(September 14, 2012 at 1:57 pm)genkaus Wrote: You misunderstand my point. I am specifically talking about an ethical theory constructed towards the purpose of long, healthy and fulfilling life. You stated that you had not come across any ethical objection towards cannibalism except for vacuous religious ones and all objection simply classified it as impractical or dangerous. Assuming that you do not believe in a singular universal moral theory, you should be acquainted with a multitude of them which equate impracticality/danger with immorality and provide you with an ethical objection to cannibalism - if it is in fact dangerous.

I understood your point, perhaps I was rather unclear in my response. Let me try again with this one.

The issue is that it is only unethical If this is the case, yet there are many counter-examples to this. For example, a fireman is acting dangerously when he rescues an individual from a burning building (an example I'm partial to recently for some reason), yet this would not be considered immoral, implying a difference between danger and immorality. It might be said, in response, that he is only putting himself in danger, whereas cannibalism risks more. This seems unfounded, however, considering that there is certainly no danger other than that to the individual incurred through cannibalism. Furthermore, if diseases occurred they would quickly be identified and removed as they are in meat when regulated properly.
Furthermore, this is assuming that there is not a universal standard, which is not the same as disagreeing with theological arguments for morality.

(September 14, 2012 at 2:07 pm)liam Wrote: I understood your point, perhaps I was rather unclear in my response. Let me try again with this one.

The issue is that it is only unethical If this is the case, yet there are many counter-examples to this. For example, a fireman is acting dangerously when he rescues an individual from a burning building (an example I'm partial to recently for some reason), yet this would not be considered immoral, implying a difference between danger and immorality.

And that is the point I was addressing. Under that ethical theory, the fireman would be considered immoral as well - unless he can show that the risk was, in fact, minimal.

(September 14, 2012 at 2:14 pm)genkaus Wrote: And that is the point I was addressing. Under that ethical theory, the fireman would be considered immoral as well - unless he can show that the risk was, in fact, minimal.

Oh, my apologies. It just seemed queer that your intentional point was to condemn the saving of life. Then, according to this, does the fireman not have providence over his own body or not? Furthermore, self-sacrifice in order to save another (or multiple others) is hereby condemned if this is accepted. There also comes the issue that all things are dangerous and there is, therefore, no such thing as moral behaviour because the simple existence of a human is a risk to its own life. What do you say in response?

(September 14, 2012 at 2:31 pm)liam Wrote: It just seemed queer that your intentional point was to condemn the saving of life.

No, it's not the "saving of life" that is being condemned, it is the "risking of one's own". That's an important distinction.

(September 14, 2012 at 2:31 pm)liam Wrote: Then, according to this, does the fireman not have providence over his own body or not?

Ofcourse he does. But how is that relevant?

(September 14, 2012 at 2:31 pm)liam Wrote: Furthermore, self-sacrifice in order to save another (or multiple others) is hereby condemned if this is accepted.

True enough.

(September 14, 2012 at 2:31 pm)liam Wrote: There also comes the issue that all things are dangerous and there is, therefore, no such thing as moral behaviour because the simple existence of a human is a risk to its own life. What do you say in response?

On the contrary - all things are not dangerous. Rather, I should say, "danger" is a relative term. It refers to the likelihood of harm or injury. When a course of action is deemed dangerous, a comparison is being drawn between taking that course of action and inaction. Within the context of the proposed ethical theory, the least dangerous course of action is usually the moral one. Though, it won't be as simple as that - since there are other factors (such as longevity and fulfillment) in play as well.

(September 14, 2012 at 3:27 pm)genkaus Wrote: No, it's not the "saving of life" that is being condemned, it is the "risking of one's own". That's an important distinction.

Ah, fair enough, but there is something inherently unagreeable with condemning saviour through informed and consenting choice.

Quote:Of course he does. But how is that relevant?

You are condemning his own ability to choose what he does when this regards only himself, and this is not the place of morality.

Quote:True enough.

