Does Cannibalism Justify Murder?

[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]

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?

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)

 

[Valjean]

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]

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

 

[Valjean]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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 together, you can see why ones like that might come up.

And most people don't believe animals have the same rights as other humans, since it's a pretty reasonable human trait to give your relatives precedence...in fact, it's generally a pretty reasonable trait in any species, when and where it occurs.

 

[retrorich]

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) ?

Well, I guess my life would be more important TO ME than the lives of most other humans--with exceptions. The life of my my partner of 30 plus years is more important to me than my own life. If it were not for my responsibilities to her, I could see myself willing sacrificing my life for that of someone I considered more worthy of continued life--especially a child.

After humans, I would place greater importance on the lives of nonhuman animals than on the lives of plants, because I doubt that plants have the ability to appreciate life.

 

[Valjean]

When I say "natural rights" Ryan, I'm referring to an Enlightenment (18th century politico-philosophical movement) proposition that rights are not artificial, man made things, but universal, God given principles.
If no quality can be demonstrated in a four-legged, African or female creature that logically precludes it from the same moral category accorded a white, male European hominid, then, logically, identical natural rights must be accorded to all.
Social customs or culture have nothing to do with it.
"But it's just an animal/n****r!" -- does not clearly identify an exceptional moral category, and carries no weight.
The criteria for according "rights" to a creature must be identified and applied across the board, to all who fall within those criteria.

For two million years it was "natural" and "right" for one band of hunter-gatherer humans to compete for resources with neighboring bands; and to destroy competetors when the opportunity afforded itself, just as a wolf pack or lion pride seeks to destroy neighboring packs. To this day it is hard-wired into our psyches that we are unable to accept more than about 150 individuals as "us," as part of our band. Any right even to exist afforded non-band "others" is purely a civilized, intellectual contrivance. We do not feel it.

Do you agree that non-band "outsiders" have no rights; that we have no moral obligation towards them?
If not, then abstract moral criteria must be devised and and universally applied.

 

[Ryan2065]

When I say "natural rights" Ryan, I'm referring to an Enlightenment (18th century politico-philosophical movement) proposition that rights are not artificial, man made things, but universal, God given principles.

So if they are universal they can be seen in the animal kingdom as well right? What does this have to do with the op equating killing animals for food with killing humans for food? There are many animals other than humans that will kill a different species of animal before killing one of their own kind (of the meat eaters at least)

If no quality can be demonstrated in a four-legged, African or female creature that logically precludes it from the same moral category accorded a white, male European hominid, then, logically, identical natural rights must be accorded to all.

Please describe the "natural laws" you are saying should be given to all... I never said absolutely no rights should be given to other animals, simply that the same rights humans have should not be given to other animals.

"But it's just an animal/n****r!" -- does not clearly identify an exceptional moral category, and carries no weight.
The criteria for according "rights" to a creature must be identified and applied across the board, to all who fall within those criteria.

If the same rights are applied to all life across the board all life would die... Lets say the right to life was given to all creatures... Then we could never allow a bear to kill another animal... This would be against the other animals right to life! You asked before where do I draw the line, where exactly do you draw the line?

 

[Valjean]

There you have the essential difference between hominids and ursids -- hominids are able to abstract; to understand principle and make the intellectual leap towards universal application of principle.

Either we attempt the psychic gymnastics of according "us" status to non-band individuals, or we descend into savagery and eternal war and contention.

 

[Rejected]

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

I believe it is acceptable to kill an animal under the condition that said animal is used to its fullest extent as sustenance and material. I have more respect for people who hunt for/raise their own food than I do for those who buy it prepackaged in a supermarket. For those of us who choose to eat meat it forces us to acknowledge the natural predator/prey relationship that is inherent in nature, as graphic and violent as it may be.

I do not, under any circumstances, condone killing anything for sport. My fiancé and I had to explain this to our three year old a few months ago. He was deliberately finding and killing small insects. We told him that if he was going to kill it he had to eat it. The result? No more dead bugs.

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

Under extreme circumstances it can bee seen as necessary to kill and eat fellow humans, sacrificing a few so that the many can survive. There is still a stigma attached to this practice and it may have lasting psychological trauma on those involved. If you kill and eat a human and you are not in an extreme situation where starvation is eminent, then you are in need of some heavy duty psychiatric help, and need to be removed from society.

 

[retrorich]

I do not, under any circumstances, condone killing anything for sport. My fiancé and I had to explain this to our three year old a few months ago. He was deliberately finding and killing small insects. We told him that if he was going to kill it he had to eat it. The result? No more dead bugs.

Great idea! Frubals to you.