Veganism?

[genkaus]

What you are describing is the question of personhood. At what point is an entity considered a person, and does that entity necessarily have to be human? The most prominent person I can think of regarding this whole issue of animal rights is Peter Singer. You would probably find his work interesting.

I myself completely gave up on trying to develop a sound position on the entire issue of animal rights. I have other things to figure out at this juncture. Was that a completely arbitrary decision partially fueled by how much I hated living a vegan lifestyle? Yep. But I just can't decide what I think about the issue, and I'm done "erring on the cautious side."

I am now erring in favor of my taste buds.

So am I. We do not have enough knowledge about a creature's consciousness yet to determine what role would it play in its personhood. But that shouldn't stop us from coming up with standards that would be applied once the knowledge does come into picture.

---

Rationalizations about irrational convictions, most likely Genk. Getting through our day to day (which is what a taboo toward cannibalism does) isn't about what's "right" or "true", it's about what works. Now I know that we like to attempt to make the two equal in modern society, but if we're going to use cannibalism as an example, it would be helpful to remember that cannibalism isn't some vague philosophy of person-hood. It was an act that we see a steady decrease in (via the record of midden heaps and human remains) all the way through the development of mankind (it does not appear to have ever been a huge issue with exceptions..which are notable both because the act is gruesome, and they are exceptions). There seems to have been a wide sort of agreement (even if it was never spoken) among human beings that cannibalism was not an option (excluding, of course, tribes of cannibals). That this agreement was made so early and so unanimously in our history probably leaves it as a question that we have had little to no reason to truly address in a long time. If you could show that cannibalism was rational (or at least no less irrational than veganism or omniverous diets), I doubt people would be flocking in droves to your tribe.

late edit: Cannibalism in the Pacific Ring is probably the single-most fascinating and well documented example. Thankfully we (The West) arrived on these cultures when they were still at an isolated and "primitive" state (I use the term very loosely), and so we got better than usual documentation with regards to both cannibalism and how it squared with their faith (rationalizations).

I agree that we never sought to find whether cannibalism was rational or not because it was always, sort of, accepted that it was not an option. It has always been, sort of, a given. The fact that society almost unanimously agreed on it does not make it rational. There are many other things society sort-of agrees upon nearly unanimously.

Religion of the society used to be such a thing. In India, it was "not eating cows". Elsewhere, it was eating only Kosher meat. My point is, there is no more rational justification for not-cannibalism as there is for veganism or omnivorism. We need to find out IF there can be a rational way to judge these things.