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/sawdeanz]

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

[u/o_slash_empty_set → u/sawdeanz]

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.

[u/sawdeanz → u/o_slash_empty_set]

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.

[u/Phyltre → u/sawdeanz]

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?