Can you read this paragraph about Cannibalism and tell and describe why you disagree with it. please explain it in detail how ans why you disagree. About Cannibalism, you said if you define cannibalism as killing someone to eat them then you just think murder is bad and not necessarily cannibalism. That’s fine because you don’t have to think of cannibalism that way, you can then just think of cannibalism as a sub-category of murder, which is bad, and then still define cannibalism as killing someone in order to eat them, but with that being said, you could still eat somebody’s whole arm without killing them, so then it gets a little tricky. However that definition does make it so most people are not cannibals. I would say cannibalism is morally acceptable if it is necessary for survival, because what are morals if you are dead? I feel a lot of people would agree with that, and by saying that, you can assume any other scenario makes it morally unacceptable. Maybe it is morally acceptable to eat a cannibal on death row for revenge, but I personally think revenge is a little stupid and never equates to fulfillment. Another thought I have though is what if cannibalism is an uncontrollable urge that you are born with or engrained into you in your youth because of trauma, is it still morally unacceptable. Maybe another way cannibalism is morally acceptable is buying human parts on the black market and eating them. However, based on the earlier definition of cannibalism, that isn’t even cannibalism since you didn’t kill them. You could even hire a hitman to kill someone and then eat them and it still would not technically be cannibalism. One thing this discussion is making me realize is that you can always think deeply about something that seems simple and make it a lot less simple. Maybe it’s morally acceptable cannibalism if you kill someone in self defense and then eat them because it is a lot of free food. It is a very interesting thought.
Can you read this paragraph about Cannibalism and tell and describe why you disagree with it. please explain it in detail how ans why you disagree.
About Cannibalism, you said if you define cannibalism as killing someone to eat them then you just think murder is bad and not necessarily cannibalism. That’s fine because you don’t have to think of cannibalism that way, you can then just think of cannibalism as a sub-category of murder, which is bad, and then still define cannibalism as killing someone in order to eat them, but with that being said, you could still eat somebody’s whole arm without killing them, so then it gets a little tricky. However that definition does make it so most people are not cannibals. I would say cannibalism is morally acceptable if it is necessary for survival, because what are morals if you are dead? I feel a lot of people would agree with that, and by saying that, you can assume any other scenario makes it morally unacceptable. Maybe it is morally acceptable to eat a cannibal on death row for revenge, but I personally think revenge is a little stupid and never equates to fulfillment. Another thought I have though is what if cannibalism is an uncontrollable urge that you are born with or engrained into you in your youth because of trauma, is it still morally unacceptable. Maybe another way cannibalism is morally acceptable is buying human parts on the black market and eating them. However, based on the earlier definition of cannibalism, that isn’t even cannibalism since you didn’t kill them. You could even hire a hitman to kill someone and then eat them and it still would not technically be cannibalism. One thing this discussion is making me realize is that you can always think deeply about something that seems simple and make it a lot less simple. Maybe it’s morally acceptable cannibalism if you kill someone in self defense and then eat them because it is a lot of free food. It is a very interesting thought.
Trending now
This is a popular solution!
Step by step
Solved in 3 steps
