Cannibalism

Cannibalism, what is wrong with it?

Originally posted by whodey
Cannibalism, what is wrong with it?

In the second in a series of lectures drawn from Harvard professor Michael Sandel's famous undergraduate course on justice, he introduces the British utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham, with reference to an infamous 19th century legal case from Victorian England - the shipwreck of the Mignonette.

After nineteen days lost at sea, the ship's captain decided to kill the weakest amongst the survivors - the young cabin boy - so that the rest could feed on his blood and body. The case sets up a classroom debate about the moral validity of utilitarianism and its doctrine of the right thing to do being whatever produces the greatest good for the greatest number.

YouTube

Skip to the 29th minute. Good stuff.

Originally posted by finnegan
In the second in a series of lectures drawn from Harvard professor Michael Sandel's famous undergraduate course on justice, he introduces the British utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham, with reference to an infamous 19th century legal case from Victorian England - the shipwreck of the Mignonette.

After nineteen days lost at sea, the ship's captain de ...[text shortened]... number.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY

Skip to the 29th minute. Good stuff.

Would it be wrong to eat people even if starvation were not the only other option?

Originally posted by whodey
Would it be wrong to eat people even if starvation were not the only other option?

Do you feel the urge to eat someone?

Originally posted by finnegan
In the second in a series of lectures drawn from Harvard professor Michael Sandel's famous undergraduate course on justice, he introduces the British utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham, with reference to an infamous 19th century legal case from Victorian England - the shipwreck of the Mignonette.

I did that course and highly recommend it.

Originally posted by whodey
Cannibalism, what is wrong with it?

If by mutual consent, nothing.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Do you feel the urge to eat someone?

No, it just amuses me to probe the moral fabric of secular humanists.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
If by mutual consent, nothing.

That's what I figured would be the answer. Just so long as you have the poor souls consent to get eaten all is well with the world.

Which brings me to the unborn. So after Planned parenthood gets done selling off all the valuable organs, would it be permissible for the mother to sell the rest to a butcher to sell the meat to be eaten, just so long as the mother consents to it?

Some like the taste of baby cattle ya know, and just think how this could help lower income women. They could make a "killing" just having babies.

Originally posted by whodey
Cannibalism, what is wrong with it?

Whodey, whodey, whodey... you may think you have mastered the art of sarcasm, but trust me, the Good Dean you ain't.

Originally posted by whodey
That's what I figured would be the answer. Just so long as you have the poor souls consent to get eaten all is well with the world.

Which brings me to the unborn. So after Planned parenthood gets done selling off all the valuable organs, would it be permissible for the mother to sell the rest to a butcher to sell the meat to be eaten, just so long as the ...[text shortened]... t think how this could help lower income women. They could make a "killing" just having babies.

What the hell are you babbling on about?
You go from cannabalism to mother's selling foetus parts???

You like driving, don't you?
Well, I guess you must like crushing baby skulls too.

Originally posted by whodey
That's what I figured would be the answer. Just so long as you have the poor souls consent to get eaten all is well with the world.

Which brings me to the unborn. So after Planned parenthood gets done selling off all the valuable organs, would it be permissible for the mother to sell the rest to a butcher to sell the meat to be eaten, just so long as the ...[text shortened]... t think how this could help lower income women. They could make a "killing" just having babies.

That's what I figured would be the answer. Just so long as you have the poor souls consent to get eaten all is well with the world.

Well, I personally wouldn't like to be cannibalized nor have a particular appetite for human meat, but I don't see why I should have the authority to tell others what to do in this regard.

Which brings me to the unborn.

Doesn't everything?

So after Planned parenthood gets done selling off all the valuable organs, would it be permissible for the mother to sell the rest to a butcher to sell the meat to be eaten, just so long as the mother consents to it?

Some like the taste of baby cattle ya know, and just think how this could help lower income women. They could make a "killing" just having babies.

Well, as long as there is no public health hazard from eating human meat or fetal tissue I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed to be sold commercially. However, I very much doubt there is a significant market for fetal tissue as food and by extension that any mother would be able to make a significant amount of money selling fetal tissue for this purpose.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Well, as long as there is no public health hazard from eating human meat or fetal tissue I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed to be sold commercially.

Indeed. I believe it is called soylent green.

I'm sure at some point this prophetic vision will come about, especially in light of knowing who the powers that be are today.

Originally posted by whodey
Indeed. I believe it is called soylent green.

I'm sure at some point this prophetic vision will come about, especially in light of knowing who the powers that be are today.

If you watched the movie, you'd know that the nature of Soylent Green was hidden from its consumers, so that would be fraud.

Big business is presently fighting "truth in labelling" laws aided by the usual political suspects (most with "R" before their names).

Originally posted by no1marauder
If you watched the movie, you'd know that the nature of Soylent Green was hidden from its consumers, so that would be fraud.

Big business is presently fighting "truth in labelling" laws aided by the usual political suspects (most with "R" before their names).

True, the government and media would have to either to hide the truth or would have to soften public feelings about eating human beings.

They could label bigots against cannibals as Canniphobics and religious extremists.

They could also combine this effort with the goal of feeding the world, so those who are against it are in a war against poor folk etc.

Of course, if the government is doing the selling of body parts then all is well with the world because no one is above the government to hold them accountable for anything, so they could conceivably hide the truth from the public like they did the NSA program or IRS scandal or VA scandal etc.

Originally posted by whodey
True, the government and media would have to either to hide the truth or would have to soften public feelings about eating human beings.

They could label bigots against cannibals as Canniphobics and religious extremists.

They could also combine this effort with the goal of feeding the world, so those who are against it are in a war against poor folk etc ...[text shortened]... y hide the truth from the public like they did the NSA program or IRS scandal or VA scandal etc.

Suppose it was a giant corporation doing it like in the movie. Since you are so opposed to "collectivist" endeavors like a government there'd be nothing anybody could do would there?