The Instigator
Yvette
Con (against)
Winning
39 Points
The Contender
Cerebral_Narcissist
Pro (for)
Losing
31 Points

Human cannibalism is morally wrong.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+9
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/14/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 21,406 times Debate No: 12334
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (34)
Votes (17)

 

Yvette

Con

I disagree with the belief that cannibalism is morally wrong. In round one we will agree on anything that needs clarifying, agree to not rely on semantics, and to be civil. In the continuing rounds we will debate. Arguments will not be presented until round two.

Human cannibalism is the eating of one human by another human. For the purposes of our debate we will focus on dead humans.

I look forward to a good debate.
Cerebral_Narcissist

Pro

I thank my opponent for an interesting debate topic. I fully agree not to rely on semantics, however as a guide I offer the following definitions,

Moral
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5. conforming to the rules of right conduct ( opposed to immoral): a moral man.
6. virtuous in sexual matters; chaste.
7. of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support.
8. resting upon convincing grounds of probability; virtual: a moral certainty.

http://dictionary.reference.com...

Morally Wrong: that which is not in accordance or conflicts with morality.

Cannibalism: For the purpose of this debate the consumption of already human flesh/matter by another human.

I look forward to an interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Yvette

Con

I accept my opponent's definitions (although definitions 6-8 are obviously irrelevant) and look forward to this debate.

INTRODUCTION
My opponent has put forward a definition which I would like to focus on: "founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom". In most cultures, cannibalism is considered as abhorrent as incest. But let's examine whether cannibalism is truly morally wrong.

I will make this short, as I can only argue against general objections before hearing my opponent's case. As far as I am aware the supposed problems with cannibalism are these:

1. It violates the rights of the deceased.

2. It upsets remaining family and friends.

3. It's disgusting and unnatural.

4. Health concerns for the cannibal.

I will respond to each of these supposed problems.

RIGHTS OF THE DECEASED
First let me present two few hypothetical situations.

1. A mother, child, and father are stranded somewhere without food. The father dies, perhaps a heart attack, or a fall from which he has broken his neck. No one has made any effort to encourage his death. The mother, knowing help will not arrive before she and her child starve to death, opts to cook and eat the father to survive.

2. An individual dies of some similarly innocent cause. Perhaps he has had a fall, or committed suicide. He has made it clear he wishes for his body to be made available for any who wish to eat it.

It is clear that there is nothing morally wrong happening in either of these situations. No one has been harmed, and that is the most important thing. The deceased is simply not around to care what is happening to them, and to argue that the rights of the deceased outweigh the rights of the living is absurd. One should barely be taken into consideration, the latter is the defining factor.

FAMILY AND FRIENDS
While it is of course an unfortunate side effect that family and friends of the deceased may react negatively to knowing their loved one has been eaten, this does not make the act of cannibalism immoral. Consider a hermit who has died naturally, and has no living friends or family, no one who is even aware he exists but the cannibal. This no longer applies. The moral problem is not inherently linked to the act, it depends on the situation. Furthermore is does not make an act immoral if it upsets other parties--if this were the case homosexuality and miscegenation would be terribly immoral.

DISGUSTING AND UNNATURAL
Obviously irrelevant, unless my opponent wishes to disagree on this point.

HEALTH CONCERNS
These do exist, however I maintain that it is not immoral for a person to harm themselves knowingly and willingly, as their choice does not harm any others against their will. They have consented to the harm.

CONCLUSION
Unless my opponent can offer other reasons for cannibalism being immoral, or wishes to further pursue one of the supposed problems, we can only conclude that cannibalism is not, in fact, immoral. All of the usual reasons are either irrelevant or circumstantial, which means that if there are moral problems they arise from the situation and not the act of eating human flesh.
Cerebral_Narcissist

Pro

(I certainly admit that definition 6 is less relevant than the others).

