(September 15, 2012 at 4:51 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(September 15, 2012 at 4:33 pm)Ace Otana Wrote: People eating people? Doesn't that seem just a tad........primitive? Sapient beings eating each other?

How is that worse than Sapient beings killing each other?

I consider both as bad as each other actually.

(September 15, 2012 at 4:53 pm)Ace Otana Wrote:

(September 15, 2012 at 4:51 pm)Chuck Wrote: How is that worse than Sapient beings killing each other?

I consider both as bad as each other actually.

Well in for a penny in for a pound then.

(September 15, 2012 at 4:33 pm)Ace Otana Wrote: People eating people? Doesn't that seem just a tad........primitive? Sapient beings eating each other?

How is that worse than sapient beings eating any other animal? How is that any worse than any other animal eating any other animal, or it's own genus? Furthermore, you're implying that simply being 'wise' is enough to stop us from being eaten, this is not true.

(September 15, 2012 at 4:55 pm)liam Wrote:

(September 15, 2012 at 4:33 pm)Ace Otana Wrote: People eating people? Doesn't that seem just a tad........primitive? Sapient beings eating each other?

How is that worse than sapient beings eating any other animal? How is that any worse than any other animal eating any other animal, or it's own genus?

The whole eating your own kind thing, especially at our level of advancement. Why? There's enough food isn't there?
Sometimes I don't know what planet I'm on you know.

(September 15, 2012 at 4:58 pm)Ace Otana Wrote: The whole eating your own kind thing, especially at our level of advancement. Why? There's enough food isn't there?
Sometimes I don't know what planet I'm on you know.

We are advanced enough to feed the whole world, stop wars, be environmentally responsible and many more things that we simply dont do, advancement is no reason to believe certain things are impermissible. Yes, there's enough food but that doesn't mean that we can't eat sprouts either. Hardly a reasonable criticism

(September 15, 2012 at 5:11 pm)liam Wrote:

(September 15, 2012 at 4:58 pm)Ace Otana Wrote: The whole eating your own kind thing, especially at our level of advancement. Why? There's enough food isn't there?
Sometimes I don't know what planet I'm on you know.

We are advanced enough to feed the whole world, stop wars, be environmentally responsible and many more things that we simply dont do, advancement is no reason to believe certain things are impermissible. Yes, there's enough food but that doesn't mean that we can't eat sprouts either. Hardly a reasonable criticism

Yes, we are advanced enough to do many great things. Fuck, nothing can really stop mankind....except his sheer stupidity. Why go back to cannibalism? Because we've failed at being peaceful? That's a good reason to result to that? Something that only happens in primitive tribes, not in modern societies?

Why eat people?
Why at all?

(September 15, 2012 at 3:58 pm)liam Wrote:

Quote: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?

I'd support such a decision, saving people's lives is honourable and self-sacrifice for the good of others sits well with me. (irrelevant point, never having kids but I understand the importance of such a question.)

Easier in principle than in practice, I suppose. But if that's ypur actual position, then you must be in one of those self-sacrificial occupations, correct? So, which is it? Police? Military? Fireman?

(September 15, 2012 at 3:58 pm)liam Wrote:

Quote: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.

But his action causes no harm to anyone but him, so why would they be immoral?

Because it causes harm to him.

(September 15, 2012 at 3:58 pm)liam Wrote:

Quote: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.

Why? On what grounds is this contested?

Premise: The purpose of ethical theory X is to guide human beings on how to live a happy and fulfilling life.

Therefore, any action that goes against that purpose - such as a self-sacrificial one - would go against that purpose.

Therefore, within the context of that ethical theory, that action is immoral.

(September 15, 2012 at 3:58 pm)liam Wrote: So, when contemplating standing up and sitting down, that which is least dangerous is the one which should be performed? The problem with this is that it is a less/more classification and as such is completely ridiculous when considering low-risk actions and even lower-difference actions.

Quite correct. Which is why, in-depth moral consideration is unnecessary for low-risk and low-difference actions.

