I’m positing this argument partly because I’m trying to wrap my head around what’s considered “ethical” and “moral.” I see a difference between the two where others don’t – I can’t be alone. I see waaaaay too many debates in this forum where a perfectly ethic activity is posited as some kind of rule-breaking ethical dilemma when it’s at best moral one.
So, back to placenta-eating: there’s the afterbirth, presumably chock full of nutrients badly needed to replenish lost vitamins and minerals. Yet against mother-wit and traditions in other parts of the world, most American women happily pass on eating the placenta. There’s few who would seriously disagree that it is somehow immoral to reingest parts of your own body tissue for nutritional purposes. So – might NOT doing so be unethical?
It’s the idea of deliberately NOT doing something of possible benefit to you I’m curious about. Are we defining ethics as behavior to be observed only when there is the avoidance of harm or taking unfair advantage? Or are ethics strictly governed by the rules?
Cannibalism is a bit more extreme. You usually something dies when you commit cannibalism. Think of placenta-eating as the culinary equivalent of masturbation.
Surely you can put an ethical value on cannibalism, Patty.
Well, yeah but, suppose somebody gets run over by a bus. They’re dead whether you eat them or not. Is it ethical to let all those nutrients go to waste?
We gauge that based on how hungry you are. More specifically, how close you are to starvation. If there’s a Burger King a half-mile down the road, then maybe the body should be left for the next person, who just may not have the energy to make it to Burger King.
However, that doesn’t really address the issue of nutrients going to waste. Maybe we could use the bodies of the dead to produce some kind of nutritious food to be distributed to the public. But we would have to come up with an inconspicuous name for it.
Charger. I think you’re on to something, my friend. Mmm. Perhaps some sort of humane protein supplement. I hear they’re doing wonders with soy beans, lentils and attractive food dyes.
LonesomePolecat. Maybe. I don’t see a rush of “long pig” fast food joints opening, though.
But does strict societial taboo even need exist for voluntarily eating one’s own flesh if it won’t kill or even mutilate you? Does the taboo need persist if you simply volunteer non-fatal excess body mass to be eaten by yourself or voluntarily given to another human being? I can’t crawl into the heads of everyone reading these words, but I suspect most people think the idea of placenta-eating is just “extremely weird, even for** Askia**” or “extremely disgusting,. even for Askia” as opposed to taboo-triggered reflex of “that’s wrong” in the cannibalistic sense, when you treat another human being as a perfectly viable meat and slaughter source like, say, fish.
But… suppose there were suspected health benefits to endo-cannibalism for omnivores as a viable source of animal protein, and you were interested in eating your own surgically removed / liposuctioned body fat or your own excess skin from your formerly morbidly obese body type, which after months of exercise and dieting, is currently replete with hanging slabs of loose skin. No one would be killed doing this: your tasty lipids would be offered for whatever nutritional value they have. Would not the ethical thing be to eat this? What’s unethical about chowing down on a fat-ass burger?
How can ANY person ethically justify NOT doing something that may prove to be very healthy? Moral objections is easy. Personal preferences can be justified. What’s the ethical objection?
See, the ethical responsibilities of funerary customs would supercede considerations for the wasted nutrients of our accident victims unless the victim made plans to be eaten at the time of his death. If it’s okay with the victim, and the victim’s family goes along with it, and there are people waiting/wanting to eat the dead – is it still ethical to let those nutrients go to waste?
LonesomePolecat. Yeah, but I’d hoped we could beat around the bush for a few more posts before it was said explicitedly. I was going to suggest using Charlton Heston as a product spokeman.
But none (or very few if us) *need *the nutrients in the placenta. We’re not starving! If I, as healthy and fat as I am now, was in another country, surrounded by starving people, I’d save my baby’s placenta for them and stew it up for a baptismal party. I’d consider it unethical not to feed people with meat I had and didn’t need. Likewise, if I was starving or malnourished myself, I’d see your point and consider that not eating the placenta might be unethical. But as it is, I can eat a cheesburger and a salad.
Couldn’t you replace “placenta” with “bananas” in the OP and have it make just as much sense, ethically? Bananas are good for you; ergo, it is unethical to not eat bananas.
Actually, placenta holds an interesting place in ethics. It’s the only meat, some people say, that can be harvested without otherwise hurting the donor. Thus, some vegans consider it perfectly acceptable, morally, to eat it.
I don’t think you can force people to perform acts, ethically, unless not to perform them would harm someone. Ethics are a prohibitive, not prescriptive thing.
