Cannibalism

[Null_and_Void]

I'd like to preface this with a message to the moderators. If this thread gets out of hand, I understand fully if it must be locked (though I'd appreciate a PM if this does happen), this is just something I've been thinking about for the past day and this is the only community that I frequent that I could actually pose this question to. Now, onto the subject.

I find it funny that most people see killing a person and eating them as SO much worse than just killing the person, but when it comes to killing non-human animals, it's when we DON'T eat them that most people suddenly have a problem with it, because then it's a matter of them killing for the sake of killing, not for nourishment. Doesn't that seem strange?

So, do you think that there is anything inherently wrong with cannibalism? A simple question, perhaps, but one that I think has a lot of subject matter to it, so let me explain my views. I completely agree that murder of an innocent person is obvious unjust. I do not, however, think that there is something inherently "wrong" with cannibalism. Let us consider, for instance, a scenario in which a person consents to have their body eaten by a friend after they die. The friend is not killing them, and there was an agreement before death. In a scenario such as this, I am entirely supportive of it.

Now, a more grey area. In this scenario, a person (let's call them Jack), has a heart attack in the woods, and dies. Now, another person (let's call them BIll), stumbles upon Jack's corpse, and decides he looks tasty, and he eats him. Now here, I have no problem with the cannibalism, but I oppose the actions Bill decided to take, as he is covering up evidence of Jack's death. Now, let's suppose he alerted the authorities instead, and Jack's death is now confirmed, and sent to his wife, Lucy. Now it's documented that Jack died, and his wife, Lucy, is in possession of the body. The normal thing to do here is a cremation or preserving of the body, be it for a funeral or for keeping around the house. Would it be so terrible if Lucy ate Jack? At this point, Jack is dead. The electrochemical reactions that were once his personality have stopped functioning (or if you're the religious sort, his soul has left his body). Jack is pretty much just meat right now. Would it be wrong if she ate him? She didn't have his consent before he died, but she is the one in legal possession of the body and any investigation pertaining to his death is already over. Would eating his corpse really be bad, but burning it to ashes would not? If anything, I actually see cannibalism as more moral than cremation. The "natural" circle of life has things consuming things in life, then dying and being consumed by other things. Cremation ends the loop, and has you instead be selfish by not allowing something to gain nourishment from your death.

Now, I myself would not wish to partake in cannibalism, but that is because I feel an inherent disgust towards human bodies, and would not wish to consume one (much like how a person would not generally desire to eat a sewer rat), but I have no problem with cannibalism. I object only to murder and covering up evidence of a death. If cannibalism can exist without causing either of those, I see no issue. I'd like to hear opinions from other people.

[Rising Sun]

I agree with your arguments.

The reason why people shouldn't try cannibalism is sanitary. Many contagious diseases would spread that way. It's also why eating monkey meat is taboo in many tribes, as monkeys share a lot of diseases with us.

[Shoryu]

I believe the core matters at hand is that cannibalism often seems to correlate to mental instability and insensitivity on whole new levels. It's bad enough if someone is killed, but the family not being able to pay final respects really adds salt to the wounds. Even mutilating the body can be seen as the killer being super insidious.

If you think about it, most people would after committing a murder come into shock realization of what they did. However, a cannibal leaves those emotions in the dust.

I think what really boils down to is consent between multiple people. There's not exactly anything inherently wrong with eating human flesh, so long as you take many, many steps in some long winded process (which I'm pretty sure some guy did this but cannot remember any names at the moment), then hey, I have no issue.

[Zerο]

I'm more disgusted at the prospect of eating a human than the ideology of eating your same species.

[TooOldForThis]

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with cannibalism; however, it usually comes along with baggage which is often morally questionable or outright unethical. Furthermore, prion diseases are more easily transmitted (to humans) through consumption of human meat than through consumption of any other type of meat, and they are nasty. Thus, while cannibalism in and of itself may not be wrong, it is usually inadvisable at best, and blatantly condemnable at worst.

