Case in point, the fact that we are not bound by law to rescue someone even in a situation where it would be extremely for us would certainly raise up a moral debate.
Letting someone hang off a cliff when you can help them up with little to no problem is basically murder.
No, it isn't.
To the survival of our species it is mean. Technically.
Unless I'm mistaken, U.S. courts actually do regard this as a crime if the observer both knows the other is in danger and is capable of helping without being endengered as well. This doesn't make it any less absurd, mind you.
Deviating from the cannibalism issue, I think it's not actually regarded as a crime in the States as well? I know some states have laws that coax people into at least phoning for aid for people in need, though it doesn't seem to be enforced. In any case, even if there are laws for such purposes, and a person doesn't help another, it's not a crime, but a tort.
Cannibalism is not illegal or legal, it's just not in the laws, you can go ahead punch some stones but people aren't going to be happy that a local just punched his hands off.
Haven't found any actual law against it yet, though.
Typically they'll find something else to pin on you. Like carrying around a giant sword, it's legal since you're not hiding it but the police will arrest you for something, most likely disturbing the peace in this case.
I don't see why it seems so apparently aberrant to discuss some of the causes and links of some common forms of cannibalism, in a thread about cannibalism. We can, of course, restrict the discussion to the narrowest interpretation of the definition of the word and ignore all phenomena associated to it. But that would not be very interesting in my opinion, and neither has it been stated to be the boundary of the discussion by the OP.
Yeah that's right, OP rules.
Just kidding btw.
I think we have been there and back already, see my little exchange with thebluerabbit.
I'm doing my best to use evolution and law. A lot of my "opinions" are mainly me trying to add cinematic humor, sometimes I forget cinematic humor isn't as common as it is in Asia (see Anime).
depend on how close the food is to yourself but also on your personal disgust and what you feel is close
That comment made me laugh (in a non-insulting way), go to countries that have jungles and it'll change your mind.
You'd question someone's insanity if he would want to be eaten after his death
It's not that people want to be eaten after (for non survival) it's that they want to be eaten alive to live out their fantasy.
Exactly what I wanted to say and didn't know how. You can't use a specific example to judge a general idea. We are talking about pure canibalism.
I didn't realize this but my claims have revolved around illegal vs legal so I assumed that everyone would and clearly not everyone is going by that.
You can't prove that our ancestors (pre Homo-sapiens) ate each other at all, since we (Homo-sapiens) don't cannibalize each other as a food source (99.9%) it is safe to assume that the behavior is not innate. Overpopulation can also be solved in various ways, I highly doubt eating each other is going to solve it although one point in British history they used limbs to feed fires.
Killing yourself in public is illegal in the United States [...]
Well, yes. It's also illegal to dump a raw animal carcass out in the streets. Is this because onlookers need legal safeguards against seeing dead things? Of course not.
You can't prove that our ancestors (pre Homo-sapiens) ate each other at all, since we (Homo-sapiens) don't cannibalize each other as a food source (99.9%) it is safe to assume that the behavior is not innate.
Remember guys EVOLUTION. We did not evolve to eat each other.
Or to skydive, or to take antibiotics, or to have vegan diets, or to travel to the moon, or to use contraceptives, or to wear socks, or to deep fry things, or to fission atoms, or to drive fast cars, or to style hair, or to drink vodka, or to mow lawns, or to use deodorant, or to sit on couches for long periods, or to play flash games, or to work for fiat money, or to carry electronics, or to listen to smooth jazz, or to ...
Also eating a dead body for reasons other than survival is pretty much a sexual act [...]
What? What about mortuary cannibalism (example)? What about sacrificial cannibalism (example)? What about cannibalism as a form of execution (example)? What about medicinal cannibalism (example)?
[...] and a dead person cannot give consent therefore it is rape.
Ye- wait. WHAT??? There's no logical consistency there, at all. Rape is a very specific sexual act which clearly does not overlap with cannibalism.
Edit:
Cutting up a dead body to eat it is also mutilation which is illegal even with consent.
Harvesting donated organs isn't, yet it still involves cutting up a dead body.
Letting someone hang off a cliff when you can help them up with little to no problem is basically murder.
No. Murder has to be pre-planned. That's criminal neglect at most.
To the survival of our species it is mean. Technically.
The survival of the species is not aided by the survival of an individual suffering from suicidal depression. Quite the opposite, actually.
Cannibalism is not illegal or legal, [...]
This is a strict dichotomy. being neither is like being sort-of pregnant.
It's not that people want to be eaten after (for non survival) it's that they want to be eaten alive to live out their fantasy.
Killing yourself in public is illegal ... I won't really care but someone will and the admins will do something about it.
