User Controls
Is cannibalism the easiest immoral deed to refute?
-
2016-11-22 at 4:13 AM UTCIt's People!
-
2016-11-22 at 4:20 AM UTCYea, I'd rather chop up a nigga and prepare him with red wine, onions, garlic, rosemary and thyme for 3 days in the fridge and put a nice thick piece on a flaming grill than, let's say, fuck a 4 year old. That's just me, though.
Damn... I literally made my mouth water. -
2016-12-16 at 3:51 AM UTCMost animals actually don't eat their own. There is type of revulsion that can't be explained. The act of eating human flesh itself doesn't necessarily scream 'amoral' but when you talk about how the flesh might be procured is when our typical philosophical objections might be incurred.
-
2016-12-16 at 3:55 AM UTC
Originally posted by Actor Drinking breast milk probably easiest.
who considers that immoral though? -
2016-12-16 at 4:03 AM UTCToday I was in a discussion in a pharmacy with a friend about Jeffery Dahmer about why he was objectively a bad person and was killed in prison in an objectively moral act. My friend had an issue with the cannibalism while I had issue with plying young boys with alcohol and drugs for sex and I said something to the effect of "well it doesn't matter so much what you do to someone after they die" which is ultimately true. I guess I'm more cerebral with my moral outrage over serial killers. In my twisted morality I think it'd be best to torture Jeffery dahmer for weeks on end, reducing him to an infantile state and then pretending to "ease up" on him, lull him into a sense of security and then eat him alive
-
2016-12-16 at 4:03 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick Most animals actually don't eat their own. There is type of revulsion that can't be explained. The act of eating human flesh itself doesn't necessarily scream 'amoral' but when you talk about how the flesh might be procured is when our typical philosophical objections might be incurred.
All you had to say was that eating people isn't necessarily 'amoral' in and of itself, but who you're eating and why is what counts.
See.
One sentence.
Quick, and to the point. -
2016-12-16 at 4:06 AM UTC
Originally posted by yum Today I was in a discussion in a pharmacy with a friend about Jeffery Dahmer about why he was objectively a bad person and was killed in prison in an objectively moral act. My friend had an issue with the cannibalism while I had issue with plying young boys with alcohol and drugs for sex and I said something to the effect of "well it doesn't matter so much what you do to someone after they die" which is ultimately true. I guess I'm more cerebral with my moral outrage over serial killers. In my twisted morality I think it'd be best to torture Jeffery dahmer for weeks on end, reducing him to an infantile state and then pretending to "ease up" on him, lull him into a sense of security and then eat him alive
Serial killers are objectively ubermenschen. -
2016-12-16 at 4:07 AM UTC
Originally posted by yum Today I was in a discussion in a pharmacy with a friend about Jeffery Dahmer about why he was objectively a bad person and was killed in prison in an objectively moral act. My friend had an issue with the cannibalism while I had issue with plying young boys with alcohol and drugs for sex and I said something to the effect of "well it doesn't matter so much what you do to someone after they die" which is ultimately true. I guess I'm more cerebral with my moral outrage over serial killers. In my twisted morality I think it'd be best to torture Jeffery dahmer for weeks on end, reducing him to an infantile state and then pretending to "ease up" on him, lull him into a sense of security and then eat him alive
Sometimes I masturbate to my own posts -
2016-12-16 at 4:09 AM UTC
Originally posted by yum Today I was in a discussion in a pharmacy with a friend about Jeffery Dahmer about why he was objectively a bad person and was killed in prison in an objectively moral act. My friend had an issue with the cannibalism while I had issue with plying young boys with alcohol and drugs for sex and I said something to the effect of "well it doesn't matter so much what you do to someone after they die" which is ultimately true. I guess I'm more cerebral with my moral outrage over serial killers. In my twisted morality I think it'd be best to torture Jeffery dahmer for weeks on end, reducing him to an infantile state and then pretending to "ease up" on him, lull him into a sense of security and then eat him alive
That's what you assume will happen. Men like Dahmer don't react the same way to such treatment as you would think, because they are nothing like anyone you have ever known. You don't really break those kinds of people with torture. Sometimes, they break you. -
2016-12-16 at 4:10 AM UTC
Originally posted by yum Sometimes I masturbate to my own posts
You should up your standards.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2016-12-16 at 4:14 AM UTC
Originally posted by HampTheToker That's what you assume will happen. Men like Dahmer don't react the same way to such treatment as you would think, because they are nothing like anyone you have ever known. You don't really break those kinds of people with torture. Sometimes, they break you.