Also, a note: I am a vegetarian, and do not support the killing of (most) non-human animals for meat either. That said, I think a lot of the baggage which typically accompanies cannibalism is not usually present with non-humans, and so consumption of non-human animals may be preferable to consumption of humans under most circumstances.

[Scottthespy]

I think another important thing to mention is that humans do not do well on human meat. Some species can practice cannibalism with no ill effects, but humans are not one of them. Earing too much human meat can do terrible things to your health. If there were a situation in where you had no choice, such as a plane crash in the mointains or something, I would have no issues with it as the living take precedence over the dead in situations like that. Or, say there were a group that, for religious or other reasons, practiced a form of cannibalism as a way of respecting and connecting to the dead, like say each member of the tribe recieved a single small bite of the flesh after death...if it was to honor and memorialize the dead, I could accept that too, though I wouldn't want to take part. Its simply that there arent a lot of situations where canableism is either a physically healthier option or not a case of dehumanizing the body and emotionally distancing yourself FROM humanity. So, I suppose I don't find it inherently morally wrong, but I do find most of the circumstances that would allow for it to occur to be morally wrong. Now, to throw a loop into the works, I wonder what kind of results you would get asking this question among the vore community?

[Eva]

Really, the right thing to do would be to turn Jack into little green patties first.

[Froggles]

Just another brick in the wall, as they say...

[TealXLIV]

I don't really think there is anything inherently wrong with cannibalism. It's just a matter of circumstance to me.

As humans, we a lot more access to food than a non-human animal. So I don't really think we should go around eating each other unless there's a particular reason why we need to be munching on Aunt Murtle.

If it's a situation where I'm trapped in a snowstorm with a buddy who dies, well I need to eat, and they might be the difference between life and death. So....I don't see anything wrong with takin' a bite. That's an understood situation. [Donner Party]

If we have a situation where one person willingly agrees to be eaten, and isn't under any kind of condition that would impact mental judgement when making this decision, then I don't think this situation is morally wrong either. [Armin Meiwes]

But if we have a situation where someone just takes a bite out of another person without their consent, and there isn't a life-or-death situation, then that's wrong. [Miami bath salt case]

Plus I wouldn't want someone just taking me home and cooking me if I died in the woods for instance. Now if there's a reason to be gnawing on some Teal, then I guess there's nothing I can do...I'm dead. But if you don't have to be eating me, then please don't. Even if I look tasty, then don't mess with my body please.

[Næt.]

Cannibalism isn't really immoral according to how probably most people - at least here in the UK - would conceive of how something can be immoral, ie consequentialist utilitarian ethics.

But it is weird.

[ballerina]

As a public health issue, cannibalism is not a safe. Tribes in Papua New Guinea who practiced the ritual had members die from spongiform encephalitis contracted through eating human flesh. In the animal world, mad cow disease was linked to the consumption of animals themselves eating animal products. Therefore, I believe cannibalism should not be legalised or supported considering such a danger.

Also, my reaction to the concept made me know it was something I don't want. I suspect the wish for cannibalism is not part of a need for survival and appetite for flesh, but rather a dysfunction related to a person and how they relate to other people - serial killers who have committed cannibalism have alluded to the notion that eating a person was a way have ultimate control of someone; once ingested that person would become part of them and could never leave.

[SexNotHaver]

Right now, I don't see anything immoral about it, but that's probably because I'm quite hungry right now.

[CNGB]

I think it's disgusting, but then I do have issues with touching and thinking about touching dead bodies (humans' more often than not, but other animals' as well), unless they're cooked (though cooked human flesh is no better in my mind)--but all of that is just a mental thing.

Maybe I'm just an ignorant fuck, but I do believe that cannibalism is immoral and should not ever be done unless there is no other option. Whether the deceased is there or not hardly matters to me. Either bury them or burn them, but for the love of God don't eat them, or lick them, or have sex with them, or do anything that they are incapable of consenting to. Please.

The only time I would want cannibalism to be legalized is for a particular religion, and even that's for the sole sake of religious freedom and nothing else. Under no other circumstances should it be legal . . . something that has no physical benefit and can still screw your world up shouldn't be "alright" by the government.