I don't think suicide as an example helps your case; in fact it works directly against it, in that it serves to show that the law should try not to impinge on personal autonomy and freedom. (Which was the point I raised). When we look at suicide legislation (at least in the States), there is almost none to speak of these days. Most "liberal" nations are furthermore moving towards medically assisted suicide in the form of euthanasia; the sentiment that one should be able to do what one wants with one's body is only growing stronger.
Used in tandem with the reasoning behind suicide legislation (or lack thereof), cannibalism should be legalised.
Letting someone hang off a cliff when you can help them up with little to no problem is basically murder.
I'm deviating again, but no it isn't. In the eyes of the law, there are rather specific criteria to fulfil before one can be convicted of culpbable homicide or worse, murder, and this case doesn't pass any of them. In fact, you can stand and laugh at your worst enemy drown (if you had nothing to do with him being in the situation), and you won't be charged for anything, let alone murder.
Cannibalism is not illegal or legal, it's just not in the laws, you can go ahead punch some stones but people aren't going to be happy that a local just punched his hands off.
Typically they'll find something else to pin on you... but the police will arrest you for something.
Again, those are the points I have been raising, there is no charge for cannibalism in most nations, hence it isn't illegal. Thus far, the law has been hesitant in the least to convict a person of cannibalism (If the flesh was gotten voluntarily), much like the suicide example (Unless the suicide happened in a hospital or jail, which could lead to more complex cases). The law will try to bring other charges against a person, but these have almost always failed. In other words, cannibalism in itself is not illegal.
However, there is no species that is exclusively cannibalistic - for obvious reasons. It is a (probably opportunistic) behaviour seen in many different species, carnivores or herbivores. I would go as far as to doubt whether cannibalism is actually an adaptation to anything.
Careful there, though I agree somewhat that cannibalism if consensual, should be legalised, we must remember that laws aren't wholly rooted in morality and ethnics. In fact, what laws stipulate can go against what we may consider as our basic moral compass, and that's not even taking into account the various strains of morality across races, regions, religions. We are hard pressed to pin down the specifics of such a nebulous concept. I think you have also subconsciously pointed that out, when you mentioned that "none of us wants the law to be effected by subjective opinions"
yeah i should have mentioned that my statement should be taken seriously if you believe that there us truly an objective moral. im not talking about what different religions think is ok or not. im talking about things that are naturally obvious.
i dont think for example that in any culture, murder is ok. when it is ok, a long story/excuse would have to come to explain why its ok. when it comes to homosexuality or things like that, its an open question.
in other words, what i meant by what i said is that (if you do believe that there is a one correct moral) people would want the law to try and follow that without adding the subjective views.
That comment made me laugh (in a non-insulting way), go to countries that have jungles and it'll change your mind.
not playing this game. explain.
It's not that people want to be eaten after (for non survival) it's that they want to be eaten alive to live out their fantasy.
in that case you just made the argument more specific then it is. if your arguing against canibalism you cant ignore some forms of it.
Remember guys EVOLUTION. We did not evolve to eat each other.
and id like to add something to that which should be added to countless other arguments that raise this point. NOBODY can prove what ANY species evolved to do. NOBODY can tell you what your goal as a species is. we can just use logic to explain our views but hey its nature. logic doesnt always work.
many creatures do eat each other. are you gonna argue that those creatures are less evolved or something? taking what we see as obvious and saying THIS is how reality is supposed to be is just being arrogant. as far as you know, humans gain the power of the one they eat and were evolved exactly for that, but since it sounds so morally wrong, ligocally impossible, and disgusting, nobody ever checked that in the very few cases that are happening.
evolution is usually a very weak point to raise to protect your view in any argument really. nature just happens, nobody can prove it happens for a pre-determined reason. thats actually a pretty "religious" thing to say actually.
Just going to comment on this real quickly
A turtle evolved to swim.
A tortoise evolved to walk.
not playing this game. explain.
There are far more bizarre things similar and alien to us that we eat.
Cutting up a dead body to eat it is also mutilation which is illegal even with consent.
There is a difference in harvesting organs and butchering meat. Most of the time the body will be intact enough so that people may give their respects in a more proper way (for most people anyways).
What? What about mortuary cannibalism (example)? What about sacrificial cannibalism (example)? What about cannibalism as a form of execution (example)? What about medicinal cannibalism (example)?
A. I did not think about that.
B. The person carrying out the execution is clearly acting out a sexual desire and using this as a justification or they were forced to.
C. I commented on how it is unhealthy.
Ye- wait. WHAT??? There's no logical consistency there, at all. Rape is a very specific sexual act which clearly does not overlap with cannibalism.
