Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
I'm not sure if this was not asked before, but is it still wrong to eat a dead person if you're in a situation where the only chance for survival is to do so?
Cannibalism
- Thread starter Mind Over Matter
- Start date
if you detach yourself from what your eating then technically is fine its really no different than deer or beef
What's wrong with this Question?
Why is there no 'taste' for this discussion? (Remark intended to stimulate thought, possibly offend)
Perhaps the best known case of cannibalism in modern times follows:
'Right' and 'wrong' are subjective value judgements as would be applied by a 'normal' person in an ethical situation.
This is somewhat problematical for the following reasons:
1) The ethics of any situation can get very complicated, where multiple factors are involved. No longer will a simple yes or no pass the litmus test.
2) One cannot apply 'normal' standards to 'abnormal' circumstances. As example, during times of war, actions are taken and known to have occurred which would be unacceptable to most if war was not the occasion of their transpire.
The question is self-answering if addressed from the perspective of logic and nature.
If a person desires or requires survival, it is only natural that they would do whatever is in their capacity to achieve that aim.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/andes-crash-hero-relives-icy-ordeal-1315030.html
Depending on the individual's belief system, they may have evolved an acceptance of life that would reject resorting to cannibalism. They would accept their own death and that of others dependent on them, as the only acceptable outcome.
Organ Donor cards allow us to specify that portions of our body, upon our demise, can be inserted into another living person.
So why the repugnance if our flesh was used to nourish and sustain another in a circumstance where they would surely have perished otherwise?
Rather a double standard in the making which does not answer to logic, IMO.
There was a case in the north where a small aircraft went down in winter and the pilot and a young passenger survived by cannibalism of the nurse who perished in the crash. It was an obscure enough event and before the internet, and I am unable to find any references. It was the talk of the town of Atlin, B.C. for a long time.
I just stumbled on this little piece which speaks of Theresa Bond, whose husband was the pilot in question, and she herself later died, ironically, in a plane crash while in the line of duty.
http://souldipper.wordpress.com/2010/09/17/daughter-theresa-part-iii/
I doubt that I have answered your question, Mind Over Matter, but perhaps I have provided additional 'food for thought' on the topic in question.
Yes, food for thought and food for survival but it brings up another question in my mind. A group stranded in the Andes, all alive but no food. Time passes and it becomes clear that starvation is in store for everyone. You conclude that the first to die would have wasted away to such a state that the group could not survive and the same fate would be in store if each death had to be awaited before someone became food. Do you wait for each death to occur naturally or do you volunteer or does the group make hard choices as to culling out the weakest for food?
Yikes, I suggest you don't even think about it, lol.
Why not share parts of everyone. One person removes a leg another removes their arm and so on, that way everyone could survive without killing anyone to eat. I'll take the rump roast! 
Quantum, you raise a scenario that verges on the macabre.
If I were already deceased, it matters not whether I receive a ceremonial disposal or am utilized for my caloric value.
However, if I am not yet committed to the beyond, I reserve territorial rights to this biology and I would advise any who were contemplating my 'tender bits' simmered on a stick over a fire to approach with caution, should they be of a mind to hasten the process along. :bugeye:
Why not share parts of everyone. One person removes a leg another removes their arm and so on, that way everyone could survive without killing anyone to eat. I'll take the rump roast!
Rather like gourmet Russian Roulette?
An interesting approach to the dilemma that avoids the caveat against the willful taking of another life.
I trust you have taken note of my reply to Quantum?
Cannibalism is a topic that engenders discomfort in many, as it is not a circumstance that most of us can even conceptualize, fortunately.
Interesting to note that in Christianity, the Holy Sacrament involves the ritualized ingestion of the body and blood of Jesus.
Ritualized Cannibalism is acceptable.
"In the flesh", it is considered abominable.
Supposing that I were 'learning challenged' (as perhaps I am), how would you go about explaining this disparity to me?
Interesting to note that in Christianity, the Holy Sacrament involves the ritualized ingestion of the body and blood of Jesus.
Ritualized Cannibalism is acceptable.
"In the flesh", it is considered abominable.
Supposing that I were 'learning challenged' (as perhaps I am), how would you go about explaining this disparity to me?