I certainly wouldn’t attend any dinners.
Really? Not even a second thought? In any case, your position seems to be the consensus. Hell, I don’t know for sure that I wouldn’t, though for whatever reason I think cannibalism is a serious no-no and I might possibly just as soon die. I don’t think I’d want to go through the rest of life as the guy who ate another person.
Still, this illustrates what I am groping around for with regard to rigid ideologies. I seriously doubt you would resort to/approve of cannibalism under anything but the most extreme conditions. So, you aren’t in a position where you are saying, “Cannibalism is just plain wrong. Bright line, never cross it, cuz its rong!” No, it depends on the circumstances. If circumstances change enough and in the right way then suddenly cannibalism becomes no longer wrong. You’re saying it isn’t wrong in itself… it depends.
But cannibalism is pretty fucked up. If there is room for cannibalism, it is safe to say that pretty much any and all ethical decisions are situational (it depends) rather than ideological (it is wrong no matter what). Therefore, an unabashed situational approach to ethics is advised in preference to an ideological approach, since the ideological approach appears to not be comprehensive enough to respond accurately to the full granular spectrum of real and/or potential events.
Now. I tend to assume that people who are wealthier and/or higher-ranking than I are at the least not idiots, and probably people who know more than I. But it is glaringly obvious that Congressional Republicans in this day and age strongly prefer an ideological approach to their ethical and/or policy decision-making. Just look at their response to the suggestion of allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. They behave as if tax increases are simply morally wrong in all circumstances, and so they continue on as if any of the context or reasoning for allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire does not even have to be reviewed. The case was closed before it was opened!
But, wtf? The wealth and rank of congresscritters is hard to beat, so I hesitate to view any of them as true morons or people who don’t know more than I. OTOH, they seem not to understand something that is plainly clear to both of us toward the tail end of this disgusting thread in the pit of this forum.
The discussion doesn’t have to be partisan; that is just one example. But I may start a debate thread, “Why The GOP Is Unfit To Govern”. Whaddya think?
IOW, we are now paired in cannibalism alterna-verse.
Do you have a point, or is this some kind of “gotchya!” exercise?
Not a gotcha for the posters at least. Point is that this example demonstrates that ethics are best judged from a situational POV, while pointing out that some people in authority appear to be making decisions from an ideological POV.
I wager you would do it in the situation and that you would get over it.
I dunno. The Jamestown necrocannibals were ~400 years ago and I am apparently not over that.
I would imagine that people who have to resort to such extreme survival strategies probably have a hard time living with themselves, too.
I’m not sure I get the problem with situational ethics aka mitigating circumstances.
[ul]
[li]Don’t kill. But you’re excused if someone is trying to kill you first. [/li][li]Don’t break into someone’s house. But you’re excused if there’s a tornado chasing you.[/li][li]Don’t damage someone else’s property. But you’re excused if he’s kept you captive in his house for 10 years.[/li][li]Don’t eat dead people. But you’re excused if it’s the only food source available to you.[/li][/ul]
Eating dead people is a cultural taboo. It is one of those things that genuinely one could argue is in fact “culturally relative” - unlike (say) killing people without mitigating reasons, which pretty well universally considered wrong.
In fact, Herodotus uses this exact example in his Histories:
Being a cultural taboo, it is all the harder to justify breaking it, because it is based on deep-seated revulsion and not rational situational morality. Some people simply would not be able to do it, even if it meant death.
I’ve been to a couple of college graduations lately and can’t help but think how great an opening line that would be for a commencement speech. Attention getting, to the point, historically allusive, and very relevant for students graduating in the current economy.
[/QUOTE]
It works better at the beginning of a performance review. Don’t ask me how I know.
Regards,
Shodan
For the record, I’m antiprokleptonecrocannibalism.
Raise your hand if you think the OP picked the wrong screen name?
Because I wouldn’t travel to unknown foreign lands and dig up their graves to eat the rotting bodies? I think I’m excused under, “You never get a second chance to make a first impression.”
Right, and I think pretty much everyone agrees with these. Another good one is, “Don’t murder, but if there is a war on and you’re a combatant, feel free to kill the enemy.” The law not only excuses but encourages what would otherwise be a breach of the most basic ethics.
My problem is that I don’t see people in authority (especially Republicans) behaving as if there is such a thing as mitigating circumstances. When it comes to raising taxes, the answer is, “That’s wrong, end of discussion!”, never mind that the tax base has been slashed, wealth distribution looks more like Ancien Regime France all the time, wars have been fought, the debt has ballooned, we face a demographic bubble and millions are without insurance as it is. Or with sensible gun limits, same thing, never mind that we have 30,000 gun deaths a year in this country and no reliable way to keep crazies and criminals from buying guns. Lots of GOP positions seem rooted in what I’ve called ‘rigid ideology’, with an obstinate resistance to honestly weighing the facts, resorting to all kinds of insults and crazy theories to disparage anyone who comes bearing facts as a way to not listen to them.
Which is complicated by the fact that I seem to be taking an ideological stance against cannibalism for myself, while railing against others’ ideological stances. But personal choices are not the same as national policy.
Ah, I see what the problem is now. Thank you for clearing that up!
Ah, I get it. A sensitive New Age guy. 
Yah, the breakdown of social values has probably left me less tough and masculine than if I’d been born in a previous generation. Too many books, not enough chopping wood and hauling hay. Heck, even the Spanish word for it (el canibalismo) is a masculine noun.
I see. So for those of us bumpkins who would save ourselves, it’s our lack of book-larnin’ that is to blame. Well, I’ll swan.
Am I the only one whose position is that cannibalism isn’t inherently wrong at all? I grant that in our society, it’s wrong in that it would probably hurt the friends and families of the deceased. But in societies of the past, where cannibalism was sometimes seen as a way of absorbing the deceased into yourself - why is this wrong?
I can imagine living in a society where eating someone’s flesh was conceived of as a form of honouring the dead, and have no problem with that. I would hesitate to take part, but that would be from fear of kuru, not because it goes against my morals.