I remember seeing someone get a callout post on Twitter for saying they don’t see an ethical problem with cannibalism if it’s consensual. That’s all they said, and they got dogpiled so hard that they apologized and went to therapy for their “unnatural thoughts”, and the callouts continued.
Unless several Twitter users plan to give them unrestricted access to their corpse soon, I don’t see why that’s callout-worthy.
I don’t just not see an ethical problem with it if it’s consensual. I’d argue it’s the most ethical way to eat meat in that case. We do horrible things to animals without their consent. If someone consents to being eaten, that must be more ethical.
You can argue it’s disgusting or something, but if you’re arguing with ethics as the basis, consensual cannibalism has to be better than eating other animal meat.
My biggest argument for ethics is that if it is legal to do, it will be easier to provide incentives for it. Already a problem with illegal substances and such I guess.
The rich and powerful have a problem where the normally unattainable luxuries/curiosities in life are freely available and boring. It’s why you see millionaires doing crazy stunts, and so many get into illegal drugs or trafficking, like with Epstein and his ilk.
They can offer money, power, or other benefits to those who don’t have it, and also manipulate the circumstances in their favor, and create a market for human meat. One where the poorest of people could sell their own parts/body, or create parts for consumption if supply drops. Our current system does the same with labor, but that seems significantly less damaging.
Your argument is valid, but by the same logic selling yourself for work is unethical, yet we all do it. I agree there is logic to it and the system of incentives is messed up, but I don’t necessarily agree selling yourself for cannibalism is any worse than selling yourself for labor.
Did they actually go to therapy or did they just say that to try and save face? (Not that I believe they deserved that level of push back necessarily.)
I remember seeing someone get a callout post on Twitter for saying they don’t see an ethical problem with cannibalism if it’s consensual. That’s all they said, and they got dogpiled so hard that they apologized and went to therapy for their “unnatural thoughts”, and the callouts continued.
Unless several Twitter users plan to give them unrestricted access to their corpse soon, I don’t see why that’s callout-worthy.
I don’t just not see an ethical problem with it if it’s consensual. I’d argue it’s the most ethical way to eat meat in that case. We do horrible things to animals without their consent. If someone consents to being eaten, that must be more ethical.
You can argue it’s disgusting or something, but if you’re arguing with ethics as the basis, consensual cannibalism has to be better than eating other animal meat.
My biggest argument for ethics is that if it is legal to do, it will be easier to provide incentives for it. Already a problem with illegal substances and such I guess.
The rich and powerful have a problem where the normally unattainable luxuries/curiosities in life are freely available and boring. It’s why you see millionaires doing crazy stunts, and so many get into illegal drugs or trafficking, like with Epstein and his ilk.
They can offer money, power, or other benefits to those who don’t have it, and also manipulate the circumstances in their favor, and create a market for human meat. One where the poorest of people could sell their own parts/body, or create parts for consumption if supply drops. Our current system does the same with labor, but that seems significantly less damaging.
Your argument is valid, but by the same logic selling yourself for work is unethical, yet we all do it. I agree there is logic to it and the system of incentives is messed up, but I don’t necessarily agree selling yourself for cannibalism is any worse than selling yourself for labor.
People just like to rationalize their disgust. It’s probably also why homosexuality is supposedly immoral.
All we need is to engineer animals to consent being eaten.
Did they actually go to therapy or did they just say that to try and save face? (Not that I believe they deserved that level of push back necessarily.)
That’s a good question. I kinda hope they didn’t, because that’s a stupid amount of money to spend to punish yourself for an unorthodox opinion.