I'd like to thank my opponent for an excellent opening argument,

Argument 1: Rights of the Deceased.
My opponent argues that,

"The deceased is simply not around to care what is happening to them, and to argue that the rights of the deceased outweigh the rights of the living is absurd. One should barely be taken into consideration, the latter is the defining factor."

And uses two examples to illustrate her case.

"The mother, knowing help will not arrive before she and her child starve to death, opts to cook and eat the father to survive."

Though the pragmatic value of such cannibalism in a survival situation are clear, and hard to argue against, I can argue against the morality of it. Consider what will happen to the Mother and Child upon rescue, the media will either suppress the sordid details of the affair out of kind consideration to the two survivors, or more likely make it the focal point of the story to create scandal and sensation in order to sell as many papers as possible and generate as much wealth as possible.

Why is this? It is because the act of cannibalism evokes a nigh-universal sense of moral violation. Our (as in the general public) clear disgust and fascination with the subject is evidence that it is a violation of normal morality. Human Cannibalism is therefore morally wrong.

The rebuttal to this is that without committing the act of cannibalism the mother and child would not have survived. This does not alter the morality of the act, simply mitigates how we regard the cannibals. Something can be rationally right, but also immoral at the same time. Morality is not simply the question of what is most pragmatic or even beneficial.

As evidence of this it would be unreasonable to suppose this act would forever haunt the lives of the mother and child. It is inconceivably that they would not feel guilt, guilt is your reaction to a violation of your morality.

In the event that Mother and Child contract a fatal disease as the result of the cannibalism, or commit suicide as a result of the guilt and/or media attention would the original act of cannibalism still be considered morally sound by my opponent?

Example two.
"An individual dies of some similarly innocent cause. Perhaps he has had a fall, or committed suicide. He has made it clear he wishes for his body to be made available for any who wish to eat it."

In addition to simple emotive moral outage it can be specifically deemed immoral for the reason It could create a market demand for human meat, this would result in murders being committed to meet market demand.

An analogy could be drawn with the trade in Ivory. It is generally not legal to simply wait for an elephant to die in order to harvest it's ivory, whilst logically speaking there is nothing wrong with this act in of itself it is illegal because it would strengthen the market demand and encourage poaching. It is clear that the morality of an act can not be determined simply by the immediate context of the act, but by its deeper ramifications. The harvesting of human meat ultimately threatens human life, so is therefore immoral.

The other main objection would be the reactions of friends and family, my opponent has already pre-emptied me on this and in a sense it is the same point as the reaction of wider society that I was already mentioned. So it is time to specifically address that,

Argument 2: Upset to Friends and Family

"Furthermore is does not make an act immoral if it upsets other parties--if this were the case homosexuality and miscegenation would be terribly immoral."

Morality is derived from moral principles and emotional consensus, and it is not always possibly to know where the dividing line between the two is.

Homosexuality and miscegenation were considered immoral, (and still are by some), partly because it did/does upset other people. Public outrage was the motivation and the justification for the fact that both of these actions were previously outlawed.

My opponent appears to be assuming a utilitarian morality, this is not the morality of public consensus which does hold that 'upset' has a moral value.

Argument 3: DISGUSTING AND UNNATURAL
"Obviously irrelevant, unless my opponent wishes to disagree on this point."

The issue of disgust is the same as upset etc, which has already been addressed. Unnatural is almost meaningless in this context.

Health Concerns
"These do exist, however I maintain that it is not immoral for a person to harm themselves knowingly and willingly, as their choice does not harm any others against their will. They have consented to the harm."

Why therefore can not upper class males settle their differences with fatal duels? Why is bare knuckle boxing illegal, why is it illegal to sell, possess and use heroin?

All these situations require that the participants are subjecting themselves to potential harm, knowingly, willingly and with full consent. Society deems these actions immoral and they are therefore outlawed.

In the specific case of human cannibalism it can cause Prion Disease, (e.g. mad cows disease).
http://www.sciencedaily.com...
(The article is mostly about how we have evolved due to cannibalism so most of it is not relevant).