I pointed out how cannibals acted on sexual desire.
I don't think suicide as an example helps your case; in fact it works directly against it,
You proposed this as an opinion and then a fact, Interesting.
in that case you just made the argument more specific then it is. if your arguing against canibalism you cant ignore some forms of it.
I'm trying to hammer all sub topics. As you can see I am not doing too well.
nobody can prove it happens for a pre-determined reason.
The end goal for all species is to survive in terms of evolution.
saying THIS is how reality is supposed to be is just being arrogant.
The proper way to argue is to assert your claim, I'm not saying this is "the way", I'm just arguing my point.
Again, those are the points I have been raising, there is no charge for cannibalism in most nations, hence it isn't illegal. Thus far, the law has been hesitant in the least to convict a person of cannibalism (If the flesh was gotten voluntarily), much like the suicide example (Unless the suicide happened in a hospital or jail, which could lead to more complex cases). The law will try to bring other charges against a person, but these have almost always failed. In other words, cannibalism in itself is not illegal.
Yes we have indeed pointed out that cannibalism is not illegal. Good to be on the same page.
I'm deviating again, but no it isn't. In the eyes of the law, there are rather specific criteria to fulfil before one can be convicted of culpbable homicide or worse, murder, and this case doesn't pass any of them. In fact, you can stand and laugh at your worst enemy drown (if you had nothing to do with him being in the situation), and you won't be charged for anything, let alone murder.
Murder is defined as... and also this law says... and a murderer is someone who... which is equal to... and to become one you must... must... and because you were psychologically and physically capable to... but did not you instead... their ability to survive which means you... them which makes you a... which then makes you a... which is my very technical conclusion to this case.
Just going to comment on this real quickly
A turtle evolved to swim.
A tortoise evolved to walk.
Neither did so with that goal or intention, so his point stands, as does mine.
There is a difference in harvesting organs and butchering meat. Most of the time the body will be intact enough so that people may give their respects in a more proper way (for most people anyways).
That's a trivial objection, as nowhere is it implied that cannibalism must involve butchering the body. Eating a surgically extracted organ is still cannibalism.
B. The person carrying out the execution is clearly acting out a sexual desire and using this as a justification or they were forced to.
No, they aren't. This is an elaborate form of capital punishment that a whole tribe can partake in. It's meant as a deterrent for serious offences.
C. I commented on how it is unhealthy.
So? Since when do archaic medical practices have to be healthy?
I pointed out how cannibals acted on sexual desire.
Erroneously, because the vast majority of all known acts of cannibalism clearly have nothing to do with it.
The proper way to argue is to assert your claim, [...]
No. The proper way to argue is to explain your position and refute all claims to the contrary through the use of sound evidence and deductive logic.
Murder is defined as... and also this law says... and a murderer is someone who...
which is equal to... and to become one you must... must... and because you were psychologically and physically capable to... but did not you instead... their ability to survive which means you... them which makes you a... which then makes you a... which is my very technical conclusion to this case.
1 You're equivocating two wildly different concepts. Please refer to "Do not kill" or "Do not murder" for an explanation of why using "killer" and "murderer" interchangeably is totally incorrect.
2 Let's examine the things you cited. Murder: "[...] with malice aforethought"
Murder is only possible if the culprit specifically intended to commit it. Good Samaritan law: "[...] a good Samaritan doctrine is a legal principle that prevents a rescuer who has voluntarily helped a victim in distress from being successfully sued for wrongdoing."
"Such laws do not constitute a duty to rescue [...]"
All this means is that you cannot be sued for attempting to rescue someone. Hinder: "to make (something, such as a task or action) slow or difficult"
Therefore, hindering is not in any way the same as "not assisting". This is just another equivocation.
3 Your conclusion is an irrational string of misapplied terms and non sequiters.
Murder is defined as... and also this law says... and a murderer is someone who...
which is equal to... and to become one you must... must... and because you were psychologically and physically capable to... but did not you instead... their ability to survive which means you... them which makes you a... which then makes you a... which is my very technical conclusion to this case.
I think Fish already pointed most of what I wanted to say, but in a nutshell, the statement here is rather convoluted, and isn't what the law will recognise as constituting murder. To put it another way, it's written in layman terms. For example, the way murder is defined in my country's legal system (Based upon the Indian Penal Code) is as such. We also see that the charge of murder is a very specific charge, and there are various levels to crimes which lead to death, such as culpable homicide not amounting to murder. When we apply the various Codes/Acts etc, dealing with murder, we can see that the example provided does not amount to murder.