[Bazer63]

As long as the person is already dead as has been prepared so as to not get food poisening, I see nothing wrong.

[ThaHoward]

Unless it is an emergency, I think that cannibalism should be illegal. Unless in some extreme rare - non-emergency - instances where i.e a deceased person have written in his/hers will that they want to be eaten by someone..

[deltaX]

I think it depends entirely on the circumstances surrounding it. I dont think there is anything inherently wrong with cannibalism, but there are many circumstances where eating another person could be immoral.

I think it would be best with there was a law making illegal unless it was an emergency situation, or unless both parties consented. Also, the person should have to die naturally, and not be killed for the purpose of eating. I think most situations that dont fall into on of those categories probably have something immoral surrounding them.

[Null_and_Void]

To all of you who are saying it's immoral, could you please explain your reasoning? I don't believe anything can be immoral just because it is, so I'd like to hear why you all think it's immoral.

[ThaHoward]

To all of you who are saying it's immoral, could you please explain your reasoning? I don't believe anything can be immoral just because it is, so I'd like to hear why you all think it's immoral.

Because it is not okay to kill a human being? And if they are dead before on, that person still deserve a proper burial, just like it would be immoral of me to pee on your tombstone. Furthermore it isn't exactly.. healthy to eat humans. So the reason why humans percieve it as "immoral" is because it goes against most people's nature and instincts.

[Null_and_Void]

To all of you who are saying it's immoral, could you please explain your reasoning? I don't believe anything can be immoral just because it is, so I'd like to hear why you all think it's immoral.

Because it is not okay to kill a human being? And if they are dead before on, that person still deserve a proper burial, just like it would be immoral of me to pee on your tombstone. Furthermore it isn't exactly.. healthy to eat humans. So the reason why humans percieve it as "immoral" is because it goes against most people's nature and instincts.

1) I said nothing about killing. I thought I made that rather clear in my extensive post. Killing is a different action all together. Even if somebody did kill a person then ate them, I would be objecting to the murder, not the cannibalism.

2) Why does that person deserve a burial? I want a genuine answer. I find it very productive to question everything. This also doesn't address the scenario in which the person consents to it before they die. Do they then suddenly not deserve to have their body disposed of in the way that they wished?

3) I would not find it immoral to pee on my tombstone, as it's just a rock above a carcass. What I find immoral is cremation, embalming, and caskets. It is selfish, as it does not feed back into the circle of life, which humans in first world nations gluttonously feed off of throughout their lives, only to not even give back to.

4) Not healthy doesn't mean immoral. There are a great many things that aren't healthy for us, but we don't consider immoral.

5) This is perhaps the worst reason of all. I want you take a good long look at your last sentence. "the reason why humans percieve it as "immoral" is because it goes against most people's nature and instincts". Really think about that one for a moment. Can you think of any other thing that "goes against most people's nature and instincts"? By this line of reasoning, asexuality is "immoral".

[ThaHoward]

No, since asexuality occurs natural. Murder, eating others and so on is in general not good for humans as a whole. Just like holding your hand at the oven. Eating human flesh is unhealthy due to it containing high amount of metals, which is also true for other predators. And most cannibals do eat humans after killing them, it is few people who actually want to be eaten.. Why they deserve a proper burial? Respect. Everyone have a right to be respected in life and in death.

And I said that if it so extreme rare cases that one actually write in their will that they want their body to be eaten, they should be allowed to do so. But from a practical point of view it is in my opinion highley hypothetical and is an extreme case. As 1. that person would need to have a really strong desire to get eaten after death, and for some reason I believe extremely few actually want that. Then 2. of all that person would need to know someone which could eat them, and I suppose even fewer know cannibals. So it is highley unlikely since it is unlikely that two persons like that will know eachother, let alone agree on it inthe first place due to it being looked down upon. So you are not really having a real dilemma, just extreme hypothetical ones. As we see how cannibalism is done in the VAST majority of cases it is murdering people to eat them, eating dead people - either in an emergency,mental illness or some sort o war culture.