It can be argued that the Government has a moral imperative to prevent self-harm, however consensual and indeed this is the moral basis for many of our laws.

My opponent concludes that,
"Unless my opponent can offer other reasons for cannibalism being immoral, or wishes to further pursue one of the supposed problems, we can only conclude that cannibalism is not, in fact, immoral. All of the usual reasons are either irrelevant or circumstantial, which means that if there are moral problems they arise from the situation and not the act of eating human flesh."

I believe that my opponent has made the mistake of equating morality with what is simply utilitarian, or most pragmatic. This is simply one approach to moral reasoning, one that that is not employed by the majority of people, I feel that I have demonstrated how Human Cannibalism is a violation of morality, or as a general rule that it offends the morality of most societies and peoples.
Debate Round No. 2
Yvette

Con

Thank you for your response and your time. I'll respond to your counterarguments before wrapping up.

RESPONSES
"It is because the act of cannibalism evokes a nigh-universal sense of moral violation. Our (as in the general public) clear disgust and fascination with the subject is evidence that it is a violation of normal morality. Human Cannibalism is therefore morally wrong."

Unfortunately simply because a belief is widespread does not make it morally wrong. The logic simply doesn't follow. Condemnation of incest, after all, is "nigh-universal", despite there being nothing morally wrong about it inherently and reproduction between cousins at least is no more dangerous than allowing an older woman to have a child. [1] And I note that it is nigh-universal--it is well-documented that abhorrence of cannibalism is not present in all societies. [2]

"This does not alter the morality of the act, simply mitigates how we regard the cannibals. Something can be rationally right, but also immoral at the same time. Morality is not simply the question of what is most pragmatic or even beneficial."

This is true. However, it is evidence to the fact that cannibalism is not inherently wrong--it is the circumstances which can make it wrong.

"As evidence of this it would be unreasonable to suppose this act would forever haunt the lives of the mother and child. It is inconceivably that they would not feel guilt, guilt is your reaction to a violation of your morality."

I disagree that either of these things prove immorality. A terrible image may haunt a life forever, guilt can occur regardless of whether something was immoral or not. For the former, the more likely cause of being haunted forever is the image of a loved one's carved up body, which still does not make it immoral. Likewise, I may hit a cat with my car, and feel terribly guilty for it, but that does not make anything immoral. I may even run over an already decomposing cat and feel terribly guilty for it (and I have). It would only have been immoral had I gone out of my way and killed the cat on purpose.

"In addition to simple emotive moral outage it can be specifically deemed immoral for the reason It could create a market demand for human meat, this would result in murders being committed to meet market demand."

We are not debating whether such things should be legalized, but whether the act of eating another human's flesh is immoral. Neither do vaguely potential consequences of an action make it immoral. If that were the case, spreading the Black Plague might have been moral because it led to more individual rights. I challenge my opponent to explain why an emotional negative reaction makes something immoral. I am also curious why, if cannibalism is so universally abhorred, there would be a market demand for it. You might argue that, after all, there is a demand for child porn. But condemnation of child sex is not universal. Countless cultures, even our own in the past, found it acceptable enough.

"An analogy could be drawn with the trade in Ivory. It is generally not legal to simply wait for an elephant to die in order to harvest it's ivory, whilst logically speaking there is nothing wrong with this act in of itself it is illegal because it would strengthen the market demand and encourage poaching. It is clear that the morality of an act can not be determined simply by the immediate context of the act, but by its deeper ramifications. The harvesting of human meat ultimately threatens human life, so is therefore immoral."

Again, we are not debating whether such things should be legalized. An interracial marriage might anger someone enough to cause them to go on a shooting spree targeting minorities but that does not make interracial marriage wrong.

"Morality is derived from moral principles and emotional consensus, and it is not always possibly to know where the dividing line between the two is...My opponent appears to be assuming a utilitarian morality, this is not the morality of public consensus which does hold that 'upset' has a moral value."