As a point of interest, as Fish pointed out, Good Samaritan Laws aren't the same as the concept of duty of rescue, the former protects the rescuer from any harm he might accidentally inflict, and the latter is a legal obligation to help someone.
---------
Bringing these points back to the topic at hand, I think a significant learning point we can gain is that what we might consider as morally wrong, may not be by definition, illegal. Cannibalism might be a foreign and repulsive concept that offends our moral sensibilities, but morality shouldn't be the single yardstick that we use to evaluate whether cannibalism should be legal or not.
Just going to comment on this real quickly
A turtle evolved to swim.
A tortoise evolved to walk.
so...?
There are far more bizarre things similar and alien to us that we eat.
you keep missing the point. whats close to a person is decided by that person himself. thats why there are vegans, vegetarians who eat fish, meat eaters and whatnot.
B. The person carrying out the execution is clearly acting out a sexual desire and using this as a justification or they were forced to.
you do realise your claiming to know the deepest thoughts and reasons for a person to do something. and not only that, but you do that based on the action alone, as if this is the case with any person who would do that.
I pointed out how cannibals acted on sexual desire.
they just dont. forget about this. this isnt as obvious or clear as you think. its simply wrong.
I'm trying to hammer all sub topics. As you can see I am not doing too well.
the reason youre trying to do that is because you probably already realised you cant hammer the main topic. you are trying to hammer all sub topics because if you manage to do that you will be able to hammer the main one. but you do realise its impossible?
youre giving us the right to make up countless example and as long as you cant argue against just one of them, your whole point is lost.
The end goal for all species is to survive in terms of evolution.
nothing but a theory. which is actually wrong. because you can actually see heroic sarificial acts of people (and by people i do mean animals too), even towards other species. that alone proves its not the main goal of those people.
plus, if that was correct, then cannibalism in the case where everybody starves is a great thing to do since some could survive instead of everybody dying and the species becoming extinct.
The proper way to argue is to assert your claim, I'm not saying this is "the way", I'm just arguing my point.
what is exactly the difference? if you argue your point then you think you are right about how you see reality.
I pointed out how cannibals acted on sexual desire.
they just dont. forget about this. this isnt as obvious or clear as you think. its simply wrong.
He actually has a point, as it is true. It just does not apply to cultural forms of cannibalism as far as I know (which is what I guess was FishPreferred's point). It does apply to numerous cases of murder-cannibalism, again as in the case of Meiwes.
"There are numerous examples of murderers consuming their victims, often deriving some degree of sexual satisfaction from the act of cannibalism. "
- Cannibalism: Reasons
nothing but a theory. which is actually wrong. because you can actually see heroic sarificial acts of people (and by people i do mean animals too), even towards other species. that alone proves its not the main goal of those people.
Just a side-note, as it is irrelevant to the discussion: you are mixing up individual and species level in your argumentation.
He actually has a point, as it is true. It just does not apply to cultural forms of cannibalism as far as I know (which is what I guess was FishPreferred's point). It does apply to numerous cases of murder-cannibalism, again as in the case of Meiwes.
"There are numerous examples of murderers consuming their victims, often deriving some degree of sexual satisfaction from the act of cannibalism. "
- Cannibalism: Reasons
as long as theres one reason that isnt sexual, his claim is simply wrong.
because you can actually see heroic sarificial acts of people (and by people i do mean animals too), even towards other species. that alone proves its not the main goal of those people.
when it happens in multiple cases then its more like a phenomena. naturally, i cant go out to the field and start making a study about this but many things like that happen. what im saying is that the argument is a very comfortable thing to hide behind, saying that nature acts in a way for some goal.
nature just happens, and yeah, you might be able to explain many (even maybe everything sometimes), with a theory but then it just becomes one of many possible explanations. add to that the fact that "this happens so (insert goal)" is something that cant be proven or disproven makes it almost a weak argument as "god has a plan".
what i wanted to do was show a phenomena that can probably not be explained by the theory he relies on.
as long as theres one reason that isnt sexual, his claim is simply wrong.
Not wrong, just irrelevant to the discussion about cannibalism per se. It gets relevant when discussing cannibalism in first world countries, but that doesn't seem to be of interest to anyone.
I think it's a relevant point - After all, if a parliament wants to legalise an issue/act, it needs to consider as many resulting consequences as possible, and sexual fetishes are one of them.
I think it's a relevant point - After all, if a parliament wants to legalise an issue/act, it needs to consider as many resulting consequences as possible, and sexual fetishes are one of them.
like phobias, pretty much anything can be a fetish. but that doesnt mean the person who has it will hurt people or act on it. making just the eating legal without the harming a living person would be the same as seeing sex as legal and not rape.
