What are the moral arguments against cooking up and eating somebody who's already dead?

Nil so far as I know. Babies nom nom nom

I'm not aware of any, but I'd bet one of the members of the Ancient Metaphysical Wankers club tried to come up with one. Try Aristotle.

(February 16, 2015 at 11:37 am)Nestor Wrote: What are the moral arguments against cooking up and eating somebody who's already dead?

If you don't believe in any negative karma from this,
it's mostly for social order and norms. Including not having to explain to other people why you would want to try this, unless you are scientist studying it or if you are forced to in order not to starve to death.

Why not eat your hair, toenails, dead skin or menstrual fluid for protein? Why not drink your urine for minerals (as some people claim is medicinal)?

If people stick with social norms, then people who really have criminal issues with serious mental delusions or sociopathic disorders can obviously stand out and get help who really need help if they are a danger to themselves or others.

If everyone just did "whatever" because we can, then it is harder to identify which people really don't have a realistic healthy sense of boundaries and respect for norms so they will respect other people's sensibilities and not impose in abusive or delusional ways.

I don't really understand what morals are and seldom use the word. From my views concerning ethics I'd say no objections per se, except if it's disturbing to the grieving next of kin. It would be unethical to inflict additional emotional pain for them if not absolutely necessary. If you are starving otherwise, that overrides these concerns though.

In animal husbandry it has been demonstrated that feeding animals of their own kind can transmit disease. It has also been demonstrated 'kuru' is transmitted via human cannibalism.

If the deceased and family are cool with it, I don't see any problem ethically. I don't give a monkeys if someone eats me after I'm dead. Well, wait, I want my body to go to medical science so they can eat the bits that aren't any use for research.

I did wonder about diseases, sounds like there are some problems as vorlon says.

Kuru is particularly unpleasant.

So too CJD, scrapie, mad cow.


I think cannibalism is best left to those life or death/survival instances. Without a good reason to do it (like starving to death) it is not worth the risk.

(February 16, 2015 at 11:37 am)Nestor Wrote: What are the moral arguments against cooking up and eating somebody who's already dead?

What? Should I not be doing that?

Would explain why the council keeps bitching at me, I thought I was just picking up fresh product off public land.

I think we tend to treat beings better when we don't consider them food.Banning Human meat helps keep people from killing other Humans to eat them.

Morals can be sketchy, but if you can think of an objective reason to do, or not to do, something then you have a better guideline for your actions.