How can this be so? It is the individual's choice what they do (when it effects and risks only themselves) with themselves and thus the only logical facet of this action which is condemn-able is that of saving another.

Quote:On the contrary - all things are not dangerous. Rather, I should say, "danger" is a relative term. It refers to the likelihood of harm or injury. When a course of action is deemed dangerous, a comparison is being drawn between taking that course of action and inaction. Within the context of the proposed ethical theory, the least dangerous course of action is usually the moral one. Though, it won't be as simple as that - since there are other factors (such as longevity and fulfillment) in play as well.

But all things entail a level of danger and risk, and at what point does this become immoral? Furthermore, are there acceptable risks of this qualification or not? Are these risks weighed against consequences or actions, or not? There is yet much to be explained if this is to work.

While uncommon, there have been quite a few sustainable societies that engaged in cannibalism, so I'm not sure the prion disease concern bears merit. From what I understand, most of these societies' cannibalism involved the ritual eating of enemies, not those belonging to the in-group. I suspect that cannibalism in an industrialized, first world country would be a grossly inefficient food source compared to modern food industries, and thus even if it became acceptable, would likely be expensive and therefore only ritually practiced. Given that, it's probably simpler just to ban it altogether.

There are both direct and indirect moral harms to be considered from the stand point of ethics. Would it be illegal for a rich person to give someone's family $50,000 on the condition that a family member kill themselves to be eaten? Even if it were illegal, would it still happen? Would it happen, not for cannibalistic reasons, but to serve as a back door method of obtaining organs for transplant? When you make a fundamental change to a society, the ramifications are not always obvious.

However, what I would be most concerned about are the secondary moral effects, what I term "moral overspill." While there's not likely any immediate harm from a teenager torturing and murdering a stray cat, there likely would be serious ramification for our species if we became indifferent and insensate to such acts. The life and pain of a stray cat may be inconsequential, but the results of accepting such cruelty as normal behavior would likely be undesirable. I'm not sure what the second order moral effects of accepting cannibalism as normal would be, nor that they would be harmful, but given its uneconomical nature, there's no real compelling reason for us to find out.



(For some reason I always think of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease as Yakov Smirnoff Disease.)

(September 14, 2012 at 4:07 pm)liam Wrote: Ah, fair enough, but there is something inherently unagreeable with condemning saviour through informed and consenting choice.

And you have determined it unagreeable based on some ethical theory - presumably. To pick an example that's hit closer to home, would you support your own son's choice of becoming a fireman or would you try and talk him out of it?

(September 14, 2012 at 4:07 pm)liam Wrote: You are condemning his own ability to choose what he does when this regards only himself, and this is not the place of morality.

Not at all. Under that ethical theory, I would be condemning the choice he makes based on the ability to choose - not the ability to choose itself - and that is the place of morality.

(September 14, 2012 at 4:07 pm)liam Wrote: How can this be so? It is the individual's choice what they do (when it effects and risks only themselves) with themselves and thus the only logical facet of this action which is condemn-able is that of saving another.

No, actually, whether he ends up saving other people or not would be irrelevant. It is the choice he made - that of self-sacrifice - that is being condemned.

(September 14, 2012 at 4:07 pm)liam Wrote: But all things entail a level of danger and risk, and at what point does this become immoral?

Broadly speaking, when the corresponding inaction becomes less dangerous.

(September 14, 2012 at 4:07 pm)liam Wrote: Furthermore, are there acceptable risks of this qualification or not? Are these risks weighed against consequences or actions, or not? There is yet much to be explained if this is to work.

Agreed. You'd have to ask the proponents of those particular ehtical theories the answer to those.

---

(September 14, 2012 at 4:47 pm)apophenia Wrote: Would it be illegal for a rich person to give someone's family $50,000 on the condition that a family member kill themselves to be eaten?

I'm sure it'd be legal as long as the family member wasn't being physically/emotionally coerced into killing himself.

(September 14, 2012 at 4:47 pm)apophenia Wrote: Even if it were illegal, would it still happen?