[Null_and_Void]

No, since asexuality occurs natural. Murder, eating others and so on is in general not good for humans as a whole. Just like holding your hand at the oven. Eating human flesh is unhealthy due to it containing high amount of metals, which is also true for other predators. And most cannibals do eat humans after killing them, it is few people who actually want to be eaten.. Why they deserve a proper burial? Respect. Everyone have a right to be respected in life and in death.

And I said that if it so extreme rare cases that one actually write in their will that they want their body to be eaten, they should be allowed to do so. But from a practical point of view it is in my opinion highley hypothetical and is an extreme case. As 1. that person would need to have a really strong desire to get eaten after death, and for some reason I believe extremely few actually want that. Then 2. of all that person would need to know someone which could eat them, and I suppose even fewer know cannibals. So it is highley unlikely since it is unlikely that two persons like that will know eachother, let alone agree on it inthe first place due to it being looked down upon. So you are not really having a real dilemma, just extreme hypothetical ones. As we see how cannibalism is done in the VAST majority of cases it is murdering people to eat them, eating dead people - either in an emergency,mental illness or some sort o war culture.

So, because the scenario for it to occur would be extremely rare, it should then be illegal? I fail to see any sense in that. Why illegalize the cannibalism if the murder is already illegal? Also, why does a corpse have rights? I know this opens up an entirely different discussion, but it seems to be the root of this issue. When a person dies, what is left behind is simply a carcass. Why do we grant a carcass respect?

Also, no, you don't have to have some extreme desire to be eaten to simply state that it's okay if somebody does so. When I die, I want my body either buried in the ground with no casket, fed to something, or studied. That second one could be a human for all I care.

P.S. You avoided the asexuality thing. Your defense is that asexuality is natural. Everything that occurs is natural, as it happens in the natural world. Cannibalism is just a natural. As to the health issues, would you suggest we illegalize fast food, alcohol, and sex with people with STDs?

[ThaHoward]

As I said earlier if it is an extreme case like that I think it should be legal. But looking at how it is done in, I would daresay, every case it should remain illegal. So in a few extreme cases it should be legal, but looking at how cannibalism is performed in real life and not fantasy world it should be illegal. For example (Trigger Warning) rape is illegal for a good reason, but if someone make a contract that one become a slave and must be raped if the owner desire so that do not mean that rape in real cases is okay. That example is extreme, and for a reason. It shows that the first example is just as far fetched, and gets out the point. And just to be clear I don't think such a rape contract should be allowed.

And we don't need to give the "carcass" itself respect. But it represent something more than that, it's the end lf anentire life. We do treat dead people with respect, that's why we bury or cremate them in the first place. And why do you want your bodu to be buried when it is just a carcass? Why not dress it up as a clown and let it parade in Taihiti?

And I don't get your last argument. Asexuality occurs natural, and humans don't have prejudices against asexuality naturally, that is culturally. Cannibalism on the other hand we are programmed to oppose due to it being counterproductive for human survival and toxic. And no we shouldn't illegalize having sex with STD. But forexample having sex with a corpse shouldn't be allowed, and yes it is to respect the dead person and it's family and friends even if you don't mind it - while ironically you want to be buried.

[Null_and_Void]

And why do you want your bodu to be buried when it is just a carcass? Why not dress it up as a clown and let it parade in Taihiti?

I'm honestly rather surprised you have to ask this since I've already stated it in the opening post, as well as my first direct response to you (it was #3). I'll copy/paste it for you since you seem to have missed it.

"What I find immoral is cremation, embalming, and caskets. It is selfish, as it does not feed back into the circle of life, which humans in first world nations gluttonously feed off of throughout their lives, only to not even give back to."

