(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.
Religion is an attempt to answer the philosophical questions of the unphilosophical man.