Given that a lot of illegal things still do happen - likely.

(September 14, 2012 at 4:47 pm)apophenia Wrote: Would it happen, not for cannibalistic reasons, but to serve as a back door method of obtaining organs for transplant?

Actually, I don't see any ethical arguments against that happening right now.

(September 14, 2012 at 4:47 pm)apophenia Wrote: However, what I would be most concerned about are the secondary moral effects, what I term "moral overspill." While there's not likely any immediate harm from a teenager torturing and murdering a stray cat, there likely would be serious ramification for our species if we became indifferent and insensate to such acts. The life and pain of a stray cat may be inconsequential, but the results of accepting such cruelty as normal behavior would likely be undesirable. I'm not sure what the second order moral effects of accepting cannibalism as normal would be, nor that they would be harmful, but given its uneconomical nature, there's no real compelling reason for us to find out.

You mean the slippery-slope argument? Yeah, I can see that happening.

For example, one may argue that we are quite comfortable torturing and killing animals without their consent for sake of meat because within the context of human morality, animal life is not given much importance. The difference with humans is that human life and by extension, human body are considered sacrosanct - which is why we frown on cannibalism. Once that distinction is removed and the so called sanctity of human life is violated even a little, there won't be any good reason to keep on violating it.

For example, it may start out eating dead people because they have no life or any control over their bodies. It may extend to killing and eating comatose people because they are practically dead anyway. Then we may extend it to killing and eating the insane and the infants because, practically speaking, they are about as much conscious of themselves and have about as much control over their actions as some of the farm animals we slaughter so readily. And before we know it, the age of actual baby-eating atheists is here.

(September 14, 2012 at 5:18 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(September 14, 2012 at 4:47 pm)apophenia Wrote: Would it be illegal for a rich person to give someone's family $50,000 on the condition that a family member kill themselves to be eaten?

I'm sure it'd be legal as long as the family member wasn't being physically/emotionally coerced into killing himself.

Right now, i cannot sell a kidney for money. I can 'donate' it without compensation however.

The reasoning behind this is to prevent the rich from asserting priority.

(September 14, 2012 at 5:18 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(September 14, 2012 at 4:47 pm)apophenia Wrote: However, what I would be most concerned about are the secondary moral effects, what I term "moral overspill." While there's not likely any immediate harm from a teenager torturing and murdering a stray cat, there likely would be serious ramification for our species if we became indifferent and insensate to such acts. The life and pain of a stray cat may be inconsequential, but the results of accepting such cruelty as normal behavior would likely be undesirable. I'm not sure what the second order moral effects of accepting cannibalism as normal would be, nor that they would be harmful, but given its uneconomical nature, there's no real compelling reason for us to find out.

You mean the slippery-slope argument? Yeah, I can see that happening.

For example, one may argue that we are quite comfortable torturing and killing animals without their consent for sake of meat because within the context of human morality, animal life is not given much importance. The difference with humans is that human life and by extension, human body are considered sacrosanct - which is why we frown on cannibalism. Once that distinction is removed and the so called sanctity of human life is violated even a little, there won't be any good reason to keep on violating it.

For example, it may start out eating dead people because they have no life or any control over their bodies. It may extend to killing and eating comatose people because they are practically dead anyway. Then we may extend it to killing and eating the insane and the infants because, practically speaking, they are about as much conscious of themselves and have about as much control over their actions as some of the farm animals we slaughter so readily. And before we know it, the age of actual baby-eating atheists is here.

No, it is not a slippery slope argument. It is an argument from biological evolution and evolutionary psychology. If we tolerate, say, people with no empathy and the other traits of psychopathy in some areas of their life, say being cruel to animals, they will have a much better chance of thriving in society, of evading sanctions and so on. If we accept animal cruelty as normal, humans with predisposition to cruelty will have a better chance of surviving. The survival and success of such individuals, however, will likely have an overall negative impact on the overall success of the species, as they will be more likely than the norm to commit acts of cruelty against other humans than a person who is sensitive to the suffering of others liken to the current norm. With cruelty and lack of empathy, this evolutionary process likely results in a balance or homeostasis of sorts in the gene pool such that a certain amount of cruelty and insensitivity will be the norm (and its distribution will vary with reference to it), but that phenotypes displaying either too much or too little sensitivity will likely be selected out of the gene pool.

