Voluntary Cannibalism

[Iuronia]

You still haven't explained why.

Uh, because they would have a mental health issue if they were too?

That's circular logic. They are mentally unstable because they don't mind being eaten after death because they are mentally unstable? That makes no sense. Why does not minding being eaten after death is mentally unstable behaviour?

[Threlizdun]

Mental illnesses are not cool. Having a vore fetish is not the same as being willing to be killed out of sexual desire. The voluntary nature being referred to in this thread predominantly addresses choosing to allow your corpse be consumed after death in a manner to how you choose to have your organs donated after death. This was not a discussion on legalizing contractual murder.

I wouldn't consider it a mental illness. People do crazy things in the pursuit of pleasure, & I don't see anything wrong with it.

A vore fetish is not a mental illness. Being brought into a state harmful to you as a result of mental state is by definition a mental illness.

[Kyuji]

I wouldn't consider it a mental illness. People do crazy things in the pursuit of pleasure, & I don't see anything wrong with it.

A vore fetish is not a mental illness. Being brought into a state harmful to you as a result of mental state is by definition a mental illness.

Just out of curiousity , are you into vore?

[Hladgos]

I see no problem with cannibalism. Noone's going to go around after having eaten human flesh and kill people for their unquenchable thirst for manflesh unless they're an orc. Besides, since very few people will be offering up their meat on the cutting board, I doubt they'll mind themselves being eaten. And not very many people are gonna line up at McManflesh anyway.

[The Union of Sjaelland and Fyn]

1) For most people (including me) it goes without saying that consumption of human meat should be frowned upon and highly illegal, end of discussion. However, I have come across a few people (mostly liberals) who believe that "voluntary cannibalism" should be legal on the grounds of "freedom". I oppose all cannibalism including voluntary cannibalism. Not only is it completely immoral, 2) but should the cannibal develop a taste for human meat then that may lead the person to kill for it. This is especially true if there is a shortage of voluntary human meat since very very very very few people would volunteer to be meals. 3) The job of government is to maintain civil order and voluntary cannibalism goes against that order by putting the general public in danger. So do you think that voluntary cannibalism should be legal or illegal?

1) This is true. If a person doesn't mind being eaten and there's someone willing to eat him, that should be legal.
2) https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
3) How does this actually put people in danger? If someone is okay with being eaten by another human, then I do not see how it would harm the general public. If the cannibal develops a taste for meat, he'll just find someone else who wants to be eaten to avoid breaking the law.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Perhaps, but given that if you want to kill yourself you will either have a mental or emotional disorder, you are therefore not of a sound enough mind to be making such a judgement call for yourself. If we're talking about euthanization, that's one thing, but suicide from depression is totally different. It is completely justified to prevent someone from killing themselves because if they were of a sound mind, they may make a different choice. It is up to us to make sure that the different choice is available.

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about, how do we 'give them a different choice', when the choice always theirs to make? We may convince them that the choice we prefer is better than the choice he would like to make, but that is not providing a choice.

Secondly, killing yourself does not mean that you have a 'mental or emotional disorder', it is a perfectly rational choice to make if you understand that 1) your life is terrible and 2) it will probably continue on this thrend, thus, making the pain of living a perfectly reasonable and moral choice to end something that will only continue in the hurt of others. You depend on a circular argument, here, like the idiotic theists, no one with a sound mind would kill themselves, someone tries to kill themself, therefore he is of no sound mind. It is just like saying no sound and reasonable person would propose such idiotic argument as you have, you have proposed your idiotic and unsound arguments, therefore you are neither sound nor reasonable.

If someone is suffering from depression, then they need help, not to die. Being in a state of depression is essentially being in a state of hampered mind. You can't think clearly for yourself and therefore you should be kept from killing yourself so you can get legitimate help and start thinking with a clear mind, uninhibited by depression, mental, or other emotional isses.

If someone is suffering from depression, they do need our help, but it is they that must choose to recieve our help, whereas, if they choose to die when they feel that life becomes unbearable, then they are perfectly within their rights and moral obligations. You claim, for example, that depress people are unable to think clearly, which is evident in their wanting to commit suicide, that is another circular argument, which, as I pointed out above, is fallacious.

In the case of giving up organs, your body goes on to serve a greater purpose. Being eaten does not. Your body going to a museum, although I don't fully agree with it, can still have more scientific purposes, including educating people with an interest in human biology. Being eaten serves no positive purpose, and furthermore the whole reasoning behind it is purely due to mental or emotional issues. They need help, period.

