To preface this thread, I'd just like to make everyone aware that I haven't eaten anyone nor do I intend to, this is simply theoretical. Not that I'd mind it, always wondered what people taste like...

Anyhow, I have been a long-time advocate of the legalisation of cannibalism as a legitimate practice, but this seems to have some pretty bad repercussions in an environment with 'normal' people, so I thought I'd discuss it with you all. I acknowledge that there will be different perspectives and so I will have a hard time addressing all of their attitudes but I will try.

1: If we accept that there is nothing after death, then there is no individual to harm through this act (Therefore, theories which attempt to prevent harm are not able to contest it on these grounds).
2: If we consider the wider ramifications of cannibalism, there is very little/no damage to society or others, and as such democratic theories (i.e Utilitarianism) cannot decry it for its harm to relatives, etc.
3: If there is no murder (the individual died of natural causes/accidents, etc.) then there is no reason to object to the acquisition of the corpse
4: If the individual is consenting, what authority does anyone else have over how his/her choice of their corpse's use?

These are only a few points to get the ball rolling, I'm relatively skeptical about this myself but I feel that it ought to be discussed. Let us see what may be seen.

initial reaction



second reaction



final reaction

Quote:I haven't eaten anyone nor do I intend to

You aren't going to be a bit hit with the ladies.........

(September 12, 2012 at 4:35 pm)liam Wrote: 2: If we consider the wider ramifications of cannibalism, there is very little/no damage to society or others, and as such democratic theories (i.e Utilitarianism) cannot decry it for its harm to relatives, etc.

Does "prion diseases" mean anything to you?

(September 12, 2012 at 4:35 pm)liam Wrote: To preface this thread, I'd just like to make everyone aware that I haven't eaten anyone nor do I intend to, this is simply theoretical. Not that I'd mind it, always wondered what people taste like...

Anyhow, I have been a long-time advocate of the legalisation of cannibalism as a legitimate practice, but this seems to have some pretty bad repercussions in an environment with 'normal' people, so I thought I'd discuss it with you all. I acknowledge that there will be different perspectives and so I will have a hard time addressing all of their attitudes but I will try.

1: If we accept that there is nothing after death, then there is no individual to harm through this act (Therefore, theories which attempt to prevent harm are not able to contest it on these grounds).
2: If we consider the wider ramifications of cannibalism, there is very little/no damage to society or others, and as such democratic theories (i.e Utilitarianism) cannot decry it for its harm to relatives, etc.
3: If there is no murder (the individual died of natural causes/accidents, etc.) then there is no reason to object to the acquisition of the corpse
4: If the individual is consenting, what authority does anyone else have over how his/her choice of their corpse's use?

These are only a few points to get the ball rolling, I'm relatively skeptical about this myself but I feel that it ought to be discussed. Let us see what may be seen.

Is cannibalism illegal to begin with? I know there are laws against murder or improper disposal of human parts - but against cannibalism specifically.

From what I understand, a person can dictate the terms of the disposal of his body in his will. Or failing such specification, the next of kin assumes the responsibility and ownership - especially in unusual cases such as taxidermy or being turned into fertilizer. As long as the process of cannibalism doesn't violate any specific health codes or environmental laws, I don't see legal objections to it.

Though, ofcourse, these things vary from country to country.

(September 12, 2012 at 4:35 pm)liam Wrote: 3: If there is no murder (the individual died of natural causes/accidents, etc.) then there is no reason to object to the acquisition of the corpse

That right there is a damn good way of taking a disease that killed one person and spreading it to several more.

(September 12, 2012 at 7:10 pm)TaraJo Wrote: That right there is a damn good way of taking a disease that killed one person and spreading it to several more.

Bizarrely enough I'd never even thought about this. Kinda wish I hadn't eaten my family to save on groceries now...

(September 12, 2012 at 7:45 pm)Tempus Wrote:

(September 12, 2012 at 7:10 pm)TaraJo Wrote: That right there is a damn good way of taking a disease that killed one person and spreading it to several more.

Bizarrely enough I'd never even thought about this. Kinda wish I hadn't eaten my family to save on groceries now...

No you did the right thing, if you ate several people you have reduced the amount of carriers, good work. Only if you shared your family out for others to eat would it be wrong on the disease front.

Oh man Atheism+ is gonna be so pissed if they run across this thread.

(September 12, 2012 at 8:19 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: Oh man Atheism+ is gonna be so pissed if they run across this thread.

Is there ever a time that they aren't pissed off over something?