A case for cannibalism in society

[genkaus]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

---

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.

Even if it were illegal, would it still happen?

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

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.

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.