There is no greater purpose than to satisfy and pleasure my fellow man, and if my flesh, which becomes useless upon my death, and is of no usse to me, leads to their happiness, no matter how temporary, my body has gone to serve a greater purpose.

Again, if they are willing to die, they need help. They are sick, and we as a society must help the sick. Being eaten to pay a child's tuition is a laughably stupid excuse to defend this. The country would be better off (and likely spending less money) to just fund the child's tuition anyways. And if someone feels like being eaten is the fate they wish to have (which I assume is what you're hinting at here), then they are, as I said, mentally ill and need help. We don't let people kill themselves just because they want to, they can't make that decision properly because they are inhibited by their own unhealthy minds.

Again, they don't need help if they are willing to die, you mean to tell me that every soldier serving this proud nation, every patriot willing to lay down his life for this country, every person willing to sacrifice himself for our free them are all mentally unsound and need help, are suffering some sort of sickness? Again, that is the same stupidity that you are trying to pass off as an argument.

If a mother is willing to sacrifice herself for her child's tuition, she should be within her rights to, if she understands that she will be eaten, but think that the benefit outweighs the cost, then she is making a thoughtout and rational decision, she is not mentally ill, and you are simply redefining mental illness to mean 'willing to die', that is to say, the courage to make the decision to sacrifice your life and enter into nothingness, and the rational process which one uses to override one's innate will to life, is always a sign of mental illness.

If someone wants to be eaten, they are, as I already said, most likely mentally sick. It is fully up to someone else to decide. We don't let people who are of unsound mind determine whether they want to live or die, that would be ridiculous. We try to help them as much as we can, this is why we have things like the suicide hotline, therapists, etc.

Again, not an argument, it is simply expressing the fact that you are of that opinion, and that does not constitute a reason to be against suicide of voluntarily giving up one's body to be eaten by other. As Schopenhauer says, in his justly famous essay, 'Suicide': 'They, finding no reason or argument to condemn suicide, supposed that they make up for it by the extreme expression of their vehemence and hatred'.

I'm sorry, sentient? And when did science discover this pray tell? It sounds like you're basing this off of personal opinion, not actual logic or reason. And for the record, humans (arguably) cannot give consent to be eaten either, because if someone is giving consent to that, then they are going against their natural survival instincts. The only reason someone would do this as far as I can tell is if they have a mental disorder. Persons who are suffering in pain would usually rather just be euthanized, not eaten. And people who allow themselves to die for money are essentially being forced into that situation by society, and such a thing must never, ever be legal. It's bad enough people donate organs, but becoming a meal? No, absolutely not. And if you have a problem with animals being eaten, perhaps veganism is a better alternative for you. Beats eating mentally unhealthy people who's brains clearly don't function correctly.

Yes, sentient, I am sorry if you have never thought to think that Dogs are able to feel pain, or that animal cognition, which is widely studied, does not exist. I am sorry that you are so backwards that you have yet to progress beyond Descartes claim that Animals are mere automatons. I am sorry that you are not willing to accept a sound scientific claim, which the Buddhist long ago has accepted and vindicated, simply out of your own personal prejudice.

Again, you are using a circular non-argument, which I can only disprove oh so many times before it gets tiring.

But, then again, you have no idea what you are talking about, and should just shut up and let people who are willing to argue, who are willing to make a statement, and provide a reason for that statement, people with sound, reasonable, and adult minds, argument.

They are not placed here by some higher power to give us nutrition,

This is according to the Holy Book of Nationes Pii Redivivi, the ultimate authority on all things existential. How about you travel into the afterlife, find all life's answers, and come back and tell me if what you said has any truth to it, or it was complete, baseless rubbish you used in a sad attempt to defend this weak argument.

And now, running out of actual argument, he turns to the spiritual, and to the same God that commands that everyone chew on his flesh and drink his blood every sunday.


-It is evident, Dr Pangloss said, that all things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end. Observe, for instance, the nose is formed for spectacles, therefore we wear spectacles. The legs are visibly designed for stockings, accordingly we wear stockings. Stones were made to be hewn and to construct castles, therefore My Lord has a magnificent castle; for the greatest baron in the province ought to be the best lodged. Swine were intended to be eaten, therefore we eat pork all the year round: and those that claim that the world is good are fools that speak wrongly, they should say that this is the best of all possible worlds."

No, you cannot, note easily at least, and it isn't considered entirely healthy I would think.

You would think that, but you are wrong, and so very wrong. Many people live full, healthy lives as vegans, and most of the nutrition we get from animals, we can very well get from plants.

