire.

It is amazing what a person will do to survive.

LOL.
Next time I fly I am packing BBQ sauce and utensils in my carry on.

Anyone ever heard of Mad Cow disease? Cows that eat cow parts get sick.

The same goes for humans. There have been many documentaries about people who practice cannabalism. Some have a disease similar to Mad Cow Disease. Uncontrolled shaking, unable to walk, talk or make sense of others around them.

Thats enough to turn me off to people meat.

Now under life/death stress like being stranded in the mountains or woods with a corpse.......Guess who wont be starving to death.

dumbassdrummer said:

Gygax - I still do not see a moral argument against cannabalism in your post.

So most cannibalistic serial killers wont admit to eating humans because they feel it's taboo. So? Taboos are social constructs, so unless you advocate some sort of cultural relativism regarding morality, this fact is irrelevant (even with cultural relativism such a fact is irrelevant due to the existence of tribal cannibalism).
As for cannibalism being a form of control and domination, again, so what? The murder would be morally wrong, yes, but the eating of the flesh is a side note - at most the simple eating of the flesh is harmful to the one who is consuming the flesh.

Click to expand...

Is necrophilia morally wrong? That's a social taboo right. I would see it as being morally wrong. I also think desecrating a human body by eating it is morally wrong. That's someone else's body dead or alive. I do agree that it is a taboo which is created by society, but morals are not set in stone they are different from person to person, morals can be set by individuals

The term “morality” can be used either
descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
some other group, such as a religion, or
accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

So yes I as an individual would have a set of morals that would not allow me to eat human flesh, UNLESS it is for my own survival. You are right by saying that I was wrong with the morality I should have thought it through more. I guess what I'm trying to say is that as an individual my morals would not allow me to do such things unless I had to survive and the person was already dead. Is killing morally wrong? Animals kill each other? Why then is it morally wrong to kill someone? I'm sure cavemen murdered all the time and knew that what they did gave them a great felling of power but they also probably knew deep down inside that what they did made them feel bad, brought out the dark side. I'm talking about murder and not self defense. Why do you think it is morally OK to eat human flesh?

i don't think there is anything morally wrong with necrophilia. it's sick as fuck! but a dead body has no feelings, thoughts or anything at all, IMO.

So, who is the act harming? I know, the memory of the person, to the people who remembers her. (I say her because unless there's some kind of rigermotise going on, i don't think a chick could fuck a dead guy.)

desecration of human remains is a social taboo due to religious sentiments. the soul, the afterlife, made in god's image. all that jizz. if it wasn't for that, it would still be sick as fuck, but would it be morally wrong, therefore, illegal?

i wonder if religious sentiment is the underlying taboo against cannibalism, too...

i take it back, necrophilia is so gross, i would say it is against my morals. i mean if you call someone immoral for cheating on their spouse with a live person, fucking a dead body has GOT to be immoral.

weirdos!

BloodShotI'z said:

Anyone ever heard of Mad Cow disease? Cows that eat cow parts get sick.

The same goes for humans. There have been many documentaries about people who practice cannabalism. Some have a disease similar to Mad Cow Disease. Uncontrolled shaking, unable to walk, talk or make sense of others around them.

Click to expand...

yes. that's true too. but is that what makes it wrong?

i guess it's just really gross.

^^^Wrong? No. But good enough reason not to do it. I think the health reasons outweigh any social norms/taboos.^^^

If it were acceptable in society to eat human meat....I still wouldnt for the health reasons.

Let me say that I have similar beliefs to you I am not religous. But if someone ate your mom or someone close to you would you be pissed? I would kill the fucker, sorry but I would. I look at it as a respect issue. I believe that disrespecting somebody is morally wrong. I also believe that eating someone is disrespectful, regardless of religion, having a soul etc....
Plus the domination, control, and humiliation that a lot of tribal cannabalism entails is just wrong. It's not enough to kill and defeat your enemy, but then to completely dominate them by eating them is just wrong...at least in my eyes. Hey if you don't think cannabalism is wrong thats fine, I could care less what you think , everbody is different and entitled to different opinions. I just think it is morallly wrong to desecrate another person's body.