My opponent argues ad populum. I assert that if an action harms no one against their will, and does not create unfairness, only sensibilities, tradition, and authority remain as common enough values which contradict that action. Cannibalism only offends sensibilities, for no logical reason. Indeed, this seems to be true, as my opponent's only moral argument is that it offends sensibilities. This, however, is a weak reason to consider an action immoral, especially considering that sensibilities are incredibly relative.

Note!: My opponent has avoided the problem of the hermit. Here, no possible sensibilities are offended. What, then, makes the eating of a natural death'd hermit immoral?

"Why therefore can not upper class males settle their differences with fatal duels? Why is bare knuckle boxing illegal, why is it illegal to sell, possess and use heroin? All these situations require that the participants are subjecting themselves to potential harm, knowingly, willingly and with full consent. Society deems these actions immoral and they are therefore outlawed. In the specific case of human cannibalism it can cause Prion Disease, (e.g. mad cows disease)...It can be argued that the Government has a moral imperative to prevent self-harm, however consensual and indeed this is the moral basis for many of our laws."

My opponent states that these things are illegal (under American law), not immoral. These things are illegal because they offend our sensibilities and because governments do not wish to have injured or drugged up populations. Legal issues do not change whether something is immoral, as mentioned earlier. All my opponent has proven is that it is common for people to force their sensibilities and wishes on others, NOT that self-harm is immoral. My opponent has made no attempt to show that it is not immoral for a person to harm themselves if they so wish, meaning they are either unable or unwilling to do so. If a person commits an action against themselves they have consented to whatever harm occurs.

"I believe that my opponent has made the mistake of equating morality with what is simply utilitarian, or most pragmatic. This is simply one approach to moral reasoning, one that that is not employed by the majority of people, I feel that I have demonstrated how Human Cannibalism is a violation of morality, or as a general rule that it offends the morality of most societies and peoples."

My opponent's argument continues to rest on law and consensus morality. I will note that my opponent has also mistaken what utilitarian morality is, which I assume refers to utilitarianism:

"Utilitarianism (also: utilism) is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its utility in providing happiness or pleasure as summed among all sentient beings." [3]

This is not my argument. My argument is not that it is not immoral because it causes happiness, my argument is that it causes no harm to the parties involved, aside from offending sensibilities (which I maintain is a worthless or at best near worthless judge of morality, unless we wish to consider, for example, not praying at dinnertime an immoral action). There is no living being within the body to be harmed, the cannibal has consented to any harm, and anyone else is simply offended because of their cultural norms.

My opponent relies on consensus morality, yet most of the people who make up the consensus rely on their cultural norms and values which conflict well and often and change over time. Agreed-upon values such as non-harm and fairness, and the logical application of these values, can prescribe a more objective and realistic moral system as opposed to simply describing whichever system dominates at a certain place and time.

Sources
1. http://discovermagazine.com...
2. http://www.infoplease.com...
Cerebral_Narcissist

Pro

My opponent argues that,
Unfortunately simply because a belief is widespread does not make it morally wrong. The logic simply doesn't follow. Condemnation of incest, after all, is "nigh-universal", despite there being nothing morally wrong about it inherently and reproduction between cousins at least is no more dangerous than allowing an older woman to have a child. [1] And I note that it is nigh-universal--it is well-documented that abhorrence of cannibalism is not present in all societies. [2]

Morality concernis itself with the issues of 'right conduct'. Conduct is a matter of social interaction, public opinion must surely have some bearing upon what is deemed moral and immoral and what proper conduct is. Also please note I have used the term nigh-universal.

"This is true. However, it is evidence to the fact that cannibalism is not inherently wrong--it is the circumstances which can make it wrong."

If it was held to be a morally neutral act then human meat would be graded and sold in shops, coalition forces in Iraq would consume the dead to reduce military budgets. It is clear that most societies have a moral abhorence for the consumption of human meat. The cost to society and to human health reinforces this morality. Cannibalism in a survival situation may be justified, but the act sill attracts our fascination and disgust because it is a moral violation.

