IF... we believe that it's okay to eat cows, pigs, etc., then...

Question

why is it not okay to eat human flesh? This was a question that a vegetarian lady friend asked me recently. What is it about eating human flesh that makes it taboo? Afterall, crocodiles, lions, tigers, wolves, bears, sharks, komodo dragons, and large snakes will eat us if they're hungry. So what makes us so special? If its okay to eat sentient beings, then shouldn't it be okay for other beings to eat us, besides the ones mentioned?

http://www.sentientbeings.org/

Answer 1

we're not so special. that being said, we are not so special enough to think we transcend our nature as omnivores (nor do we transcend our violent natures as "student" tries to point out--sure, war isn't nice and so nations try to settle things diplomatically...but there are still wars despite peaceful efforts employed: ever watch the news?).

besides, kuru isn't fun.

anyway:

my [philosophical] point is "we are not so special".

people have been cannibalised (for survivial or ritualistic purposes); it is very ethnocentric to pass judgements on survivalistic/ritualistic cannibalism when we all participate in symbolic cannibalism be it kissing or communion or (gingerbread men) cookies.

...we are/were all omnivores at one time in our lives (suckling). as technological animals, we have the luxury to choose to exclude certain food resources from our diets; just because a vegetarian/vegan won't eat meat doesn't mean he can't.

why is it not okay to eat human flesh? because humans don't typically have a desire to eat human flesh--or at least I don't have a desire to eat human flesh, and that is the only "answer" I can be sure of without making general assumptions.

what about eating human flesh is taboo? the perception of "murdering your own"

what makes us so special? we're not, but we THINK we are

is it okay for other beings to eat us? being eaten (by other "beings") can happen whether we think it's okay or not okay.

Answer 2

Please tell me if I misinterpreted your question, but it is because we are of the same species. We eat animals, because they are different. They sometimes eat us, but mostly don't eat each other. This one seems obvious. Plus, if someone devolps a taste for other humans... then who is to say that they wont kill just to have some.

Answer 3

The same reason that other animals don't eat their own.

Answer 4

You make an interesting point. From a purely physiological point of view, eating human flesh would be as good of a source of nourishment as that of other animal flesh. So, it is not that. I think we do not eat each other because we view human life differently than we do (other)animal life. There is one exception that needs to be noted, though. Tribes in places like New Guinea practiced cannibalism for many centuries until they had to stop because of illness. They contracted a wasting disease (similar to mad cow disease) called Kuru that was passed on by eating infected clanspeople.

It is interesting to consider how different cultures view the consumption of different types of animals. Besides obvious religious observances, there are lots of variations in norms when it comes to eating animals. For instance, China has banned dog meat from restaurants near Olympic sites, but it is a normal practice in their country. Most Americans think of dogs as pets and would abhor the idea of eating them.

Hunger is still a reality for billions of people on this planet. Perhaps some day we will be able to feed the people of the world with nutritious food that won't involve the use of animal proteins. Until then, either by choice or necessity, we'll keep eating the types of animal flesh our societies are accustomed to.

Answer 5

somethings we cant eat because they are naturally harmful to us if humans ate humans it wont be right because cows dont eat cows or like any other species except worms

Answer 6

Evolution.

If we had no problem eating each other when we got hungry, our genes wouldn't get very far. So we evolved a revulsion for the thought of eating human flesh.

Answer 7

because people are at the top of the food pyramid. other animals can try, but they will likely fail to eat us. you could try eating other people, probably get arrested. a few people will even say plants are sentient, just much less.

Answer 8

cows and pigs aren't sentient. i don't eat apes or dolphins or elephants.

plus there's the whole thing of why laws exist. why it is illegal to murder. for me sentience is a part of why murder is illegal, so i believe that killing sentient animals is also unethical. but the large majority of animals are not. you would kill a fly would you not? that an animal has personality does not mean it is sentient. that it reacts to stimulus does not, that it can be conditioned does not. pigs and cows, do not figure things out, they do not wonder, they do not know. they don't learn in a cognitive sense, only in a conditional sense. like pavlov's dog.

this website you linked to has no idea what they are talking about. they are not scientific, they couldn't explain logically how it is they know the animals are sentient. they just believe it, they just think they must be. it is a lasting intuition from since they were born.

not unlike people that believe in god, they believed since they were little and never disproved it so they think they know, but they never took the proper steps required to know.

it is easy to make the mistake. because they wonder for example about feeling pain. feeling. well the venus flytrap moves when a fly lands on it. but did it feel the fly? in order to have felt it it needs more than the sense of feeling it, more than the reaction to the sense, it needs to KNOW it has sensed it. but the plant doesn't know and neither do these animals. certainly they react to pain but since they do not have the capability of awareness, the ability to know, they can never know they are feeling pain, they can never realize it.

our feeling of pain isn't the advanced tool of a sentient being, it is the remnants of the less advanced that remains in humans since we evolved from non-sentient beings.

it's long and complicated but i could prove it to you, trust me, they are not sentient.

Answer 9

Many cultural taboos are rooted in genuine health concerns. People didn't necessarily understand germs and such when these taboos were being developed, they just knew that folks were being made sick by eating and doing certain things.