What I'm suggesting is that, on the fitness landscape populated by hominids like us, that those points of fitness which include cannibalism are in the minority, and since the consequences of moving our current genome into a fitness domain that includes cannibalistic behaviors is very unpredictable in terms of its positive or negative impact on species psychology as a whole, unless there is a clearly obtainable benefit, it's likely best not to explore that domain. (This is similar to arguments against the use of genetically modified crops, extinction or over-farming of species, and importation of foreign species into novel environments. Until we understand the full impact of doing so, it's best to be conservative unless there is a compelling reason not to be.)

(September 14, 2012 at 7:34 pm)apophenia Wrote: No, it is not a slippery slope argument. It is an argument from biological evolution and evolutionary psychology. If we tolerate, say, people with no empathy and the other traits of psychopathy in some areas of their life, say being cruel to animals, they will have a much better chance of thriving in society, of evading sanctions and so on. If we accept animal cruelty as normal, humans with predisposition to cruelty will have a better chance of surviving. The survival and success of such individuals, however, will likely have an overall negative impact on the overall success of the species, as they will be more likely than the norm to commit acts of cruelty against other humans than a person who is sensitive to the suffering of others liken to the current norm. With cruelty and lack of empathy, this evolutionary process likely results in a balance or homeostasis of sorts in the gene pool such that a certain amount of cruelty and insensitivity will be the norm (and its distribution will vary with reference to it), but that phenotypes displaying either too much or too little sensitivity will likely be selected out of the gene pool.

Quite a few problems with this.

1. Are you assuming that traits such as cruelty or lack or empathy are passed on genetically - rather than being the result of other factors such as cultural influence or upbringing? Because if it is the result of nurture rather than nature, it'd be those conditions that need to be identified. Simply suppressing the behavior would not weed the lack of empathy out.

2. Even if it was the matter of gene pool, it still wouldn't be weeded out by applying those sanctions. The lack of empathy or cruelty part is not necessary for survival and can be acted out in a lot of ways - most of them covert and unsanctionable. For example, for a CEO of a bank, lack of empathy can be a very advantageous quality to have and even increase his fitness in society.

(September 14, 2012 at 7:34 pm)apophenia Wrote: What I'm suggesting is that, on the fitness landscape populated by hominids like us, that those points of fitness which include cannibalism are in the minority, and since the consequences of moving our current genome into a fitness domain that includes cannibalistic behaviors is very unpredictable in terms of its positive or negative impact on species psychology as a whole, unless there is a clearly obtainable benefit, it's likely best not to explore that domain. (This is similar to arguments against the use of genetically modified crops, extinction or over-farming of species, and importation of foreign species into novel environments. Until we understand the full impact of doing so, it's best to be conservative unless there is a compelling reason not to be.)

The cannibals would think that the sanctions placed upon the fulfillment of their desires is a compelling enough reason to atleast explore the domain. There is a clear obtainable benefit in it for them and even though you don't have any specific knowledge of any negative impact, you are still letting them be denied without so much as the courtesy of investigation.

Put yourself back in time by about a hundred years and apply the same logic to another minority group also being criminalized for their actions. Here would be the facts as applicable to them:

1. Homosexuals form only a minority of total human population.

2. In current scenario, homosexuality is outlawed and sanctioned by the law.

3. There would be no clearly obtainable benefits overall to the society if it were to be legalized.

4. We do not know what positive or negative impact it'd have on the species psychology as a whole if homosexuality were to be included in the paradigm.

Therefore, the situation is best left unexplored and we should conservatively continue allowing it to be outlawed. In hindsight, do you think that would be the correct position to take?