Essay talk:Cannibalism should be legal
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
“”Under relativism, there is only one criterion by which we can say if something is moral or immoral. It goes something like this: Everything that takes place between two fully grown persons, if it is done willingly and without being forced and harms no one else, is moral. There is no higher criterion than that.
|
| —An Idiot |
Erm, where did you get that from? DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 14:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Don't play this "I know nothing" game. Open a random debate about homosexuality. For example, Brad Pitt has said, "/.../Because no one has the right to deny another their life, even though they disagree with it, because everyone has the right to live the life they so desire of it doesn't harm another /.../ " [1] I'm not going to waste my time by searching examples, I'm sure that if I'd go through your contribution history I would find many. If not, say that you disagree with it and I'll find many chances to remind it to you. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- That part isn't what bothers me - it's the idea that people lose all of their "rights" as soon as they are dead. So...if you write in your will that you want to be buried, your family can just ignore it and dump you by the roadside? I think not. Tetronian you're clueless 15:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- What gives you the right to deny that? How can a dead body have any rights? In most cases we just honor the memory of dead person and that's why we do those things... but there actually isn't any need to. How can you disagree with such progressive and ethical stance? --Idiot number 59 (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- *yawn* Let's see...there many several examples of a non-sentient bodies having rights; the first thing that comes to mind is people who are in comas and people who are legally dead but are cryo-preserved. (Note to David Gerard: I am not repeat not endorsing cryonics, it's just an example.) But I see the point you are getting at with relativism in general. There is, in my mind, a bright line between "ok" types of behavior and "not ok" ones: informed consent. By this metric purely consensual cannibalism would indeed be "ok," but not the organ-pillaging kind you mention. Tetronian you're clueless 16:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- What gives you the right to draw any lines? That's just your opinion. Keep that if you want, but don't expect us the progressive-ethical ones to follow it! --Idiot number 59 (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- You know what you should have used in your essay? This quote from Hitler:
- What gives you the right to draw any lines? That's just your opinion. Keep that if you want, but don't expect us the progressive-ethical ones to follow it! --Idiot number 59 (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- *yawn* Let's see...there many several examples of a non-sentient bodies having rights; the first thing that comes to mind is people who are in comas and people who are legally dead but are cryo-preserved. (Note to David Gerard: I am not repeat not endorsing cryonics, it's just an example.) But I see the point you are getting at with relativism in general. There is, in my mind, a bright line between "ok" types of behavior and "not ok" ones: informed consent. By this metric purely consensual cannibalism would indeed be "ok," but not the organ-pillaging kind you mention. Tetronian you're clueless 16:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- What gives you the right to deny that? How can a dead body have any rights? In most cases we just honor the memory of dead person and that's why we do those things... but there actually isn't any need to. How can you disagree with such progressive and ethical stance? --Idiot number 59 (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- That part isn't what bothers me - it's the idea that people lose all of their "rights" as soon as they are dead. So...if you write in your will that you want to be buried, your family can just ignore it and dump you by the roadside? I think not. Tetronian you're clueless 15:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
“”The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. [He] had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.
Sometimes I stood there thunderstruck. I didn't know what to be more amazed at: the agility of their tongues or their virtuosity at lying.
|
- Fits in with the essay nicely. (No, I'm not making an argumentum ad Hitlerum, just having some fun.) Tetronian you're clueless 16:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
So, your "argument" could be summed up like this: Homosexuality is justified by moral relativism, which, by logical extension, also can be used to justify bestiality, polygamy and (consensual) cannibalism. So in conclusion, we must hold homosexuality in the same regard as bestiality, polygamy, and cannibalism. Go fuck yourself. Please. Blue (pester) 15:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- This is actually more about relativism than about homosexuality. And we don't even need any logical extension, everything's pretty much exactly the same. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, I see you've gone for an argumentum ad Brad Pittium, very clever - that's got me stumped. Yes, what is considered moral changes as societies evolve, but that doesn't mean that cannibalism is now (or will soon be) considered OK. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 16:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Nature says, "I don't think so, Tim"[edit]
- In this respect, nature has a very simple way of saying cannibalism is wrong: Kuru. (not to mention Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and MCD). --PsyGremlinFale! 16:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Stupid wannabe... blithering idiot.... you just ruined this highly rational talk page with that gibberish! DIE! --Idiot number 59 (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't even get that. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Family rights.[edit]
It is an interesting point to claim that a dead body has no rights, and as such should be a free meal. And there're perhaps some interesting logical conclusions from this approach. However, relatives have some rights to dignity. If my wife died, it'd be fine to say that -she- has no rights and is fair game, but I'd probably be pretty miffed if you grabbed a fork and started tucking in. Would my right to take comfort and closure from what I consider a dignified burial or ceremony not be more important than your right to nomnomnom? Overlord (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Not according to Idiot #Whatever's imitation of the progressive-ethical dialectic it wouldn't. But in reality I see what you are getting at, and I mostly agree with you. Besides, it is possible for a body to have legal rights. See my comment above. Tetronian you're clueless 16:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, I agree a body has rights in many senses. I just mean to say that if we humour the idea and accept, "Bodies have no rights, and we can do as we like with them," then the next question is -who- can do what they like with them. The person to whom the person was important's 'rights' to do as they like with the body would trump the stranger's right to eat them. And since, in almost ALL cases, a death would result in at least one person who'd take comfort from the body not being eaten, that person's wishes count.