Bloodshot'iz, it's been a while since I wrote that paper but you are right,it is not healthy for humans to eat human flesh in excess. I wish I could remember why, it's been about 15 years since I wrote that paper. I believe it has something to do with human flesh not containing certain things that we as humans need, i.e. minerals and vitamins. I wish I could remember, and for some reason I'm thinking along the lines of scurvy or something like that...damn!!! I'm getting old.

"Is necrophilia morally wrong? That's a social taboo right. I would see it as being morally wrong. I also think desecrating a human body by eating it is morally wrong. That's someone else's body dead or alive. I do agree that it is a taboo which is created by society, but morals are not set in stone they are different from person to person, morals can be set by individuals

The term “morality” can be used either
descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
some other group, such as a religion, or
accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

So yes I as an individual would have a set of morals that would not allow me to eat human flesh, UNLESS it is for my own survival. You are right by saying that I was wrong with the morality I should have thought it through more. I guess what I'm trying to say is that as an individual my morals would not allow me to do such things unless I had to survive and the person was already dead. Is killing morally wrong? Animals kill each other? Why then is it morally wrong to kill someone? I'm sure cavemen murdered all the time and knew that what they did gave them a great felling of power but they also probably knew deep down inside that what they did made them feel bad, brought out the dark side. I'm talking about murder and not self defense. Why do you think it is morally OK to eat human flesh?"

Is necrophilia morally wrong? No, not necessarily, necessarily being the key word. One can imagine, if allowed, necrophiliacs grouping together to allow their bodies to be used after their own passing. In such a case, what would be the problem?

As for the body belonging to someone dead or alive, let's examine this - it's crucial to the subject. Alive, obviously, the body is that of the person. But what about after the person passes? How can anything be said to be owned by a person who is no longer alive - the owner no longer exists. Ownership requires an owner.

You make a fine point in saying that cannibalism (could be anything, really, necrophilia, wearing tennis shoes, you name it) is against the morals you hold personally, thus it is morally wrong. That's all well and fine, but if you are speaking of your personal code of morality that code must either: 1) remain your own or 2) be open to rational criticism. Under the first possibility, you might say that you view X is morally wrong so you avoid X. If you were to say that X is morally wrong and others should think so as well, then you have to accept the second option, rational criticism of your moral code.

As for your point about killing, this is an interesting topic, and one heavily debated, especially in modern philosophy. Generally, the killing of humans is said to be wrong because we view each other as having equal rights (rather, that we should have equal rights), thus murder is necessarily morally wrong as to murder would be to destroy the rights of another. Animals on the other hand lack the capacity to reason, and, even if they can reason to a slight degree (as some animals seem capable of doing) animals do not see each other as having equal rights, thus animals are morally inferior creatures. Basically - morality, in this frame of thought, is a purely human concern. Some claim that animals have rights, which I disagree with.

Why do I think it is morally acceptable to eat flesh? Well... I do not see cannibalism as being necessarily (again, necessarily being key) wrong, though, I have little doubt that the vast majority of cases of cannibalism occurred under conditions I would call morally wrong.

"So are we just going to ignore the heatlth reasons?"

The significance of eating human flesh on our health seems morally irrelevant to me. If you think otherwise, I'd like to know why.

all good points. so what if it's consential cannibalism?

this from wiki:

Sharon Rina Lopatka (September 20, 1961 – October 16, 1996) was a female Internet entrepreneur in Hampstead, Maryland, United States, who was killed in a case of apparent consensual homicide. Lopatka was tortured and strangled to death in October, 1996 by Robert Frederick Glass, a computer analyst from North Carolina. Apparently, the purpose was mutual sexual gratification. The case became the earliest widely publicized example of a consensual homicide mediated through the use of the Internet.




The Murder:

Using the Internet, where she also advertised pornography related to unusual sexual fetishes, Lopatka searched for a man who would torture and kill her. After contacting several people who turned out not to be serious, she finally found someone willing to fulfill her request. Glass and Lopatka exchanged many e-mails until they met in North Carolina, where Glass strangled Lopatka using a nylon cord after torturing her for several days. Glass was later convicted of voluntary manslaughter for the act. He was also found to be in possession of child pornography.