talkmagic.co.uk

O.K...this little thought experiment came about from having a discussion recently about vegetarianism. I am a veggie, but this is not intended as a debate about the rights and wrongs of eating meat. Its a little 'thought exercise' that can perhaps show how if you take things you usually take for granted to their ultimate conclusion, you can get some suprising results. Sometimes we dont, or are unwilling, to go their.
So here it is...

"If it is ok to eat animals, why is it not ok to eat humans, or even babies?"

Forget the laws, this is about morality. Even if it was made legal to eat humans, it would still feel wrong.

One person said that it is down to intelligence. Bu twe wouldn't eat people with mental disabilities.

One person said it was because we invest into society, but does that mean we can eat dole dossers?

THe only half decent attempt was that it was becasue animals dont eat their own species. THough I'm sure some do (saw it on some TV program once), but is this really the best reason not to eat each other, some kind of extended racism?

Again, this isn't meant to be a discussion about the rights and wrongs of eating meat, and it isn't meant to insult people. It just a little exercise of thoughts.

Have you read "A Modest Proposal" by John Swift? It was written in the mid to late 1700s. Apparently Englishman, John Swift, proposed to eat Irish babies because they grew up to be either theives or beggars.

It's how we're wired, simple as that. There are, of course, exceptions to the rule - but that is why it would FEEL wrong.

As to why it would BE wrong, well, that's a whole different matter. If by 'extended racism' you mean 'speciesism' you might want to look into the arguments of Singer and Cohen and their views when it comes to animal rights.

I'm too tired at the moment to post my thoughts on the matter, but I shall return

Disease is much more likely to transfer through cannibalism than just eating other animals. Farmers used to feed some of the animals with bits and pieces of their deceased kin. I think it was with chickens, but I'm not sure. I heard a nasty disease spread from that.

As to why it would BE wrong, well, that's a whole different matter. If by 'extended racism' you mean 'speciesism' you might want to look into the arguments of Singer and Cohen and their views when it comes to animal rights.

That the word yes...but surely there is a better 'excuse' for it. As this doesn't explaim why it is right, just merely why we do it.

Again, this is not intended to be an animal rights debate as such (though due to the nature of the question it is perhaps a little unavoidable), but an exercise as to where a 'logical' train of thought can possible take you if taken to its natural conclusion.

Certain studies have revealed that cannibalism is actually more common in the animal kingdom than some suspected. It was considered rare because there aren't many species which engage in group cannibalism, and that it is more a one-on-one type situation. The group cannibalism is also where the spread of disease comes from. Case such as Mad Cow disease is a result of this kind of thing. There's also a human form of mad cow, known as Kuru - which is a disease caused by a cannibalistic diet. However, in a single "eater" scenario, the results haven't shown a greater possibility of disease.

Other discoveries have led to theories that Neanderthals may have practiced cannibalism during periods of food shortages.

I think, more than anything - the notion that we shouldn't eat each other is more a morality issue than anything else. I think a good deal of it is largely unexplainable. you can hunt for reasons (much like the ones you presented), but there's holes in almost all of them. In the end, it seems more like we don't eat each other because....we just don't.

It's an interesting thought, though...

In the ancient times I believe it was called survival of the fittest because all they had was mainly meat and the tradition has just carried on even thoe we have found new foods to eat.Simple as that.

if you eat someone's brains, you gain their knowledge... or so I've heard.

Back to survival of the fittest- I think the reason people can't eat human babies is because it goes against nature. Organisms are made to reproduce. We just do magic and science and stuff as a pass time (Pass the salt shaker). To eat ones' own child would be to totally go against instinct. I know abortion can be called a counterexample, but keep in mind and abortion isn't born yet. At an early enough stage, I doubt there's any bond with the mother.

"One person said that it is down to intelligence. Bu twe [sic] wouldn't eat people with mental disabilities. "

That's because they resemble beings that do. And even people who seem like total idiots* (IMO) are much more intelligent than EVERY single cow, chicken, or lamb alive.

*Britney Spears, Youtube exposure kiddies, or Bush, for example...

To eat ones' own child would be to totally go against instinct.

Young man...I dont propose we eat our own babies. Thats proposterous. No...eat other peoples babies! Or even better, babies from other races. They aren't as good as us!

"One person said that it is down to intelligence. Bu twe [sic] wouldn't eat people with mental disabilities. "

That's because they resemble beings that do. And even people who seem like total idiots* (IMO) are much more intelligent than EVERY single cow, chicken, or lamb alive.

That argument still doesn't hold any water. There are people with severe disabilities, who couldn't do certain tasks animals can. I dont want to let the debate degrade into insulting people with mental disabilities, so I will leave it there, but unless you hae IQ test to figure out who can and cant be eaten, that argument goes nowhere.

I'm a vegetarian between mouthfuls, if that helps. Mind you, I couldn't be a cannibal with my nut allergy.

Quite simply, all our behaviours are geared towards successfully reproducing and therefore continuing the species. To eat your own healthy babies would be completely counter intuitive in this context. Also there aren't many resouces for baby recipes so it's tricky to know where to start when you're trying to get a decent meal out of one.

Quite simply, all our behaviours are geared towards successfully reproducing and therefore continuing the species. To eat your own healthy babies would be completely counter intuitive in this context. Also there aren't many resouces for baby recipes so it's tricky to know where to start when you're trying to get a decent meal out of one.

That is the best, and probably the actual reason we dont do it.

But as my first post asked, does this show why it is wrong? Probably not.

Its an interesting question, that only seems to be answered with reference to such things as survival of the fittest and natural selection. Now if you take that logic to its natural conclusion...

It's wrong simply because it's against out nature, as Bronz said one of our strongest instincts is "survival of the species" to go against that by eating each other is something that just triggers in our mades as wrong. Whether or not it actually is wrong is a debate you can have for years, but the majority will always say that it is wrong, because instinct tells them so.

Just for the record...I don't actually think that eating babies is right!

I just find it interesting how something that seems so obviously true (its ok to eat lambs meat but not baby meat), is actually very hard to back up.