You can get a lot of nutrition from plants to be sure, and you can even fill in the blanks for what you don't get from animals, but or some things like iron and zinc, you may in fact need vitamin supplements.

No, you don't, while Iron and Zinc are lower in vegetables than in animals, it is sufficient:

http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/vegan.htm

Sure you can live like that I suppose, but you're going to still live a pretty difficult life.

No, no you won't live a pretty difficult life, that is just your assumption from your inability to comprehend that other people can and do life differently and think differently from you without being mentally unstable.

And since many religious texts don't seem to be against the consumption of animal meat, I would argue that they may in fact be here to provide us with nutrition.

Buddhism.

If you don't believe in God, that's fine, but you certainly can't argue against something that can't be proven or disproven.

I can easily:

If God exist and is all good, it follows that there shouldn't be evil in our world.

There is evil.

Ergo, God does not exist, or at least is not all good.

QED.

That said, let's end that there and not turn this into a religious discussion. My point remains that there is nothing to suggest that animals should not be eaten by humans, other than people's personal opinions. Plus, one way or another, something needs to keep the animal population in balance, and that tends to be humans unfortunately.

Let's, you are the one that brought up the stupidities of religion, and it is only fitting that it should end and die with you.

There is nothing to suggest taht humans should not eat human, or that humans should be able to eat animals, and there is more reason, given the ethical dimension, to consider eating consenting humans more moral than eating nonconsenting animals. That is no opinion, animals do not, generally, think that they should be eaten, hence why they usually flee from predetors, humans who do want to be eaten should, by all means, offer themselves up to be eaten.

In addition, nature already has checks on the Animal Population, such as limit based upon the resources, predetation, disease, etc., etc.

Oh it isn't an argument? When your only response is to call me stupid instead of giving some evidence or reasons, you leave me rather unconvinced. Burden of proof is on you my friend, I'd appreciate it if you would provide some.

If I leave you unconvinced, it is becasue you are unwilling to open yourself up to reason, like a fool who shuts himself from the light of reason. I cannot argue against a nonargument, I can't counter something that makes no point to begin with, the most I can do is point out how stupid it is.

That's the same two purposes we can also have for animals my friend. And believe me, I love animals, truly I do. However, I realize that they all have practical purposes as well.

If you bother to read, I stated that the two purpose that comes to mind is to bring pleasure and satisfy their hunger (which animals can do provided that they are willing to provide their consent), and to provide an income to their family (which animals do not earn, given that they have need for human currency). So, in short, you are basing your argument off a misreading, which I should ignore.

One of those things is giving us nutrition we need while also appeasing our tastes and appetites, another is that they serve as loyal companions, some act as guards, some act as pest control, some act as beasts of burden. Some animals exist to simply produce for us though, as they don't seem to serve any other purpose aside from that except to breed.

Again, those are uses that we extract from the animals, not the reason why they exist. That is like saying a baker is born to bake bread, a miner is created for the purpose of going down a mine shaft, etc. In Candide, we are treated to that perfect specimen of ridiculousness, Dr Pangloss, who theorized that, because the bridge of our nose are so compatible with the wearing of spectacles, and our legs so perfectly fitting with breeches, our noses must be especially made to wear glasses and our legs made to wear trousers...I never imagined that such people can actually exist.

Now then, the next part. You think being eaten is even close to being a rational way of making an income for your family? Ever heard of, oh I don't know, a job? Not only can a person bring in an income from one of these, but they can also produce products that satisfy customers. Plus, they don't have to die. It's a win-win-win scenario.

Ever heard of a recession, or being 'unemployable'?

It is also a win-win situation if they were to give themselves up- their family gets the money almost immediately, and the person who buys it can attain satisfaction from their flesh.

Now, instead of wasting time and money that would be undoubtedly required to healthily regulate cannibalism (yes, regulate it. We can't risk involuntary cannibalism, diseases, etc. now can we?), we could invest the money in industry and help give people products they need, give poorer families jobs and a steady income, and all in all push the world further ahead.

Again, you have no idea how the market works- the government does not, or at least only rarely, 'invest in industry', it is the private sector that invests, investment does not automatically mean the creation of jobs, because people can use that money to invest in other areas, the one that immediately comes to mind is technology, which would reduce the amount of labour needed, therefore the amount of people to hire, while still producing the same amount of goods. If the companies do hire, there is no gaurentee that they will hire American workers, when Chinese workers are willing to work for much less, so they use the money to open up a factory in China, where people are willing to work for half the cost of American workers. This is why Keynesian economics simply does not work, and government regulation on human flesh, like animal flesh, and vegetables, would be a better investment than in industry.

