A case for cannibalism in society

[liam]

No, it's not the "saving of life" that is being condemned, it is the "risking of one's own". That's an important distinction.

Ah, fair enough, but there is something inherently unagreeable with condemning saviour through informed and consenting choice.

Of course he does. But how is that relevant?

You are condemning his own ability to choose what he does when this regards only himself, and this is not the place of morality.

True enough.

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.

On the contrary - all things are not dangerous. Rather, I should say, "danger" is a relative term. It refers to the likelihood of harm or injury. When a course of action is deemed dangerous, a comparison is being drawn between taking that course of action and inaction. Within the context of the proposed ethical theory, the least dangerous course of action is usually the moral one. Though, it won't be as simple as that - since there are other factors (such as longevity and fulfillment) in play as well.

But all things entail a level of danger and risk, and at what point does this become immoral? 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.