In the case of many mammals, there are certain proteins in the neurosystem that can cause degeneration of brain tissue when "transplanted" through digestion. The risk of being effected by this protein is greatly increased by eating of the same or similar species. "Mad Cow" Disease is the most well known example of this.

It is also worth noting that the taboo on cannibalism is not universal. Reasons for eating another human being can range from extreme hunger to ritualistic practice -- for instance, as a means of honoring a recently deceased love one. Such practices have largely been stamped out by European colonialists who have imposed this taboo throughout the world.

Answer 10

Basically, it's more of a health issue than a philosophical debate.

Ever heard of Mad Cow Disease (see first link below)?  To my understanding, when left over cow meat from the slaughterhouse is used to feed cows they can get Mad Cow Disease.  It's actually fatal, but the cows are likely "harvested" before the disease takes its full toll.  It is also passed up the food chain to predators (aka humans).  So...if humans were to eat an infected cow, let alone other humans, they could contract the human equivalent of Mad Cow (see second link below).  This disease too is fatal.

On a releated note, remember the Mayans?  That South American civilization that was about 1000 years more advanced than the rest of the world at one point (in sciences and understanding, not technology).  Yeah, they just kinda disappeared all of a sudden a couple hundred years ago.  One theory I've heard, is that due to their well-known cannibalistic practices, they all just died out from eating each other.

Answer 11

I can honestly say that every answer so far is very bad.

To run through why they are bad:

Nina, that is not true. I don't think you have any evidence that all forms of cannibalism in humans is unhealthy (at least not more unhealthy than many of the kinds of meat we eat.) Additionally some animals (like chickens) do naturally practice cannibalism, so it's not even true that only worms eat their own species.

Mr. QA, might doesn't make right. The mere fact that we are able to do something doesn't imply that we should do it.

Woahh, so it would be ok to eat humans who lacked strong emotions? Plus, as I said some animals do practice cannibalism. And I have no idea where you get the idea cannibalism in humans in unnatural. There are records of cannibalism going back quite far. It has been a widespread, long-held practice.

Greensub, animals do eat each other. Plus, why should the behavior of non-human animals be a moral guide for human behavior. Nobody would look at the behavior of cows or pigs and use that as a reason for humans to act the same way, but every single person on here who cited (usually wrongly) the lack of natural cannibalism in cows or other animals is doing just that.

Eugene, "primitivity" is largely culturally relative. In any case, are you saying it would be acceptable to eat an irrational person? And as for "control" over the animal world, as previously stated, might does not make right.

dr.kwack, since many animals do eat their own, you are going to have to come up with a different answer.

Rikki, yes, we do view human life differently from non-human life, The question is whether that is justified or whether it is just speciesism. Even if we were to assume that cannibalism is inherently unhealthy (and, given the prevalence of cannibalism, more than one example would have to be given to establish that), there is still a logical disconnect with the question. The question is a moral question, asking about the moral justification for behaviors. You reply with a claim about health. A practice can be unhealthy but not morally wrong or it can be healthy and morally wrong.

Even more off base, unfortunately, is your point about global hunger. Experts in the field widely acknowledge that the use of animals for food contributes to world hunger. The vast amounts of arable land that is used to grow crops for livestock could produce far more food for humans. This is actually an area I am studying, and nearly every prediction put out there by a reputable expert says that global meat consumption will have to decline (in some cases drastically) if famine is to be avoided and the rates of malnutrition brought down.

With the exception of Rikki's answer (since, even though she is mistaken, it looks like she actually put some thought in to it), these are some of the worst answers I have seen in the philosophy section. This section is supposed to be about critical thinking, but everyone rattled either facts which are obviously incorrect, tried to make arugments which were obviously illogical, or, most commonly, did a mixture of both. I will likely get a lot of thumbs down for being rude, but I don't really care. Philosophy is supposed to be about truth and critical thought, not manners.

Oh, looks like some were added.

Ms. Informed - The question is a moral question, and pointing to an "omnivorous" nature doesn't answer. Humans also have a war-like nature, but obviously we think it is worth taking steps to overcome this part of our nature. And if your point is that it is not possible for humans to not eat meat, the existence of vegetarians disproves that.

Skatta, there is no doubt that cows and pigs are sentient. There is no doubt that they are conscious and are able to perceive, the definition of sentient. I can only imagine you are confusing being conscious with being self-conscious or something. And pointing to laws is completely irrelevant. Maybe there should be laws protecting animals from consumption? If sentience is the reason why killing is illegal and immoral, then you would have to conclude, once you check the dictionary definition, that many of the animals we eat should be protected by law. Given that you start with a complete misunderstanding of the term, your entire answer is probably the most mistaken one on here.

Answer 12

The Human Being is considered a rational being with control over the animal world.If you are into canabolism this would be considered primitive.

Answer 13

If it meant it was my only form of food for survival

I'd eat it- medium rare  

Answer 14

historically humans tend to do what they like to do...Some would like this and do something about it, some would  like that and do an opposite. That is a dynamic of duality..However there is not many who have an appetite for human flesh..Have you? Honestly?

Answer 15

humans have stronger emothions and cannot eat their own kind its un natural. pigs dont eat pigs....

its just unethical

no offence but what kind of sick person would eat their own kind?