(September 14, 2012 at 1:37 pm)liam Wrote: The case can be made, yet that is assuming that it is and that it is the correct one. Yet there is little to say that practicality and happiness are synonymous, murder can be useful, but not necessarily moral all at once. It is as easy to claim that a case may be stated that morality is entirely separate of usefulness and happiness. Furthermore, there are in this some assertions that a long, healthy, fulfilling life are those which are pragmatic and a reasonable end. While it certainly seems a reasonable end to strive for it does not necessarily have to be the only one or supporting of the claim of the view you proposed.
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.