On the subject of guilt my opponent states,
"guilt can occur regardless of whether something was immoral or not. For the former, the more likely cause of being haunted forever is the image of a loved one's carved up body, which still does not make it immoral. Likewise, I may hit a cat with my car, and feel terribly guilty for it, but that does not make anything immoral. I may even run over an already decomposing cat and feel terribly guilty for it (and I have). It would only have been immoral had I gone out of my way and killed the cat on purpose."

Guilt may not be a precise mechanism, you feel guilt for accidentally driving over a dead cat because you respect the cats life, or the feelings of it's owners. Ultimately you would never harm the cat, however driving over it's body is a step towards that violation, so therefore it still provokes the sensation of guilt. I still maintain that guilt is evident of what our morality is, we may intellectualise an act, but on an emotional level which most moral judgements are we have been socialised and conditioned into moral responses.

The mother and child may rationalise the act of cannibalism, may intellectually 'know' that there act is immoral, but the guilt response shows that they have been imprinted with a moral code that is violated by the act.

"We are not debating whether such things should be legalized, but whether the act of eating another human's flesh is immoral. Neither do vaguely potential consequences of an action make it immoral. "

The provision of a new product or service onto the market will create demand, I do not consider this to be 'vaguely potential consequence'. The resonably forseeable consequnces of an act must impinge on our moral judgement of it. There is nothing intrinsically immoral with an artillery bombardment, but if you fail to care that someone may be walking through the meadow you are shelling that will generally be regarded as a morally negligent act.

"I am also curious why, if cannibalism is so universally abhorred, there would be a market demand for it. You might argue that, after all, there is a demand for child porn. But condemnation of child sex is not universal. Countless cultures, even our own in the past, found it acceptable enough."

Of course I never said universal, merely nigh universal. Moral outrage aside you can argue that there is nothing immoral with the consumption of human flesh, nor naked images of the underaged (the image itself I am referring to). However, by supplying both to the market place you will create a demand for these products, which will cause human suffering, under that criteria cannibalism can be deemed immoral.

"Note!: My opponent has avoided the problem of the hermit. Here, no possible sensibilities are offended. What, then, makes the eating of a natural death'd hermit immoral?"

The moral responses of the wider society that share the same well of moral conditioning and socialisation.

My opponent is arguing that the morality of an act can only be ascertained by a purely logical analysis of whether or not it cause harm at that given time.

My argument is that morality is a social and logical construct, emotional responses, however illogical they may be are a moral judgement and a valid one at that. In addition the likely consequences of an act should be taken into consideration.
Debate Round No. 3
Yvette

Con

== RESPONSES ==
"Morality concernis itself with the issues of 'right conduct'. Conduct is a matter of social interaction, public opinion must surely have some bearing upon what is deemed moral and immoral and what proper conduct is. Also please note I have used the term nigh-universal."

Morality does indeed concern itself with right conduct. Conduct is not a matter of social interaction, however, [1] and public opinion is a matter of culture. That it varies by culture at all, which you have admitted, negates your claim. There is no gradual change in how moral an action is based on the amount of people who think it is immoral.

Furthermore I reject that it is nigh-universal except within the present day. Evidence shows that in our evolutionary past, cannibalism was so prevalent that we adapted to it. Clearly it was not always as abhorred as it is today. [2]

"If it was held to be a morally neutral act then human meat would be graded and sold in shops, coalition forces in Iraq would consume the dead to reduce military budgets. It is clear that most societies have a moral abhorence for the consumption of human meat. The cost to society and to human health reinforces this morality. Cannibalism in a survival situation may be justified, but the act sill attracts our fascination and disgust because it is a moral violation."

You have not introduced any new argument here which I have not addressed above or in my last post. You do, however, bring up a point. There is a cost to human health which society wants to guard against, this however does not make it immoral.