That's progress. Not to mention, we could also invest in agriculture and help create enough food to feed needy people in 3rd world countries.

Again, we don't need to invest in agriculture, because we already produce enough to feed the world, we have an abundance of food, it is not as simple as you make it out to be. The problem is in distribution of food. Flooding the third world markets with our subsidized food would drive local farmers out of business, and force the nation into buying our food, exerbating their plight, which is why any well informed observer will tell you happened in Haiti.

Legalizing and regulating cannibalism would cost billions of dollars, give nothing back to society, and would essentially just act as a money pit for a TINY minority of people willing to waste their time on this instead of getting help for their obviously ill minds.

Legalizing and regulating cannibalism would cost money, sure, but it also produces money for those that engage in it, so long as there is a market to pay for it, there should be people who should be able to sell it, because that is how the Free Market works, that is how Capitalism work, and if you disagree, well, we simply can't argue if you don't understand the basics of economics.

I strongly doubt it. Of all the things I have said, this I am most certain of. But you're welcome to prove me wrong if you like. Note that I will expect evidence, not your opinion. Opinion won't suffice any longer, so I suggest you get some research done.

I am welcome to prove you wrong, only I have. I have frequently emphasize consent, which you deny a priori based upon your own personal prejudices and belief that no sane person would do so and so, therefore anyone who does so and so is not sane. It is circular, and, unless you are willing to provide a non-circular argument, I am afraid that this will go no where.

[Chinese Regions]

I voted yes by accident because I thought it said "Voluntary Cannabis", can you kindly change the Poll restrictions?
Wait, I got to eat a piece of dried skin off my lip...

[Chinese Regions]

For most people (including me) it goes without saying that consumption of human meat should be frowned upon and highly illegal, end of discussion. However, I have come across a few people (mostly liberals) who believe that "voluntary cannibalism" should be legal on the grounds of "freedom". I oppose all cannibalism including voluntary cannibalism. Not only is it completely immoral, but should the cannibal develop a taste for human meat then that may lead the person to kill for it. This is especially true if there is a shortage of voluntary human meat since very very very very few people would volunteer to be meals. The job of government is to maintain civil order and voluntary cannibalism goes against that order by putting the general public in danger. So do you think that voluntary cannibalism should be legal or illegal?

I think you have eaten an unhealthy dosage of Strawmen.

[Michijo]

There were studies done in Papua New Guinea on a particular tribe called Fore. It was discovered that certain neurological disorders could be communicable only through cannibalism. And that a form of mad-cow disease, that could lie dormant for years, had become endemic against certain tribes through endocannibalism, that is a funeral rite of eating your own dead, after they have died, not killing them intentionally for meat. The villagers called it "Kuru". It was actually Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease.

[Kyuji]

There were studies done in Papua New Guinea on a particular tribe called Fore. It was discovered that certain neurological disorders could be communicable only through cannibalism. And that a form of mad-cow disease, that could lie dormant for years, had become endemic against certain tribes through endocannibalism, that is a funeral rite of eating your own dead, after they have died, not killing them intentionally for meat. The villagers called it "Kuru". It was actually Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease.

Yes we know that

[Tekania]

You still haven't explained why.

Uh, because they would have a mental health issue if they were too?

And what qualifications do you posses which makes your determination of their mental state of any worth based solely on that?

[The Rich Port]

While I think the OP is correct in guessing most people would disapprove of us consuming human meat, he should still source that shit.

Cannibalism is a taboo on the same level, I think, as incest: most people are opposed to it, even when it's between consenting adults.

Whereas on incest, it's mostly a victimless crime...

I think cannibalism could work...

But

A.) If you can't successfully make a market for human breast milk, you have no chance making a market for cannibalism

B.) ... If I, a crazy disgusting sex freak, finds cannibalism nauseating... Why would other, saner people approve of it?

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

While I think the OP is correct in guessing most people would disapprove of us consuming human meat, he should still source that shit.

Cannibalism is a taboo on the same level, I think, as incest: most people are opposed to it, even when it's between consenting adults.

Whereas on incest, it's mostly a victimless crime...

I think cannibalism could work...

But

A.) If you can't successfully make a market for human breast milk, you have no chance making a market for cannibalism

B.) ... If I, a crazy disgusting sex freak, finds cannibalism nauseating... Why would other, saner people approve of it?