- I agree, both legally and ethically the "coefficient of relatedness" (to borrow a term from biology) definitely counts for something. Tetronian you're clueless 16:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I was going to say something like that myself, then it occured to me: What if Mr. Husband wants to eat his beloved deceased? Even if she only had distant family, I think their 'right' to emotional 'reimboursement' (They've been upset, and this will offer some closure) is more important than the relative's emotional 'gain' (An individual eating a body does it for gain, let's say). And if someone wants to argue that eating a body is a form of closure, I don't think it'd ever require seriously refuting.
- That's part of the reason why I regard it as a legal question rather than an ethical one. If Mrs. Husband gives Mr. Husband permission to do so, then by all means. Tetronian you're clueless 16:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I was going to say something like that myself, then it occured to me: What if Mr. Husband wants to eat his beloved deceased? Even if she only had distant family, I think their 'right' to emotional 'reimboursement' (They've been upset, and this will offer some closure) is more important than the relative's emotional 'gain' (An individual eating a body does it for gain, let's say). And if someone wants to argue that eating a body is a form of closure, I don't think it'd ever require seriously refuting.
- I agree, both legally and ethically the "coefficient of relatedness" (to borrow a term from biology) definitely counts for something. Tetronian you're clueless 16:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, I agree a body has rights in many senses. I just mean to say that if we humour the idea and accept, "Bodies have no rights, and we can do as we like with them," then the next question is -who- can do what they like with them. The person to whom the person was important's 'rights' to do as they like with the body would trump the stranger's right to eat them. And since, in almost ALL cases, a death would result in at least one person who'd take comfort from the body not being eaten, that person's wishes count.
DNFT[edit]
At least half of the Recent changes list is clogged up with RWikians arguing with an (ex?)troll over something of little consequence. Are you we really that bored and lacking genuine social interaction?--ZooGuard (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Go away. I don't like you & your irrelevant style. --Idiot number 58 (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes. (just kidding) Tetronian you're clueless 17:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yes. (not kidding). Fuck you (ZooGuard), you douchbag assclown. Yes, I'm fucking bored. Yes, I'm lacking genuine social interaction in my office. Are you such a prick that you have to harp on how other people choose to interact? Then fuck yourself. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm sick of it[edit]
I create an essay about eating other human beings, trying to put at least some thoughts into your morally empty little heads, and you turn it into a joke. Some things are not to be joked about, my young fellows. --Idiot number 58 (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- While I'm reluctant to get drawn into what looks a bit like a sock-fest I think that we should remember that human beings are not by any means wholly rational. We certainly have social taboos which are not rational. Women can be topless on the beach and nobody bats a eyelid (in much of Europe anyway) yet in the street they can be arrested. We have separate bathrooms for men and women. In the west people don't usually eat insects. While one could imagine different "good reasons" for these things they are really simply social taboos.
- Some of the ones that the idiot mentions are social taboos as well. And social taboos do change - look at homosexuality.
- I can't see cannibalism coming into fashion any time soon though. But who knows?--BobSpring is sprung! 18:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- A very convenient escape hatch. However, since you here supposedly are "rational" you should agree that there's nothing immoral about cannibalism and it actually should be legalized (or that it would be rational to legalize it), even if you personally wouldn't like that. --Idiot number 57 (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't personally think that morality is defined by rationality. Though it might make a nice straw man. For instance, it might be quite "rational" to rob a bank (assuming you could get away with it) or commit some other socially reprehensible deed, but that wouldn't make it "moral". Morality - I think - is defined by society in general. Not everyone will agree.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think that question is definitely not so open-and-shut - in terms of describing how society works your definition is certainly accurate, but at the same time I don't see why it is theoretically impossible for a objective morality to exist. (However, I have no idea of what that might be or even how it might be derived.) Tetronian you're clueless 20:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Some would argue in favor of Consequentialism as a rational route to morality. But I'm not convinced, in part because it doesn't really describe how people actuality make moral judgments in the real world. (On the other hand it's obviously a better guide then religion.)--BobSpring is sprung! 20:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I've been doing some cursory reading on consequentialism; its broad normative claims seem well-reasoned, but I don't know enough about how it really works to truly judge it. But naturally it is better than a religious morality. Tetronian you're clueless 21:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Some would argue in favor of Consequentialism as a rational route to morality. But I'm not convinced, in part because it doesn't really describe how people actuality make moral judgments in the real world. (On the other hand it's obviously a better guide then religion.)--BobSpring is sprung! 20:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think that question is definitely not so open-and-shut - in terms of describing how society works your definition is certainly accurate, but at the same time I don't see why it is theoretically impossible for a objective morality to exist. (However, I have no idea of what that might be or even how it might be derived.) Tetronian you're clueless 20:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't personally think that morality is defined by rationality. Though it might make a nice straw man. For instance, it might be quite "rational" to rob a bank (assuming you could get away with it) or commit some other socially reprehensible deed, but that wouldn't make it "moral". Morality - I think - is defined by society in general. Not everyone will agree.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- A very convenient escape hatch. However, since you here supposedly are "rational" you should agree that there's nothing immoral about cannibalism and it actually should be legalized (or that it would be rational to legalize it), even if you personally wouldn't like that. --Idiot number 57 (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Glancing thoughts[edit]
While I agree that some form of cannibalism should be legal, the "conclusion" (not being a dick, I'm just not sure if this is actually the conclusion) that "It was quite common amongst early human beings and is very common amongst other animals, therefore there can't be something inherently wrong with it" is a fallacy, particularly the naturalistic fallacy. We can't logically deduce the way things should be because of the way things are (or were). If cannibalism should be legal, it should be because of it's merits (or lack of demerits). Occasionaluse (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. Tetronian you're clueless 21:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
[edit]
Equity, in the strict legal sense, doesn't mean what you think it means in this essay. Say equality instead.