In cultural anthropology, aspects of a culture are adaptive, neutral, or maladaptive. I had some difficulty finding online as opposed to print definitions of the term but here's one: "It is maladaptive when a population maintains beliefs or practices that so seriously impair the physical or mental health of its members that thay [sic] cannot adequately meet their own needs or maintain their social and cultural systems." [3] Because these behaviors lead to either individuals or entire cultures not surviving to pass the behavior on (much like genes), generally cultures are made up of adaptive traits.

Maladaptive practices are weeded out of societies. For example, in societies with certain nutrient deficiencies, sex too soon after pregnancy is taboo even though the societies are not aware of the underlying reason for their considering the act immoral. My opponent states that there is a cost to society and human health, and conduct with a cost to society and human health becomes taboo.

"Guilt may not be a precise mechanism, you feel guilt for accidentally driving over a dead cat because you respect the cats life, or the feelings of it's owners. Ultimately you would never harm the cat, however driving over it's body is a step towards that violation, so therefore it still provokes the sensation of guilt. I still maintain that guilt is evident of what our morality is, we may intellectualise an act, but on an emotional level which most moral judgements are we have been socialised and conditioned into moral responses. The mother and child may rationalise the act of cannibalism, may intellectually 'know' that there act is immoral, but the guilt response shows that they have been imprinted with a moral code that is violated by the act."

My opponent points out the flaw in his reasoning: what we believe is right or wrong is a matter of socialization and conditioning. As feelings of guilt are based on socialized and conditioned morality, guilt is not evident of any real moral wrongdoing. (It sounds like you meant 'is not immoral' in this sentence, apologies if I'm wrong: "may intellectually 'know' that there act is immoral")

"The provision of a new product or service onto the market will create demand, I do not consider this to be 'vaguely potential consequence'. The resonably forseeable consequnces of an act must impinge on our moral judgement of it. There is nothing intrinsically immoral with an artillery bombardment, but if you fail to care that someone may be walking through the meadow you are shelling that will generally be regarded as a morally negligent act."

Irrelevant, we are not debating whether cannibalism should be legalized. Even if we were, legalizing the act of eating human flesh does not place it on the market. It can be made illegal to sell or produce. Furthermore, the health consequences are known, the disgust is general, and legalizing it would not remove cultural taboos. But again, we are not debating legalizing it. It is not legal, therefor the potential consequences you speak of are impossible unless it is legal. And it isn't.

"Of course I never said universal, merely nigh universal. Moral outrage aside you can argue that there is nothing immoral with the consumption of human flesh, nor naked images of the underaged (the image itself I am referring to). However, by supplying both to the market place you will create a demand for these products, which will cause human suffering, under that criteria cannibalism can be deemed immoral."

See above.

"The moral responses of the wider society that share the same well of moral conditioning and socialisation."

Again, you admit that this is a result of moral conditioning and socialization. The act is not immoral, we are simply trained to see it as such. You miss my point, however. Imagine the cannibal never leaves the hermit's home and simply lives out the rest of his life in isolation, no one ever finding out.

"My opponent is arguing that the morality of an act can only be ascertained by a purely logical analysis of whether or not it cause harm at that given time. My argument is that morality is a social and logical construct, emotional responses, however illogical they may be are a moral judgement and a valid one at that. In addition the likely consequences of an act should be taken into consideration."

This is precisely what I argue, that an act is only immoral if it causes harm. Consequences of actions are situational and must of course be judged for each situation, but they do not make the act itself immoral. It is not immoral to have sex simply because it might eventually lead to the birth of another Hitler. And of course I repeat that legalization of cannibalism is not being proposed, the debate is simply whether or not the act of eating human flesh is immoral.

== SOURCES ==
1.http://www.merriam-webster.com...
2. http://www.sciencedirect.com...
3. http://www.culturism.us...
Cerebral_Narcissist

Pro

My opponent states that.
"Morality does indeed concern itself with right conduct. Conduct is not a matter of social interaction, however," [1]

However quoted from her very own source for the definition of conduct we see,
"3 : a mode or standard of personal behavior especially as based on moral principles "

The act of questioning conduct implies a seperate observer, society can and does observe and judge conduct. Conduct is part of morality. My opponent is mistaken in regarding morality as a purely personal intellectual analysis and not as a part of sociology and culture.