Yes, I do not believe that a carcass is a person. However, my body is something that I do currently own. I can leave in my will what I want to be done with it, and that should be honored. What I do not support is presumptions about how a person wished their body to be treated after they have died, if they did not specify. Your body should be treated like any other possession you owned while alive. If specified in your will, it should be disposed of or given away as you specify in the will. If you have not specified, it should be given to the next of kin. I direct you back to the opening post. Jack didn't leave a will, and thus his body simply became the possession of his wife, Lucy. Lucy should then be able to do whatever she wants with the body, as it is simply an object that she owns. If she wishes to eat it, I say let her. Even if she wishes to cremate it, I say let her, because just because I find something immoral doesn't mean I also think it should be illegal. Rights should trump morality (unless it is an extreme situation in which many lives are on the line, but that isn't the topic of the debate. We can have that elsewhere if you so desire).

So yes, when I die, what is left will just be a carcass, an object composed of meat. Why do I care what is done with that meat since I am no longer alive? I suppose the answer is simply because I'm not selfish, and I care about more than just myself. I find it more moral for that meat to be used for something, rather than to just be preserved and wasted.

Now, as to your first paragraph, that isn't rape. That is literally giving consent via a contract, which is about as solid of a form of consent as you can get. I'll ignore your metaphor and just address the actual topic again. Isn't the bad part here the murder? Murder is already illegal, so why bother making cannibalism illegal? If somebody kills somebody and eats them, they're already going to go to prison for the murder. Why does the cannibalism need to be a second crime there? Does it really make the whole situation so much worse that it merits another crime?

Now, as to the last paragraph, I beg to differ. I think both the negative stigmas against asexuality and cannibalism are both natural and cultural. Both of them influence people's opinions on both subjects. You top this off with saying you're also against sex with corpses (which I am not surprised by), but I also disagree here, as, yet again, I simply see the corpse as an object. So long as it's either the person who owns the corpse doing it, or they have consented to let other people do it, I fail to see the issue. Yet again I must ask the reason that we grant a rotting husk of meat similar respects as people.

[RK800]

Here's my two cents (alright, so nobody wanted a donation but take it *tosses change*):
I voted 'Yes, it is immoral, but should not be illegal' mainly because I think laws are often worthless and knowing the way that they're typically enforced shows how potential problems could arise (loopholes and variations depending on the situation). I think it's pretty messed up if you kill someone (and I can say this with relatively little bias since I have a family member who attempted murder, I know both sides of the coin; rational and irrational) but eating them shows further breaking of modern (at least in western countries) social constructs. Murder is relatively common and most people believe that under certain circumstances it's needed (i.e. good of society, self-defence, etc.) but it is far from 'accepted'. If a person kills another the first thing most people want to know is why. Sometimes you can provide really good reasons (like previously mentioned) but if a person kills someone and eats them it's hard to find a logical reason for why (with the exception of the whole 'stranded on an island' thing). When people can find a good reason for why something happens it becomes unknown and taboo and/or the 'criminal' is 'assumed' to be insane.

[Null_and_Void]

Here's my two cents (alright, so nobody wanted a donation but take it *tosses change*):

I voted 'Yes, it is immoral, but should not be illegal' mainly because I think laws are often worthless and knowing the way that they're typically enforced shows how potential problems could arise (loopholes and variations depending on the situation). I think it's pretty messed up if you kill someone (and I can say this with relatively little bias since I have a family member who attempted murder, I know both sides of the coin; rational and irrational) but eating them shows further breaking of modern (at least in western countries) social constructs. Murder is relatively common and most people believe that under certain circumstances it's needed (i.e. good of society, self-defence, etc.) but it is far from 'accepted'. If a person kills another the first thing most people want to know is why. Sometimes you can provide really good reasons (like previously mentioned) but if a person kills someone and eats them it's hard to find a logical reason for why (with the exception of the whole 'stranded on an island' thing). When people can find a good reason for why something happens it becomes unknown and taboo and/or the 'criminal' is 'assumed' to be insane.

Why do people keep saying killing and eating? I thought I made it very clear that I'm only talking about cannibalism, not cannibalism plus murder. Literally all three of my examples did not involve murder at all. Can you please offer your opinion on cannibalism, not murder with cannibalism tacked on?

[Guest]

I actually had a thread about this a long time ago, and i agree. One issue though is that the next of kin do not legally own the corpse. The morgue does, and in fact there are cases where the morgue has chosen not to do what the next of kin desire (the case I remember is when one person's dying wish was that he be skinned and the leather be turned into the case for a book about him). I think the next of kin should legally own the body though personally, at least after murder and such are ruled out.

