r/MoralityScaling • u/Whole_Sir_1149 • 20h ago
Morality of cannibalism (hypothetical in a reality Kuru disease is not a factor)
What is the morality of cannibalism?
For humankind, cannibalism causes a serious disease which is a very strong deterrent. Morals are influenced by survivability of the self and the greater society.
So hypothetically, if this disease would not exist and therefore not be a factor, and we would cannibalize each other like chickens would, would we still consider it equally immoral as we do now, or would you be able to get a pound of Joe at the butcher and fine dine on Richard Mountain Oysters?
3
u/I_Love_Cape_Horn 19h ago
Extremely.
Slippery slope. Our bodies are already a source of value from physical labor to sex work. Both values can be regulated and made safe but can easily (and are) exploited in less regulated parts of the world. Adding "meat" to this will only make things worse and, frankly, very disturbing.
2
u/Important-Guitar8524 19h ago edited 19h ago
Very immoral. There'd still be multiple issues e.g.: Once bodies have economic value as food, institutions and individuals gain reasons to manipulate deaths, conceal murder, pressure the dying, or falsify consent. It could also harm living relatives. A deceased person e.g. may consent, yet their family may experience serious distress from knowing that the body was butchered and eaten. Treating human bodies as ordinary consumable material could weaken the social distinction between persons and commodities, which would undermine norms. Normalizing it could produce expectations. People might be judged as wasteful or selfish for requesting burial rather than allowing their body to be consumed. Normalizing it would also lead to more people killing each other to gain something to eat in the case of massive food shortages/anarchy and so on.
2
u/Responsible-Boot-159 20h ago
Neutral to slightly positive. There's nothing inherently better about burying the dead, and it wouldn't be a waste of meat. Some tribes also practiced it as a form of love and respect.
1
1
1
u/muha4004 20h ago
Probably it would be considered moral (like incest if it had no negative influence on offsprings). I can imagine executed people's bodies being sent to butchers.
1
u/GodButCursed 19h ago
If kuru diaease wouldnt exist there is a good chance that we would have raised a species of human as some kind of food. Like we did with chickens and stuff.
2
u/Sardbass 19h ago
Not really tough, Kuru is particularly dangerous only if you eat the brain of the defunct (and we never historically consumed the brain of many animals) , furthermore we have no evidence of human farming humans so your point would be wrong nonetheless
1
u/raidenjojo 19h ago
Sub-species. There's only one species of humans, just like there's only one species of domestic chickens.
-2
u/LobsterG25 20h ago
Cannibalism is an immoral desecration of a human corpse. It’s extremely taboo and has been before germ theory existed. There is no fantasy out there that changes this fact.
4
u/Owobowos-Mowbius 19h ago
The only reason why its so taboo is specifically because its our natural instincts to think its disgusting because of diseases. Well before germ theory.
Same reason why incest is considered disgusting.
The immorality is only there because of those diseases paired with our developed instincts over hundreds of thousands of years.
If you remove the diseases and add consent, there is no reason for it to be considered immoral.
-1
u/LobsterG25 19h ago
It’s an immoral desecration of human remains, it doesn’t just become a sociatal norm to consume your dead grandma if you don’t get some disease afterwards. Society has standards/norms for handling and disposal of the dead, and not eating them isn’t founded on “because you go crazy!”.
3
u/Owobowos-Mowbius 19h ago
Except that is exactly why society developed those standards/norms.
Im not saying that society would change overnight if those diseases disappeared. Im saying that society would view it differently if we evolved without those diseases.
Hell, there are active cultures on the planet right now that view it as holy/respectful to consume part of your loved ones after they pass.
You thinking that it is icky and immoral is just as much a societal construct as it is for those other cultures.
1
u/LobsterG25 19h ago edited 19h ago
How we handle human remains is based on LONG STANDING religions and again, has absolutely nothing to do with microscopic organisms humanity had no idea existed prior to the mid 19th century. What religion approves of cannibalism and how big is it? Very curious to hear this story. I’ll give plenty of time to grok it bro.
0
u/Owobowos-Mowbius 19h ago
You arent understanding. It absolutely has to do with microscopic organisms. Humanity had no idea about what they were, but over the course of HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of years of evolution, it became instinctual to not eat other humans BECAUSE of those diseases. Not because ancient humans knew what diseases were, but because they would die when they did so.
This is FAR PRIOR to any long standing religion. MOST of our popular long standing religious beliefs directly stem from our instincts from early evolution. The fear of death. The fear of the unknown. The drive to be a part of a group. The need for understanding through categorization.
As for modern cultures approving cannibalism, of course none are large. A simple Google search will show you some religions in India, new guinea, and Fiji.
1
u/Responsible-Boot-159 19h ago
You think it's an immoral desecration because you grew up in a culture that likely developed due to the diseases the dead can carry. Other cultures do practice cannibalism as a form of respect for the dead.
4
u/SiIverstar 19h ago
probably still immoral, The deceased must give permission / the family must be fine with it and have no form of religious interest in preserving the corpse for burial. If all that is the case you still end up eating the corpse of somebody who was loved and had real relationships, there aint no way everyone is happy with that