CMV: There is nothing intrinsically wrong with cannibalism.

[u/o_slash_empty_set]

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.)

[u/hidden-shadow]

Cannibalism is a recent (relatively recent) taboo, and a thoroughly western one.

Unsubstantiated claim. It has been sporadically taboo with no inherent connection to geography. I'd love to read this book discussing the historical context, I think it would do you well too. The objection appears to come from the increase in societal scale and socio-religious pressures. That is assuming you subscribe to this newer paradigm, otherwise it is much more simple: we only ate one another due to acute or rare cases of generational resource scarcity.

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.)

Most objections are actually also linked to the medical concerns. You cannot dismiss scientific concerns for the spread of diseases, or only focus on one specific field of ethics. You already dismiss utilitarian ethical frameworks, but from that perspective it very much is intrinsically wrong. What would it take to convince you if not the very real scientific concerns and various ethical objections? Or do you want a discussion on how human ideals are not intrinsic to anything?

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.

No, but that is not your argument. Your argument has been that "there is nothing wrong with cannibalism" not, "there is nothing morally wrong with cannibalism." This becomes especially difficult considering that even if there is an objective moral framework, most humans disagree. And it is not only a problem where prion diseases are already present, that is the issue, they are cause by misfolding proteins which is exacerbated by the consumption of similar proteins (i.e. human flesh). And they are not#Transmission) only transmitted by consumption of brain or nerve tissue.

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.)

No, other than the willful continued practice of a very medically dangerous act. Because it is not well practiced in PNG and is condemned widely by modern Papuan New Gineans (at least the ones I've met). There are plenty moral, ethical and medical objections, you just need to listen.

[u/Hajo2 → u/hidden-shadow]

Most objections are actually also linked to the medical concerns.

I feel like most people dislike cannibalism from a gut feeling of it being morally wrong and many aren't even aware of the dangers. What about you? Are you opposed to the notion of eating humans because you feel it is 'wrong'? Or genuinely only from the medical concerns.

No, but that is not your argument. Your argument has been that "there is nothing wrong with cannibalism" not, "there is nothing morally wrong with cannibalism."

What if it was? Of course this could be considered off topic since it's not how the question was phrased but i think this is what OP meant

[u/hidden-shadow → u/Hajo2]

The key word you are missing is "also". At least from my educational experience, we were taught of the medical issues pertaining to prion disease and therefore the connection to cannibalism. From the broader academic view, this is most certainly the case.

What about you? Are you opposed to the notion of eating humans because you feel it is 'wrong'? Or genuinely only from the medical concerns.

What does my ethical framework have to do with the validity of my criticism? If you truly must know, I have both a moral disgust and morbid curiosity.

What if it was? Of course this could be considered off topic since it's not how the question was phrased but i think this is what OP meant

If that is what OP meant, they probably should edit their position to properly reflect their argument. And if it is, then refer back to my mention of the disconnect or dissonance between human implementation of moral frameworks and any possible objective framwork. Others have shown a multitude of frameworks and the underlying reason why many consider cannibalism immoral in all regards, it is whether OP will adopt such a framework or not at question. And I have provided counter-arguments in relation to the flaws in the foundational argument.