Why is Cannibalism Wrong?

[Popeyesays]

Assumptions can be dangerous. Im not just talking moral. Im talking in a serious "Why cant I sit down and eat a Man-burger" sense. I mean I actually am interested in why eating the healthyest food on the planet is so bad. :149:

It does not appear to have posted:
Your assumption that human flesh is somehow healthy to humans is patently in error.
I said before:"Well, murder is not an excuse normally for cannibalism. However, there is a real danger to cannibalism in a health sense. It is far too easy to transmit deisease - prion diseases, like kuru and Alzheimer;s, virus diseases like AIDS, Hepatitis, bacterial diseases like sepsis, flesh-eating bacteria, protozoan diseases like Dengue Fever and Malaria, parastical infections like tapeworms, trichinosis, etc.

Man is an omnivore, and like pigs, bears and other omnivores cannibalism is contra-survival for the species."

kuru, for instance, is passed on only by eating infected human brain tissue. Kuru is endemic in the population still, and how firmly lodged must it have been in the society for it to have developed successfully such a limited method of transmission? Cannibalism in that instance is obviously contrary to good health.

Prion diseases, like kuru, Alzheimer's, Mad Cow can be transmitted even when the meat is thoroughly cooked.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Valjean]

If my post wasn't logical argument, then offer us a logical version of debate as to why it's NOT ok to eat humans without killing them first....don't criticise without offering an opinion of your own.

So everyone else had a logical argument?

I hold that it is not OK to take a person's life, unless in defense of self or others who are in peril at the hand of the malefactor in question, but a logical argument against consumption of human meat per se would be tricky. There is a strong cultural taboo against cannibalism in most societies, but cultural is not natural. There are cultures where people have no aversion to human meat and no social problems arise from it, so there is no absolute psychobiological barrier to such customs being adopted by our own culture.

 

[Valjean]

It does not appear to have posted:
Your assumption that human flesh is somehow healthy to humans is patently in error.
I said before:"Well, murder is not an excuse normally for cannibalism. However, there is a real danger to cannibalism in a health sense. It is far too easy to transmit deisease - prion diseases, like kuru and Alzheimer;s, virus diseases like AIDS, Hepatitis, bacterial diseases like sepsis, flesh-eating bacteria, protozoan diseases like Dengue Fever and Malaria, parastical infections like tapeworms, trichinosis, etc.

Man is an omnivore, and like pigs, bears and other omnivores cannibalism is contra-survival for the species."

kuru, for instance, is passed on only by eating infected human brain tissue. Kuru is endemic in the population still, and how firmly lodged must it have been in the society for it to have developed successfully such a limited method of transmission? Cannibalism in that instance is obviously contrary to good health.

Prion diseases, like kuru, Alzheimer's, Mad Cow can be transmitted even when the meat is thoroughly cooked.

Regards,
Scott

Infectious disease can be transmitted by any meat. Your argument is not so much against human meat itself but against lax meat inspection standards.

 

[The Grey Wolf]

Et sic patet quod totus mundus est sicut unum speculum plenum luminibus praesentantibus divinam sapientam, et sicut carbo effundens lucem.

 

[De Otro Lado]

According to information in The Two Babylons by Hislop. One of the possible origins of cannabalism comes from the sin-offerings to Moloch or Baal. As noted in the O.T. the ritual of "passing through fire" is supposedly a ritual of human sacrifice as a sin-offering to cleanse the people of their sins. According to Mosaic law (there was no explanation for this particular anomaly) the priests would be obliged to partake in any sin-offering, Hence the term "sin-eater".
From either the Phoenician or Chaldee language the translation is as such:
Cahn= priest
Cahna= the priest
Baal = lord
Cahna-Baal = the priest(s) of the lord
Now back to the original question, I would say it would depend on the both the individual and situation.

 

[retrorich]

Why is Cannibalism Wrong?

1. It drives up the price of fava beans and chianti.
2. It allows murderers to use the pleasure hunter defence: "I eat what I kill."

 

[Maxist]

There is nothing truly wrong with it in my mind. If the person is already dead; ---which brings us to the much debated question of why murdur is wrong--- but if the person is already dead then it is a blatent waste of perfectly good food. Christians do it every time they partake in communion; ---metaphorically of corase--- so why can we not? I suppose because it is socially unaccepted; people in general are vain; and want to appear as intellectual and refined as possible; so we do nto partake in canabalism. If we were never told not to then I am sure that we would.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I had to chew on this a while as I tried to flesh out my objections. It was really eating at me when I finally put a finger on it: there's just too much at steak.

It's probably cultural, but I find the whole concept repungnant. Especially if it involves the involuntary taking of a life.