Does Cannibalism Justify Murder? (Earth, America, preferences, Article)

[retrorich]

1. Some hunters attempt to justify killing nonhuman animals by eating their victims. Do you agree with that premise? Please explain your answer.

2. Would the killing of a human be justified if the killer ate his/her victim? Please explain your answer.

[cardero]

This reminds me of an article I read that when animals were killed for motion pictures that the film makers had to cook, serve and eat the animal in order to justify the killing for the movie but I understand that this is not about animals.

As for non-humans, they kill people for less than nourishment nowadays. I recently heard of people killing other people just for their sneakers and leaving perfectly good legs and arms behind for an ambulance to collect. There seems to be an issue of usage to cannibalism and sometimes if that is the only food that is available and edible and your drive to survive is paramont, I believe humans would do anything.

I agree with cannibalism if there was not any other food source around but I am a bit biased, I grew up in an Italian household where we were raised not to waste food. I would also sacrifice myself for food in order that others could live.

[Ryan2065]

Originally Posted by retorich

1. Some hunters attempt to justify killing nonhuman animals by eating their victims. Do you agree with that premise? Please explain your answer.

Well when my mother was growing up there were many meals where she ate nothing... Also there were many meals where she ate the meat of a deer her father shot...

I would have to say hunters eating the animals they kill is a justification of hunting. Would you rather they stop hunting and eat the meat of cows who were raised in very poor conditions?

Originally Posted by retorich

2. Would the killing of a human be justified if the killer ate his/her victim? Please explain your answer.

Uhh, not at all... No animals get the rights that humans do... Unless you think all life is equal to all other life (ie humans are equal to animals who are equal to plants)

[Seyorni]

How about a proposition like "all sentient life is equal," Ryan, or "all creatures capable of suffering are equal?"

You say no animals get the rights that humans do. The statement is absurd in one sense, inasmuch as a hominid is no less an animal than an aardvark is, but I know what you mean.

You're disavowing the concept of "Natural Rights" developed during the Enlightenment, and upon which the "American Experiment" was launched. You're drawing a clear, qualitative line between hominidae and all other families of Animalia (Though exactly what this line is based on is not clear).

You're saying that rights are what a society decides they are. That if a society chooses to treat women, or pigs, or blacks, as chattel, then that is their legitimate and proper status within that society.

[retrorich]

Originally Posted by Ryan2065

No animals get the rights that humans do...

Why not?

Unless you think all life is equal to all other life (ie humans are equal to animals who are equal to plants)

I think all life is valuable. As for eating, my preferences are:

1. Plants
2. Nonhuman animals
3. Human animals.

Unfortunately, for health reasons, which I have explained in other RF threads, I cannot be a vegan vegetarian.

Fortunately, I have never had to resort to option 3.

[Terrywoodenpic]

I read a book once that was about the breeding and trading of Long pig for the food trade.
It took a chapter or two to realise they were talking about breeding Afro americans.


It put tings in some sort of prospective.

How ever as to eating the other animals and plants, I do not have a problem with it.

God or Who ever you believe created Earth, created a closed ecosystem where one species of animal or vegetable lived of the remains of another. This is not wrong, it is the way the ecosystem works.

Animals though do have rights. Not to suffer at our hands, to live comfortable lives and to die with respect.

In our turn our remains should contribute to the ecosystem

[Seyorni]

Originally Posted by Terrywoodenpic

I read a book once that was about the breeding and trading of Long pig for the food trade.
It took a chapter or two to realise they were talking about breeding Afro americans.

It put tings in some sort of prospective.

Animals though do have rights. Not to suffer at our hands, to live comfortable lives and to die with respect.

So I assume you';re including hominids in you're statement that animals have a right to a comfortable life and respectful death.
Long pig deserves humane treatment?

[Ryan2065]

Originally Posted by Seyorni

You say no animals get the rights that humans do. The statement is absurd in one sense, inasmuch as a hominid is no less an animal than an aardvark is, but I know what you mean.

I more meant the rights afforded by whatever laws there are in the lands of the humans. Say a bear comes and kills someone in Ohio, people are sent out right away to kill that bear because it is obvious he is no longer afraid of humans and might do it again. There are other rights the lands afford the humans that animals do not get, I do not have time to list every single right that people consider humans get that animals do not.

Originally Posted by Seyorni

How about a proposition like "all sentient life is equal," Ryan, or "all creatures capable of suffering are equal?"

Life is life... I do not think many animal rights groups would stop their protesting if we ended all cows suffering while they were alive then killed them without them suffering.

Originally Posted by Seyorni

You're disavowing the concept of "Natural Rights" developed during the Enlightenment, and upon which the "American Experiment" was launched. You're drawing a clear, qualitative line between hominidae and all other families of Animalia (Though exactly what this line is based on is not clear).

The line is based on this species. It is in our nature to want to keep the human race going and pick a human over an animal. There is a pretty clear line between what we call "humans" and all the other animals.

Originally Posted by Seyorni

You're saying that rights are what a society decides they are. That if a society chooses to treat women, or pigs, or blacks, as chattel, then that is their legitimate and proper status within that society.

Depends what type of "right" we are talking about. If there was only one society on earth and that society believed women were property, then that would be their right. Though I fail to see how this goes into what we are talking about? Are you suggesting that the "natural" way for humans is to not eat animals, or not protect themselves against animals?

Originally Posted by retrorich

Why not?

Animals do not get the rights humans do because that is what we decided... For the same reason that in the animal world we do not get the same rights as other animals.
Say a human is walking in the forest and accidently comes inbetween a mother bear and her cub (it can happen, the mothers sometimes are far away from their cubs). Now to the bear, she is in the right to kill this human, this is what is right in the bear world. In the human world, the bear is not in the right and should not kill the human. Each species determines what their rights are and whatever species is stronger is the species whose rights prevail.

Originally Posted by retrorich

I think all life is valuable. As for eating, my preferences are:

1. Plants
2. Nonhuman animals
3. Human animals.

Unfortunately, for health reasons, which I have explained in other RF threads, I cannot be a vegan vegetarian.

Fortunately, I have never had to resort to option 3.

So, in general, you believe your life or your right to live is more important than the life of plants, animals, and other humans (in that order) ?

[standing_on_one_foot]

Or, to quote Calvin of the most excellent Calvin & Hobbes, "Should cannibalism be grounds for leniency in murder, since it's less wasteful?"

If you were starving to death in the wilderness somewhere, the above statement would probably be true. Other than that, no. Any person whose gut instinct isn't that answer is someone you might want to keep an eye on.

Killing and eating your companions is generally not a good trait in a social animal who pretty much needs said companions, among other reasons. And since rules in society mostly involve how to live in groups