@orathaic: Ok, perhaps lust was the wrong word. How's craving sound? Still, I wouldn't expect you to know anyone with a cannibalistic tendency, or if you did I doubt they'd say so.

Every nation is civilized by its own standards.

@dingleberry: (and quoting the simpsons) 'We do!'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybIXiIL50bw

@ orathaic - i think you're confusing civilised with technologically advanced.

This whole thread is a gloriously awesome train wreck of topics.

Bravo everyone!

@trip: NEVER, i was never confused.

no, the collective 'we' as a society decide what is 'civilised', mainly the universal declaration of human rights; which is just some people saying what rights they think a civilised society should protect.

This has very little to do with technology.

@DrOct: As the topic starter, I'm quite proud of the way it's turned out. I guess this is what happens when you say "Hey, let's talk about something interesting!!" :p

The legalization of voluntary cannibalism?
Cannibalism is an absolute wrong, and should never be promoted in any way.

Sterilization of those found guilty of violent crimes?
This would stop nothing because humanity is naturally evil all together. Plus I don't think there has ever been a record of violent serial murdering that runs in any family. People do things like that thanks to effects of their environment and the choices they make.

Sentencing Attempted Murder as the same as Murder?
I believe that should be allowed. In today's court, a person can get out free on the count of insanity. Why? Because with in themselves, they did not mean to commit any wrong. Thus we now have a system that bases whether or not you are guilty only because of your motives. And since an attempted murderer has the same motive of a successful murderer, yes, an attempt should be considered as bad as a real one.

Tied aid in cases of clearly corrupt or incompetent Gov'ts? (ie. Burma)
Why not...

Allowing Sex in public?
That idea is absolutely disgusting. Sex is intended to be private and between the people involved, and the people involved only. Some things aren't meant to become public. Some things are meant to remain secretive and taboo.

@T-7089
"Cannibalism is an absolute wrong, and should never be promoted in any way."

Based on what??

Because in the world, the people with the biggest toys gets to decide what is right and what is wrong. If you are not on the side of them, then you are consider wrong to a much more powerful state then you. But in all matters, the idea of good and evil are utterly pointless because ideas change drastically from era to era. Based on who has the bigger toys of course.

@T-7089: You would not be required to have sex in public, you would have the choice to keep that part of your life private as you do now.

I don't know who you think intended it to be private. Or why you think you know what was intended by anyone who could in fact determine such a thing.

Cannibalism doesn't seem quite as distasteful if the person was already dead. There are many reasons why vegetarians are vegetarians, but one of the more popular one is 'an animal shouldn't have to die so i can eat'. What about roadkill? No animal died so you could eat, and there's no sense in its death going to waste.

(beware the firestorm)

@T-7089 regarding your comment about sex being intended to be in private, Do you think that early man always had sex in private? I would hazard that humans have been having sex in public for far longer than they have it in private.

I missed most of this post, but just going back to the cheese debate for a moment, and to add a point of interest; Some cheese in Holland is made backwards.

Cannibalism is disgusting and morally wrong, and quite a number of people agree with me on this. At least for the moment. There are better things to do with a PERSON'S body then eat it. Helpful things, eating it would be just as much a waste, and more putrid then just burring the thing.

@Maniac
Lets remember that we are not early man. Humanity at one point in time grew up and learned better.

And I wouldn't as much a problem with public sex, if in fact it was done in a facility intended for such things. But fornicating in other public areas such as parks or sidewalks is unnecessary and may very well disturb others. You don't need to have sex in those areas. It is not like you might die if you don't. Some places are simply not intended for you to have sex there. There is a time and place for everything. The time to have sex should not occur on a public playground.

T-7089, if you replaced the word 'cannabalism' with 'homosexuality' your sentence would still be true. Just because some might find it objectionable doesnt make it wrong or a moral absolute.

I highly doubt in today's western world that a majority of people believe homosexuality is wrong...
But you are correct, just because a majority find it to be wrong or right, doesn't make it wrong or right.
But just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
And just because it's "normal" or "natural" doesn't make it moral.

In the end, the only source of justification comes from with in you. The only reason any action on if something is classified as wrong or right, IS if the majority agree it is that way. That doesn't make it wrong or right in your eyes, just to a whole lot of others.

But my last sentence in that statement still stands strong.

Gotta love that Edam Maniac.

With that point would it be wrong to eat a dead human in order to survive? You can't replace 'homosexuality' with life or death situations.

I was not talking about homosexuality or survival types of cannibalism in that sentence. I was talking about how unnecessary it is to do it just because or for a sick ritual.

T-7089, I can agree with you on some of these issues, but your justifications aren't justifications, they're circular arguments... they're wrong because it's immoral!

Kaiser got it, when he pointed out that eating human flesh is substantially more likely to have infections diseases and parasites that are already primed for human infection. Cannibalistic cultures in the past have done so out of necessity. Eg. No significant large game, no real domesticated animals (Guinea pigs?), very little agricultural prospects both in soil quality in nutritional content of plants available... Combine that with the natural tendency of humans (and all life) to reproduce beyond the carrying capacity of the environment, and then compete for survival, and you get cannibalism!

This thread is so hard to keep up with because there are so many topics going on at once. I'd like to respond to many of the earlier ones, but I can't bring myself to respond to more than the immediate replies.

If vegetarians love the planet so much, why are they eating all the plants?

how long is "a while"??

T-7089, I realize you weren't talking about homosexuality. But you were declaring cannabilism disgusting and immoral just because you and a lot of other people think like you. My point was that a lot of people think that homosexuality is disgusting and immoral, and a lot of people think like that. Just replace the one word, and you sound like a bigot. I don't mind your stance, but as Chrispminis pointed out, your justifications are not justifications -'They are immoral because I think they are wrong and so do some others.'

Not all cannibalistic cultures did so out of the need to survive. Some ate (parts of) their dead relatives in religious rituals, some ate their enemies.

I'm all for bigotry, just for the record. I just think that the health concerns for eating people outweigh anyone's silly religious persuasions. Not that I would want to make it illegal, as I think we don't do enough as a society to encourage morons to die as is.

Just out of curiosity, what has more health risks: well cooked human, undercooked burgers, sushi, shellfish...? How many people die each year of food poisoning as it is?

Well, it's hard to say... I certainly don't have any experience with any level of cooked human. I will say that the health risks can also be associated with the preparation of human flesh, and not just the ingestion. The people cooking it are still at risk. I can conceive of a situation in which all possible precautions are taken to negate the health risks of cannibalism... but like so many other things in life, it just feels so intuitively wrong. It's a gut reaction, but then, I try not to react with my gut.

DbJ, out of interest, can you link me to information regarding cannibalistic cultures that didn't do it out of necessity? I don't mean necessity like they're starving... I mean necessity as in, to have a healthy diet with the necessary nutrition and protein content, various cultures had to supplement their diets with human flesh. I'm thinking of cannibalistic cultures in the Oceania area... they're largest game besides humans were probably birds, their largest domesticated animal the guinea pig, and their agriculture was quite impoverished.

This story about Darius' dabbling into a moral disagreement is relevant to the discussion about cannibalism:
http://books.google.com/books?id=2WIL8ODNdsIC&lpg=PA118&ots=yM-O1TYoIz&dq=james%20rachels%20cultural%20relativism%20the%20dead&pg=PA118


I see nothing wrong with postmortem cannibalism provided the deceased gave his full consent in his last will and testament. Yes, there are health risks involved, but personal freedoms often trump the state's paternalism. Provided the corpse (and the consumption thereof) brings no health hazards to the general public, I don't see how a state can justify banning all cases of postmortem cannibalism.