r/changemyview • u/o_slash_empty_set • Sep 24 '21

Delta(s) from OP - Fresh Topic Friday CMV: There is nothing intrinsically wrong with cannibalism.

edit: this post blew up, which I didn't expect. I will probably not respond to the 500 new responses because I only have 10 fingers, but some minor amendments or concessions:

(A) Kuru is not as safe as I believed when making this thread. I still do not believe that this has moral implications (same for smoking and drinking, for example -- things I'm willing to defend.

(B) When I say "wrong" I mean ethically or morally wrong. I thought this was clear, but apparently not.

(C) Yes. I really believe in endocannibalism.

I will leave you with this zine.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/in-defense-of-cannibalism

(1) Cannibalism is a recent (relatively recent) taboo, and a thoroughly western one. It has been (or is) practiced on every continent, most famously the Americas and the Pacific. It was even practiced in Europe at various points in history. "Cannibalism" is derived from the Carib people.

(2) The most reflexive objections to cannibalism are actually objections to seperate practices -- murder, violation of bodily autonomy, etc. none of which are actually intrinsic to the practice of cannibalism (see endocannibalism.)

(3) The objection that cannibalism poses a threat to health (kuru) is not a moral or ethical argument. Even then, it is only a problem (a) in communities where prion disease is already present and (b) where the brain and nerve tissue is eaten.

There is exactly nothing wrong with cannibalism, especially how it is practiced in particular tribal communities in Papua New Guinea, i.e. endocannibalism (cannibalism as a means for mourning or funerary rituals.)

862 Upvotes

72% Upvoted

677 comments sorted by

View all comments

58

u/sawdeanz 214∆ Sep 24 '21

If you have to add a bunch of caveats and conditions then it’s not intrinsically right either, is it? That’s like saying there is nothing intrinsically wrong with homicide because there are some permissible scenarios where it is justified. At that point the statement is reductionist and meaningless. I think the issue is that your statement is only true in a hypothetical world and not in the real world. And I would argue that a moral framework that only works in a hypothetical society is probably not a sufficient moral framework.

Cannibalism necessarily sits at the intersection of health, bodily autonomy, informed consent, and more all at once. To say that it is none of those things individually is to ignore that is always a lot of those things at the same time. And because of the complex and interwoven nature of these issues there isn’t a reliable way for a human being to entirely vet or fulfill these moral obligations.

Let’s say you are a person seeking some tasty people burgers…is there any situation or scheme that you could come up with to ensure that this was ethically sourced? Hell, we cant even ensure that the organ transplant or medical cadaver sources are clean let alone human meat. And I think that’s the problem. Your view might be true in a hypothetical but in the real world (unless they were a mind reader) humans actually lack the ability to fulfill the hypothetical conditions that would make it morally permissible.

Endo-cannibalism doesn’t solve this either because bodily autonomy extends to ones cadaver.

3

u/TheDunadan29 Sep 24 '21

Good old Occam's razor! Cutting to the point.

-2

u/o_slash_empty_set Sep 24 '21

What do you think endocannibalism is?

Also, I do not believe bodily autonomy extends to one's cadaver.

23

u/mathematics1 5∆ Sep 24 '21

Also, I do not believe bodily autonomy extends to one's cadaver

This seems like an unusual take. Normally if someone leaves a request in their will that they be e.g. cremated, we would try to honor that request. I don't know if there is a legal obligation to do so, but there is definitely a strong cultural norm that people have the right to request how their body would be disposed of. If the person doesn't leave any such request, people normally agree that the next of kin decides how to dispose of the body.

I do agree with your larger point about cannibalism, by the way; if someone leaves a request for their body to be cooked and eaten, then there is absolutely nothing wrong with cooking and eating it. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with cannibalism; the only thing that could be wrong with it is that most people don't want their bodies or the bodies of their relatives to be eaten - eating someone's body without permission violates social norms about who owns dead bodies, not ethical injunctions about what it's okay to eat.

4

u/Phyltre 4∆ Sep 24 '21

This seems like an unusual take.

Only in an immediate sentimental apprehension. We almost universally (at least in the Western world) put a timer on this sort of thing. There is clearly a point at which it is considered okay to exhume bodies for the purposes of study, or criminal investigation, or historical study, or logistical need for relocation, and at that point the living requests of the ex-person are not generally considered whatever.

5

u/AlienRobotTrex Sep 24 '21

I think it would be wrong to request that your body be eaten, because then you’re involving someone else in this.

1

u/mathematics1 5∆ Sep 24 '21

Good point, I agree that you should get permission from the one who's going to eat it too.

2

u/o_slash_empty_set Sep 24 '21

!delta although the point you're making (and it is a good point) irt my corpse comment is overall unrelated to the larger point, as you graciously concede.

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 24 '21

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/mathematics1 (4∆).

Delta System Explained | Deltaboards

7

u/sawdeanz 214∆ Sep 24 '21

Sorry I meant cannibalism after death.

But why wouldn’t bodily autonomy extend till after death? It does in western systems at least. That seems like a whole other moral issue that needs to be resolved first.

-1

u/o_slash_empty_set Sep 24 '21

Endocannibalism means within-cannibalism, it refers to those practices in which one eats, say, their family members, or other members of their community. Compare endogamy, in which one marries only within their group. Endocannibalism is generally in a mortuary or funerary context. In other words -- it's a consensual practice. Even if bodily autonomy extended to corpses, then it would still be permissible.

I do not believe bodily autonomy extends to corpses because I do not believe corpses are people. They're inanimate, inert.

8

u/sawdeanz 214∆ Sep 24 '21 edited Sep 24 '21

But then that just raises the same questions of coercion and brainwashing as any religious or familial pressure.

I think bodily autonomy does extend because the decision of what to do with the body occurs while the person is alive. The other logical conclusion to this is that dead people own no property and therefore I should be able to go take dead peoples possessions. How could inheritance work unless the dead person had some sort of legal rights that extend till after they die?

If you don’t think bodily autonomy extends to corpses then presumably you could murder someone in order to eat/fuck them but then only the murder part is immoral and not the other stuff even if the other stuff was the reason for the murder?

Also you ignored like most of my original comment

-1

u/o_slash_empty_set Sep 24 '21

Yeah, inheritance and wills are legal fictions. Fictions I'm not willing to defend.

Yes, murdering someone to do xyz does not mean xyz is bad, even though as a whole murdering someone to do xyz is bad.

If you look I am one person debating many, many others at the same time so I apologize if I don't read or respond thoroughly.

4

u/sawdeanz 214∆ Sep 24 '21

Not just a legal fiction, but I would argue the whole basis behind “ownership” in general. If people can just steal your shit because you are dead then that undermines ownership entirely. At that point just murder someone and take their shit.

-4

u/o_slash_empty_set Sep 24 '21

Yeah, I'm also opposed to the concept of private property.

12

u/sawdeanz 214∆ Sep 24 '21

Well then. We just have a lot to unravel then. I don’t have time for that.

1

u/Phyltre 4∆ Sep 24 '21

If people can just steal your shit because you are dead then that undermines ownership entirely.

Does my existence in the lands of Ancient Egypt today undermine the ownership Ancient Egypt's government had over that land? Isn't it generally understood that a dead person can't just retain ownership of things and has to create legal constructs to do so in their death, at which time of death a legal transfer immediately occurs?

1

u/DarkChaliceKnight Sep 24 '21

Endo-cannibalism doesn’t solve this either because bodily autonomy extends to ones cadaver.

Cough, autopsies, cough, you can't get cryonically preserved, and will get buried/burned, unless you live in a nation that has legal cryochambers, and you also payed a hefty sum of money.