im in an ethics class.... our final is we have to stand up in front of the freaking class and debate ethical issues.... i dont go to class much...so the one time i did..i got paired up with some random guy who demanded that we debate canibalism. i was like ok.. he hasnt been to class in a while since then..but next week i have to stand up in front of a million people and debate with this b*stard about canibalism and how its wrong. using ethical reasoning and lingo and what not. this is guy is a smartass, and he talks nonstop in class and he is going to go up there and try to defend canibalism. im kind of worried about it. so if its not too much trouble, can anyone give me some intelligent ethical reasoning as to why canibalism is wrong. thanks i appreciate it.
In our society, there are few ethical reasons why cannibalism is wrong, but there are biological reasons. You are more likely to catch a disease from eating a human - every parasite in his body would function perfectly well in yours. The only (and it's sketchy) ethical reason I could think of for not eating someone is that you will hurt the feelings of his relatives. They deserve a whole, not partly-masticated body to mourn over. Something I don't know: is it illegal to eat human flesh in America? If it is illegal, I guess it's unethical to break the law...
You can always link it to murder. No one wants to eat diseased bodies (like everybody's body is not diseased!) so, except for accidental deaths, the product would have to come from a murder.
I hope you're Christian, because the cons are morality based. Questions you will have to answer: Why is murder wrong? What differentiates the murder of humans and the killing of non-human animals? Of course the Bible lists murder as wrong, and even considers cannibalism as a curse (Deuteronomy 28: 52-57). But then you will have to support the Bible (or another belief's text) as a valid reference for morality.
If you can't think of moral and ethical reasons why cannibalism is wrong without the help of the CC.net crew, you ARE in trouble. Mmmmmmmmm, tasty pork treats.
I would think he will make only one debatable point that will make people stop and think so you ought to focus on this: "If eating your dead comrades is the only way to stay alive then you should do it." In my opinion if you adequately argue against that, you will win the debate. Perhaps watching the movie "Alive" (or reading the book) will help you prepare.
If cannibalism were ethical and moral, by eating someone, aren't you denying them the right to be a cannibal themselves, assuming cannibalism participation is manadatory by all parties? How about discussing the moral and ethical issues surrounding the infamous "Utah Jazz Flop"?
You certainly do not want to bring up Christianity. Since most early Christians and many current Christians believe that the bread and wine are literally the blood and body of Christ (not just symbolic), that opens a bad door. But, yeah, do your own work.
Here are some links. Nothing I'd ever make myself read, but may be useful for you! http://www.nd.edu/~dthunder/Articles/Article2.html http://www.all.org/issues/kellmyer.htm http://www.killian.com/earl/WhyVegetarian.html http://www.geocities.com/briandy_au/biocentric.html Not much, but it may help.
rimmy -- seriously now...this is Christ, the living God in the flesh, giving up His own body as a sacrifice. Very few Christians in the world actually believe that this is LITERALLY the body and blood of Christ. I'm not sure how they ever thought that (or how prevalent that idea really was) considering Jesus was present in the flesh when he presented the bread and wine as his body and blood....clearly he was using metaphor in that very moment...and communion is an extension of that Last Supper...sitting at the table with all the saints and with God.
Become a smartass as well. Ask him if he would eat your ass. If he says no, then use it against him. If he says yes, drop your drawers. You'll probably lose the debate, but you'll own him.
I could be way wrong but I was under the impression that one of the offical beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church is that the wine and bread are literally transformed into the blood and flesh of Christ. If that is true then a great many Christians in the world belive this...
LOL dylan: I believe that you are referring to transubstantiation. Here are some links about it: Holden: Dude, do you always put a at the end of each one of your posts? Are you really that depressed or is this some elaborate gimmick you use on this BBS?
I think the assumption this whole debate will go under is that you didn't have to kill to obtain the food source. Murder is obviously unethical. The question seems to be: you have a supply of fresh human meat that didn't come from an unethical source. Is it unethical to eat it merely because it is human flesh?
my understanding is there is a mystical quality to it...but they don't actually believe they are eating the literal flesh of Jesus Christ
or it is a work of fiction... Rockets03...if some bodybuilder died from freezing and you are stuck in an igloo in the middle of nowhere and you know for a fact that you wouldnt be rescued for 20 days...do you chow down or die? and what if 200 naked hotties were waiting for you to become their love god once you return home? and what if that bodybuilder was replaced by john stockten? or two desmon masons?
uhhh...yeah. ummmm..it's a factual assertion...and like all factual assertions, it is either true or false. i agree. not sure it's worth pointing out...but i agree.
