User Controls
Is cannibalism the easiest immoral deed to refute?
-
2016-11-01 at 5:26 PM UTCPut it this way. Depending on what way you want to argue, we should decide that it's okay to either eat ALL animals (so, including humans), or no animals at all (and go completely vegetarian).
Other animals eat their own species. Why not us?
Eating humans after they've died would be purposeful, rather than burying them in the ground or turning them into ashes. If we ate our deceased brethren, we wouldn't have to farm and kill other animals, which would make cannibalism the actual MORAL thing to do.
Thoughts? -
2016-11-01 at 7:02 PM UTCMorality is a luxury not everyone can afford.
-
2016-11-02 at 4:54 AM UTCI made such amazing points that everyone's too afraid to agree with me.
-
2016-11-02 at 4:58 AM UTCmurder without cannibalism is wasteful
basing parameters for acceptable human behaviour on observed animal behaviour is not a good idea though -
2016-11-02 at 4:59 AM UTC
I made such amazing points that everyone's too afraid to agree with me.
me too -
2016-11-02 at 5:11 AM UTC
murder without cannibalism is wasteful
basing parameters for acceptable human behaviour on observed animal behaviour is not a good idea though
Well, that was just a supporting argument. My main point is that eating the dead makes WAY more sense than burying them in the ground. -
2016-11-02 at 5:42 AM UTCI don't think anyone really has an a priori moral objection cannibalism except on a like a scriptural level, in which case your "argument" is stupid and meaningless.
-
2016-11-02 at 5:46 AM UTCI would actually like to see that argued in court - cannibalising a corpse should be counted as a mitigating circumstance, not an additional charge because you're making the cleanup crew's job easier
-
2016-11-21 at 10:08 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny I don't think anyone really has an a priori moral objection to cannibalism
what planet do you fucking live on -
2016-11-21 at 10:21 AM UTCThere is no case to be made for the immorality of cannibalism as an act of eating a dead person alone. If a person is dead, there is no initiation of force/coercion on the part of the would be cannibal, thus the non-aggression principle is not violated. It might be considered distasteful if you will excuse the pun, but unless you murder a person in order to eat them it is not fundamentally immoral.
-
2016-11-21 at 10:28 AM UTC
Originally posted by Enter what planet do you fucking live on
Before you ask Lanny stupid questions like this think of the nature of your question. It has to do with morality, how do we think of issues of morality? We think of issues of morality in terms of moral philosophy. You may not know this but philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Moral philosophy is the area of philosophy concerned with theories of ethics, with how we ought to live our lives. It is divided into three areas: metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics.
You should ask yourself, whether cannibalism is immoral and if you think it is, why is it so? "Because it feels wrong" is not an argument, unless you want to make a case for moral relativism and would like to argue metaethics. -
2016-11-21 at 10:36 AM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie Before you ask Lanny stupid questions like this think of the nature of your question. It has to do with morality, how do we think of issues of morality? We think of issues of morality in terms of moral philosophy. You may not know this but philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Moral philosophy is the area of philosophy concerned with theories of ethics, with how we ought to live our lives. It is divided into three areas: metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics.
You should ask yourself, whether cannibalism is immoral and if you think it is, why is it so? "Because it feels wrong" is not an argument, unless you want to make a case for moral relativism and would like to argue metaethics.
I'm going to assume for a second that you're not defending Lanny (yet again), only because you're a snivelling little worm who wants to be a mod. Remember when you defended him on that point that women don't like dominance, despite saying the opposite just a week earlier?
Now scroll back up to the OP. See my post, where I made my stance clear that I don't think its immoral, and gave a whole host of reasons as to why?
You're so blind-sighted from all that brown-nosing that you don't even know what fucking thread you're in. -
2016-11-21 at 10:43 AM UTCHurry up and reply so I can refute you into oblivion.
-
2016-11-21 at 10:47 AM UTCPlayin' gta though, but I'll be back after each mission.
-
2016-11-21 at 10:47 AM UTC
Originally posted by Enter I'm going to assume for a second that you're not defending Lanny (yet again), only because you're a snivelling little worm who wants to be a mod. Remember when you defended him on that point that women don't like dominance, despite saying the opposite just a week earlier?
Now scroll back up to the OP. See my post, where I made my stance clear that I don't think its immoral, and gave a whole host of reasons as to why?
You're so blind-sighted from all that brown-nosing that you don't even know what fucking thread you're in.
Lanny has made it clear from the very beginning that he is not making anyone mod. That being said, i am defending rational thought in the face of ignorance. Look at your thread title again.
Is cannibalism the easiest immoral deed to refute?
Here you are saying that cannibalism is an immoral deed. Then later on you say why you think it shouldn't be, then when Lanny says that it isn't an immoral deed you ask him what planet he is on. Implying that you disagree with him. So what is it Enter? Is it moral or immoral? You are not logically consistent for one, then secondly when you want to make a case as to why cannibalism is moral you say the following:
"If we ate our deceased brethren, we wouldn't have to farm and kill other animals, which would make cannibalism the actual MORAL thing to do."
Ok, so if it is immoral to kill and farm animals, then it follows that it would be moral to eat them after they have died from natural causes. If that is the case why should we have to eat "our fallen brethren" in the first place? Also if you are trying to argue that because it is convenient to eat people, and not be wasteful then you need to show why convenience/not being wasteful is morally right. -
2016-11-21 at 10:49 AM UTCAlso i am not disagreeing with you here, i don't think cannibalism is immoral. The only problem i have is with your reasoning as to why.
-
2016-11-21 at 10:50 AM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie Lanny says that it isn't an immoral deed
Stop.
That isn't what he said. He said that nobody thinks it's immoral in the first place.
The fact that you mistook me for thinking that it's immoral proves him wrong right away.
Of course people think it's fucking immoral, hence my reply asking what planet he lives on. That's why I made this thread, because I think it's the easiest "immoral" act to despute.
Get it yet, dumbass? How the fuck are you arguing that people don't think it's immoral? -
2016-11-21 at 10:51 AM UTCAnd I know you're not actually arguing that, but that's the point you were defending that autist Lanny on.
-
2016-11-21 at 11:13 AM UTC
Originally posted by Enter Stop.
That isn't what he said. He said that nobody thinks it's immoral in the first place.
I am pretty sure that he meant that everyone that thinks about the issue from a logical philosophical standpoint doesn't think it is morally bad.
Originally posted by Enter The fact that you mistook me for thinking that it's immoral proves him wrong right away.
You mistook Lanny for disagreeing with you.
Originally posted by Enter Of course people think it's fucking immoral, hence my reply asking what planet he lives on. That's why I made this thread, because I think it's the easiest "immoral" act to despute.
Get it yet, dumbass? How the fuck are you arguing that people don't think it's immoral?
Everyone who thinks about the issue logically shouldn't consider it immoral. Perhaps 'nobody thinks it's immoral" was a bad choice of words but that's what i figured Lanny was saying. I am sure he will tell us exactly what he meant shortly. -
2016-11-21 at 11:21 AM UTCWe don't eat our deceased for the same reason we don't really eat bald eagle; quite frankly, we're not that tasty. How do you think eating dead people would eliminate the need for farming and hunting other animals? Are you suggesting that there are enough people that die each today to sustain humanity's appetite? We could and would eliminate all meat from restaurants and supermarkets other than human meat? That certainly doesn't seem feasible.
Also, it would seem that suggesting this route of cannibalism as truly moral would imply that it is truly immoral to kill and eat other animals as we've been doing since the beginning of humanity.