I do disagree with hunting somebody down and eating them even in a survival situation, just as you, but if they are already dead, I practically see it as an honor. Giving them life in your death. Better than wasting the meat.

[Null_and_Void]

I actually had a thread about this a long time ago, and i agree. One issue though is that the next of kin do not legally own the corpse. The morgue does, and in fact there are cases where the morgue has chosen not to do what the next of kin desire (the case I remember is when one person's dying wish was that he be skinned and the leather be turned into the case for a book about him). I think the next of kin should legally own the body though personally, at least after murder and such are ruled out.

Well I suspect this depends on the country, but I am aware that it doesn't currently work how I stated. Sorry that I didn't make that clear enough, I was simply stating how I thing it should work, just treating the corpse like any other possession.

[RK800]

Here's my two cents (alright, so nobody wanted a donation but take it *tosses change*):

I voted 'Yes, it is immoral, but should not be illegal' mainly because I think laws are often worthless and knowing the way that they're typically enforced shows how potential problems could arise (loopholes and variations depending on the situation). I think it's pretty messed up if you kill someone (and I can say this with relatively little bias since I have a family member who attempted murder, I know both sides of the coin; rational and irrational) but eating them shows further breaking of modern (at least in western countries) social constructs. Murder is relatively common and most people believe that under certain circumstances it's needed (i.e. good of society, self-defence, etc.) but it is far from 'accepted'. If a person kills another the first thing most people want to know is why. Sometimes you can provide really good reasons (like previously mentioned) but if a person kills someone and eats them it's hard to find a logical reason for why (with the exception of the whole 'stranded on an island' thing). When people can find a good reason for why something happens it becomes unknown and taboo and/or the 'criminal' is 'assumed' to be insane.

Why do people keep saying killing and eating? I thought I made it very clear that I'm only talking about cannibalism, not cannibalism plus murder. Literally all three of my examples did not involve murder at all. Can you please offer your opinion on cannibalism, not murder with cannibalism tacked on?

I know. Personally I don't agree with humans consuming corpses of any once living thing (just a part of my moral and ethical beliefs) under most circumstances. If it was for survival purposes I wouldn't care much if at all but in most situations I think it's wrong mainly for the family of the individual who has passed. I wouldn't like the thought of my uncle being eaten, it's just unpleasant and I'd like to think human beings, being as intelligent as we (claim we) are would take a moment to be sensitive to others wishes (which is why I think Bill should think twice about eating Jack). However this can still be applied to Lucy's position in the scenario as well if he has other family. Though say they're elderly and Jack has no living family but Lucy then I wouldn't really care, I would still find it odd as I can't find a reason for why she would but I guess that's none of my business.

[Frac]

I don't think there are many situations where one's body would be needed as food. It would be more ethical to donate the dead person's organs for someone who requires them to survive. If they're not intact due to say, having been in an accident, then, maybe. It's not respectful to do so without that person's consent, though, especially if they themselves have wished to be buried or cremated after dying.

[Null_and_Void]

Or, say there were a group that, for religious or other reasons, practiced a form of cannibalism as a way of respecting and connecting to the dead, like say each member of the tribe recieved a single small bite of the flesh after death...

I know I'm a bit late to responding to this. but I'd just like to point out how horrid of a point this is. You are actually advocating for giving members of a religion a legal right that people who are not members of that religion do not have. It's not much of a slippery slope after that for religious groups to be demanding the right to kill in the name of their religion (The first to come to mind would be stoning homosexuals to death). No right should be granted on the basis of religion ever. The right to practice a religion should end at the same place that everyone else's rights end. If a law such as this were to occur, I would be in the streets protesting, and I would be willing to die to defend my rights against the iron fist of religion.

I don't think there are many situations where one's body would be needed as food.

There are a countless amount of things that are legal that we don't absolutely need to do for survival. Can you honestly tell me that you only ever eat what you need to to survive?