Ok guys, i have a question, all opinions welcome and invited.
Is it immoral to be a cannibal? im not talking killing someone to eat them, im saying once they're dead, is there anything wrong with eating them?
And please, no chatspam or posts saying 'cannibalism is gross and descusting and <insert adjective here>' im looking for opinions about morality, not whether it should be done or not.
This should go in the WEPR section (If it is now, then it got moved). I would have to say from a western standpoint, it's gross (I know you said you didn't want that...sorry), but if it was the only way of survival that may be necessary.
Depends, but I think most of us here are talking about cases of extreme starvation...then it's not immoral.
I'll have to agree with MRWalker too.
Some years ago I heard this story about three stranded men, they did not find any food or anything to eat, so they played a game. The one who lost got to cut his own main blood arteries and he died 15 minutes later...the other two guys ate him up and they then survived. [True story]
In that case, I don't think it was immoral, and playing a game must have been the most "fair" thing, the most smart thinking thing would be to kill the weakest in the group. Though this happened some decades ago in the 19th century, not so many toxics in their bodies back then.
If i was starving and the persons dead body was just lying there, why should i suffer if he lay there dead? I say why doesnt he share what he is and feed me his corpse!
(I'm NOT a cannibal, notice the NOT, I'm just saying if I was starving I dont see the harm in eatinga persons dead body... If i tried though id probably puke... Whatever it would be fine to eat them! It is NOT immoral!
I do not think there is much left for me to add here. It is alright to eat human meat. What is the big difference between between eating cattle and human? The main difference is that the cattle is killed healthy. Humans often die because of sickness...it would not be a good idea to eat a sick body
From reports of people who have had to resort to cannibalism it tastes pretty good a bit like steak. Though keep in mind these were condition of starvation so it's likely nearly any food would have tasted good.
I heard it tastes a bit like chicken. Strange but why not?
Why to eat them?Are they so delicious?Go eat some burgers to satisfy your hunger.
We're not talking about killing and eating people, of course we could (and we do) eat anything else, don't even mention this.
While the murder of a person would be considered immoral the act of eating them would not. However what if you have to kill them to eat them? Would murder be a moral decision in such a case? Or do you have to wait for them to die?
Consider that in a starvation situation you will get the most benefit out of a healthy body as opposed to one that has suffered starvation and dehydration to the point of death. So eating that body would do you little good in comparison to killing and eating a healthy individual.
Cannibalism was quite popular in the past among humans throughout the globe, so according to THEIR moral standards, it's not at all immoral. Actually its uncanny not eating human flesh.
Even nowadays, when cannibalism is broadly considered immoral, there are mitigating factors, which make it almost moral in some particular circumstances.
Is cannibalism immoral? Its relative, but slightly leaning towards the no.
Immoral? Well it depends a lot on beliefs. I would not want someone to be eating me when I'm dead. Although if they were starving and had nothing else i wouldn't hold it against them. So no not immoral.
Consider that in a starvation situation you will get the most benefit out of a healthy body as opposed to one that has suffered starvation and dehydration to the point of death. So eating that body would do you little good in comparison to killing and eating a healthy individual.
Depends.. First, did I understand you well? There is a living healthy guy and a starved-to-death body? Then, supposing so, can the healthy guy help to get us out of the situation together, or is he as powerless as I am and as we are together? If he could be of any help afterwards, I'd first go with the starved guy. If nothing helps there is still time left to handle him adequately
I think in a situation of starving one should be very careful about how to eat the meat of another human. Cooking is, if possible, the best thing to do (or any other way of preparation that kills bacteries and viruses). Because I think due to the fact that we are the same species, the risk of catching an illness or disease is much higher than from eating an animal not close to us.
First, did I understand you well? There is a living healthy guy and a starved-to-death body? Then, supposing so, can the healthy guy help to get us out of the situation together, or is he as powerless as I am and as we are together?
No, the situation would be more like you and another person are stranded and starving. Do you wait until someone starves to death first (hoping it's him and not you) before you eat him, or do you kill him and eat him before his body becomes emaciated and you become substantially weaker? Which is more moral?
No, the situation would be more like you and another person are stranded and starving. Do you wait until someone starves to death first (hoping it's him and not you) before you eat him, or do you kill him and eat him before his body becomes emaciated and you become substantially weaker? Which is more moral?
More moral? Moral to what standart? Moral in the modern Hollywood way would be to wait until someone starves, and look for other sources in the meantime, by doing so trying to preserve both lifes. I would probably not be able to kill the other person as long as we get along; I simply couldn't do it. If he starts to be serious trouble, I'll know time has come to ensure I survive, meaning getting rid of the danger and taking advantage of the new gained ressource. It would not make me a monster though, so, not really immoral. Both not.