I could break your face with my razor sharp elbow and make an entrail sandwich out of your spleen after I open you up like a christmas present -
2016-12-16 at 4:18 AM UTC
Originally posted by HampTheToker All you had to say was that eating people isn't necessarily 'amoral' in and of itself, but who you're eating and why is what counts.
See.
One sentence.
Quick, and to the point.
This isn't an accurate summation of my point, although I try to encourage anybody who seeks clarity and brevity in a philosophical discussion. You say the moral justification is concerning who and why is eaten, but I think that any solution to this ethical problem would be resolute for whomever is eaten and for whatever reason. Cannibalism isn't wrong because of the who - perhaps only undesirable people are eaten, so I don't object to it on these ground. Perhaps it occurs between an eager adult and a consenting deceased, in which case it may not be valid to object on these grounds either. I think what we're finding is that cannibalism cannot be objected to on all counts from the utilitarian position. I think we need to look at other systems of moral justification for OP to consider. -
2016-12-16 at 4:27 AM UTC
Originally posted by yum I could break your face with my razor sharp elbow and make an entrail sandwich out of your spleen after I open you up like a christmas present
Ask -SpectraL how much you scare me. -
2016-12-16 at 4:30 AM UTC
Originally posted by Zanick This isn't an accurate summation of my point, although I try to encourage anybody who seeks clarity and brevity in a philosophical discussion. You say the moral justification is concerning who and why is eaten, but I think that any solution to this ethical problem would be resolute for whomever is eaten and for whatever reason. Cannibalism isn't wrong because of the who - perhaps only undesirable people are eaten, so I don't object to it on these ground. Perhaps it occurs between an eager adult and a consenting deceased, in which case it may not be valid to object on these grounds either. I think what we're finding is that cannibalism cannot be objected to on all counts from the utilitarian position. I think we need to look at other systems of moral justification for OP to consider.
I never said that all who's and all why's were wrong. Simply that they are what matters. Motivation. That's everything. -
2016-12-16 at 6:11 AM UTCMy mom's side of the family has practiced cannibalism for as long as I can remember. Growing up when I heard the word cannibal I always pictured a bunch of troll looking people living on an island doing nothing but eating people and walking around in the meantime waiting until they were hungry again. Oh and they were all carrying big clubs like a caveman would have. It was weird finding out that more normal people, including my family, practiced this as well. My great aunt Bertha has a cannibalism cookbook with hundreds of recipes. It's interesting they actually use different parts of the body for seasonings too, like exclusive human meals with no added...adulterants.
I prefer chikin but when we go my aunt's house for Christmas I'm generally polite and just eat the roast of boy or whatever she's serving up.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2016-12-16 at 6:26 AM UTC
Originally posted by HampTheToker I never said that all who's and all why's were wrong. Simply that they are what matters. Motivation. That's everything.
Zanny, motive encompasses all belief systems. We are all driven by what we believe, and it is a person's belief system that is, ultimately, to judge. Whether what you believe encroaches more or less on others and what they believe. Society and it's common rule of law are what determines ultimate right from ultimate wrong. That is what America is. A collective that determines what the greater good is all on it's own. -
2016-12-16 at 11:25 PM UTC
Originally posted by HampTheToker Zanny, motive encompasses all belief systems. We are all driven by what we believe, and it is a person's belief system that is, ultimately, to judge. Whether what you believe encroaches more or less on others and what they believe. Society and it's common rule of law are what determines ultimate right from ultimate wrong. That is what America is. A collective that determines what the greater good is all on it's own.
I agree with you there, but my response to OP, more clearly stated, is to maintain that there are particular circumstances and systems of moral justification under which most rational people could view cannibalism as acceptable. -
2016-12-16 at 11:34 PM UTCWhat happened to "OP" anyhow? Perhaps a female cannibalism cult caught wind of his misogyny and have been having their way with him.
-
2016-12-17 at 10:56 AM UTC
Originally posted by RisiR It's People!
It's delicious! -
2016-12-19 at 1:35 AM UTC
Originally posted by Enter Other animals eat their own species. Why not us?
Animals dont/cant abuse their food, we can. Imagine going to the butcher and buy a frozen man/woman/child the same way you do with chickens.
Would you let it thaw, abuse it, before you cook it ?