... oh, I guess I need to leave... :/
*would buy both breast milk and human meat... probably to make the same dish*

[Prezelly]

Why not allow people to eat others? Cannibalism is only immoral because the people who came up with the morals deemed it so. But if you are starving you can eat another person, no problem. I think it would be fine to allow people to eat human meat, obviously not off another living person. I just don't see the immorality

[God Kefka]

Why not allow people to eat others? Cannibalism is only immoral because the people who came up with the morals deemed it so. But if you are starving you can eat another person, no problem. I think it would be fine to allow people to eat human meat, obviously not off another living person. I just don't see the immorality

because that would make us no better than the hill tribes...

we would roll back the clock of civilization...

[God Kefka]

Uh, because they would have a mental health issue if they were too?

And what qualifications do you posses which makes your determination of their mental state of any worth based solely on that?

I think we can agree just on a common sense measure that if you want to consume human flesh... like actually want to consume it for real... you are probably not completely normal.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

And what qualifications do you posses which makes your determination of their mental state of any worth based solely on that?

I think we can agree just on a common sense measure that if you want to consume human flesh... like actually want to consume it for real... you are probably not completely normal.

I think we can agree that 'Common Sense' is not a real thing.

[Nationes Pii Redivivi]

Why not allow people to eat others? Cannibalism is only immoral because the people who came up with the morals deemed it so. But if you are starving you can eat another person, no problem. I think it would be fine to allow people to eat human meat, obviously not off another living person. I just don't see the immorality

because that would make us no better than the hill tribes...

we would roll back the clock of civilization...

Again, civilization is simply 'Kefka likes' and barbaric 'Kefka no likes'.

[Tekania]

And what qualifications do you posses which makes your determination of their mental state of any worth based solely on that?

I think we can agree just on a common sense measure that if you want to consume human flesh... like actually want to consume it for real... you are probably not completely normal.

There is nothing common (or even relevant) about "Common sense" claims. And "common sense" most certainly is not a replacement for degrees and experience in professional psychology. AS such, I'm not taking that response because it's still covered in the fecal matter it picked up from where it was pulled from.

[The Rich Port]

And what qualifications do you posses which makes your determination of their mental state of any worth based solely on that?

I think we can agree just on a common sense measure that if you want to consume human flesh... like actually want to consume it for real... you are probably not completely normal.

I distinctly remember you, Kefka, saying awful things other people would consider mental illness.

I wouldn't be so quick to judge.

[Threlizdun]

A vore fetish is not a mental illness. Being brought into a state harmful to you as a result of mental state is by definition a mental illness.

Just out of curiousity , are you into vore?

Having my flesh consumed or eating someone else's flesh? No, I'm sort of grossed out by meat in general. Fantasies of being swallowed alive or enveloped? Not really my thing, though I've read some stories featuring it before that were alright.

[Nazi Flower Power]

For most people (including me) it goes without saying that consumption of human meat should be frowned upon and highly illegal, end of discussion. However, I have come across a few people (mostly liberals) who believe that "voluntary cannibalism" should be legal on the grounds of "freedom". I oppose all cannibalism including voluntary cannibalism. Not only is it completely immoral, but should the cannibal develop a taste for human meat then that may lead the person to kill for it.

Kind of like when a good restaurant closes, people who miss it will track down the chef and order the chef at gunpoint to cook for them? I am sure that happens all the time when people can't get their favorite food.

This is especially true if there is a shortage of voluntary human meat since very very very very few people would volunteer to be meals. The job of government is to maintain civil order and voluntary cannibalism goes against that order by putting the general public in danger. So do you think that voluntary cannibalism should be legal or illegal?

Killing someone for the purpose of eating them should be illegal, even in the unlikely event that they volunteered. If someone died of natural causes, they did not die of anything contagious, and they indicated that they would be OK with it, then I don't see why it should be illegal. But that's a lot of "if"s and I doubt it would ever be common.

[The Rich Port]

I wouldn't consider it a mental illness. People do crazy things in the pursuit of pleasure, & I don't see anything wrong with it.

A vore fetish is not a mental illness. Being brought into a state harmful to you as a result of mental state is by definition a mental illness.

Paraphilia are, however, considered atypical and often found unhealthy to the point to be treated like a mental illness.

Though I guess that's all going to change with DSM-V and the policy changes that come with it.

[Uelvan]

Voluntary or not, no. We're not Neanderthals here.

[The Rich Port]

Voluntary or not, no. We're not Neanderthals here.

I'm pretty sure even Neanderthals would have been weirded out.

Aversion to cannibalism is an evolutionary adaptation.