(September 15, 2012 at 3:58 pm)liam Wrote:

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

You're proposing it now, even if only as a hypothetical, so you'll have to answer to them

You mean I'm required to come up with a complete and cogent ethical theory everytime I try to give a hypothetical? That sounds like too much work.

---

(September 15, 2012 at 4:33 pm)Ace Otana Wrote: People eating people? Doesn't that seem just a tad........primitive? Sapient beings eating each other?

Oh, not at all. Once you are dead, you are no longer sapient.

---

(September 15, 2012 at 4:51 pm)Chuck Wrote: How is that worse than Sapient beings killing each other?

Ofcourse it is. You don't have to be the one to kill the other person. Apart from biological distinctions, what's the difference between a dead human and a dead cow?

---

(September 15, 2012 at 5:18 pm)Ace Otana Wrote: Yes, we are advanced enough to do many great things. Fuck, nothing can really stop mankind....except his sheer stupidity. Why go back to cannibalism? Because we've failed at being peaceful? That's a good reason to result to that? Something that only happens in primitive tribes, not in modern societies?

Why eat people?
Why at all?

You are missing the point here. The question of "why" is up to the cannibals. Maybe they like the taste of human flesh. Maybe it's a cultural thing. Maybe they stupidly believe that eating human flesh would give them special powers or immortality. Maybe because it's a cost-efficient and environmentally sound way of disposing human bodies (both cremation and burial are environmentally wasteful, you know). Whatever justifications, rationalizations or reasons, they are no more relevant than the meat-eater saying "because I like to".

What we're talking about here is if there is a justification for them being denied. And so far, the only good point I've seen is incidence of possible diseases.

(September 15, 2012 at 8:02 pm)genkaus Wrote: Oh, not at all. Once you are dead, you are no longer sapient.

Huh, good point.

Quote:You are missing the point here. The question of "why" is up to the cannibals. Maybe they like the taste of human flesh. Maybe it's a cultural thing. Maybe they stupidly believe that eating human flesh would give them special powers or immortality. Maybe because it's a cost-efficient and environmentally sound way of disposing human bodies (both cremation and burial are environmentally wasteful, you know). Whatever justifications, rationalizations or reasons, they are no more relevant than the meat-eater saying "because I like to".

Maybe they're just fucking nuts?
Perhaps they do it through some strange and sick interest in eating other people. I have to question the sanity of such an individual.

Quote:What we're talking about here is if there is a justification for them being denied. And so far, the only good point I've seen is incidence of possible diseases.

Well what doesn't make sense is that cannibalism is an act of desperation, and we are hardly desperate for food at this point. It's something that takes place in nature often because animals in the wild face starvation on a daily basis. So why would it be necessary in human societies? It is of course dangerous as well, which also leads to the question as to why anyone would want to do it the in first place? Which then leads me to conclude that they are just fucking nuts.

(September 16, 2012 at 4:29 am)Ace Otana Wrote: Maybe they're just fucking nuts?
Perhaps they do it through some strange and sick interest in eating other people. I have to question the sanity of such an individual.

Question all you like. But why should you get to stop them?

(September 16, 2012 at 4:29 am)Ace Otana Wrote: Well what doesn't make sense is that cannibalism is an act of desperation, and we are hardly desperate for food at this point. It's something that takes place in nature often because animals in the wild face starvation on a daily basis. So why would it be necessary in human societies? It is of course dangerous as well, which also leads to the question as to why anyone would want to do it the in first place? Which then leads me to conclude that they are just fucking nuts.

Both of your assertions are questionable.

Cannibalism is not an act of desperation - even in wild. Chimpanzees, for example, go to war with other chimpanzee tribes and killing and cannibalizing their enemies even with abundant food supply. I believe there is a youtube video to that effect. Thus, often, cannibalism is not a question of necessity for these animals, but of choice.

Secondly, why do you think it is dangerous? The Aghori tribes in India often do engage in cannibalism, but they don't seem to have any adverse health effects.