"Furthermore I reject that it is nigh-universal except within the present day. Evidence shows that in our evolutionary past, cannibalism was so prevalent that we adapted to it. Clearly it was not always as abhorred as it is today. [2]"

Well I have to accept that, as one my own links stated the same. However it is clear that modern global consensus of morality is against cannibalism.

"You have not introduced any new argument here which I have not addressed above or in my last post. You do, however, bring up a point. There is a cost to human health which society wants to guard against, this however does not make it immoral."

My opponent is correct in that we have reach an impasse in the debate.

I argue that morality is a question of social acceptance, and moral principles. This is the widest most logical and practical definition of morality. That which violates the emotional conditioning of a society is immoral, that which violates intellectual principles can be deemed immoral.

Cannibalism produces disgust, endangers human health, and endangers human society. None of these three issues have been refuted. On an emotional and logical level cannibalism is immoral.

In addition cannabalistic societies are very rare, the majority of humanity is opposed to this. This is a valid point because morality is partly a matter of social consensus.

My opponent has used narrow moral principles not widely accepted. She regards that a act can only be judged according to its immediate conseqences. Not according to the wider principles of moral outrage and long term consequences. This is as valid a method, it is also not the method employed by civilisation as illustrated by my former examples of drugs, duelling etc.

I thank my opponent for a challenging debate.
Debate Round No. 4
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Rodriguez47 6 years ago
Rodriguez47
People it meat. What else is there to say?
Posted by Lamza61 6 years ago
Lamza61
Has anyone seen "The Road"? That movie was disgusting.
Posted by Lamza61 6 years ago
Lamza61
Question. Do most of you read the entire argument before voting? Or you just skim through?
Posted by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
NS: I'll get around to challenging you, I'm in two debates at the moment. I'm already weary at the thought, I know you'll only be using religious arguments.
Posted by NorthernShooter 6 years ago
NorthernShooter
Lets keep god out of this, Humans eating Humans was wrong the second we were brought on this planet. How can you be against this debate, as human beings we can not go this low as a race.

And you don't need to be religious to have morals !!

Challenge me !
Posted by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
+10 for cereb
Posted by Cerebral_Narcissist 6 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
Godsands, you make the mistake in assuming that the existence of God suggests the existence of objective morality, it does not.

Morality is the intellectual, social, and psychological consideration of what we deem apropriate or inapropriate. The Judaeo-Christian God simply issues laws. The two concepts are not the same.
Posted by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
Mmm, this debate has made me hungry.
Posted by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
And with a god, child murder and genocide can be seen as good :D

No one is arguing that cannibalism is "good". Only that when no one is harmed there isn't anything immoral happening.
Posted by GodSands 6 years ago
GodSands
Cannibalism without there being the existence of God, can be seen as both evil and good depending on how you see cannibalism. That simple.
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by EuphoricTurtle 6 years ago
EuphoricTurtle
YvetteCerebral_NarcissistTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by frodo1995 6 years ago
frodo1995
YvetteCerebral_NarcissistTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Pandora9321 6 years ago
Pandora9321
YvetteCerebral_NarcissistTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Lamza61 6 years ago
Lamza61
YvetteCerebral_NarcissistTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by NorthernShooter 6 years ago
NorthernShooter
YvetteCerebral_NarcissistTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Brendan21 6 years ago
Brendan21
YvetteCerebral_NarcissistTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Pyromaniac 6 years ago
Pyromaniac
YvetteCerebral_NarcissistTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by DylanDraper1993 6 years ago
DylanDraper1993
YvetteCerebral_NarcissistTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by Thjoseph 6 years ago
Thjoseph
YvetteCerebral_NarcissistTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Harman 6 years ago
Harman
YvetteCerebral_NarcissistTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:52