A case for cannibalism in society

[genkaus]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.