Timeline for Is consensual cannibalism vegan?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 5 at 1:36 | comment | added | unor | @PaulWalker 'And there is no veganism without ethics.' – Correct. 'So if you're going to say something is "vegan," you have to say it is ethical.' – No, that doesn’t hold up. An action can be vegan and unethical. The other way around works, though: an action can’t be non-vegan and ethical. | |
| Apr 4 at 16:34 | comment | added | user6686 | And there is no veganism without ethics. Vegans are always distancing themselves from people following a "whole foods plant based" diet. So if you're going to say something is "vegan," you have to say it is ethical. And that is why, in my opinion, this whole intellectual exercise should be shunned. | |
| Apr 4 at 16:25 | comment | added | user6686 | Once a person is dead, all value and respect given to his corpse comes from outside of the corpse. It cannot give itself value. Your statement was trying to say that once a person dies and leaves his body, it no longer has value and the person can no longer be harmed or exploited. It's a non-sequitur because the dead don't get a vote in the situation. So there's no point pretending the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic makes a difference. | |
| Apr 4 at 12:24 | comment | added | unor | @PaulWalker "Your consent for that which is unlawful is meaningless." – The legal aspect is irrelevant for the ethical evaluation. Something can be ethical and illegal, or unethical and legal. – Also, in case it’s not clear: I’m not saying that consensual cannibalism is ethical, I’m saying it’s vegan. It can be unethical for other reasons, not related to veganism. | |
| Apr 4 at 12:21 | comment | added | unor | @PaulWalker: "However, cemeteries are full of dead relatives of people who believe otherwise." – 1) But here you are referring to extrinsic moral value, no? 2) And I stated that other ethical rights might affect this, like "post-mortem rights". – Anyway, the "After death" section was not what you were criticizing in your original comment, right? Because that section makes no difference between non-human and human animals. | |
| Apr 3 at 5:08 | comment | added | user6686 | And second, the twisted ethics of a person who justifies cannibalism also apply to every other law civilized societies make which establishes a society. The same logic would apply to laws against violence, rape, slavery, just about anything. The source of all this is the assumption that human beings are merely 'animals.' Once you assume that, anything goes and society is lost. You are not an 'animal.' If you follow your 'animal instincts,' you will be in jail, because society thinks you need to act like a human being. | |
| Apr 3 at 5:00 | comment | added | user6686 | First, you said, "If you are dead...you no longer have intrinsic moral value." This is your belief. However, cemeteries are full of dead relatives of people who believe otherwise. Laws, however, exist throughout the world that protect a corpse - your corpse - from desecration. Your consent for that which is unlawful is meaningless. | |
| Apr 2 at 18:01 | comment | added | unor | @PaulWalker I don’t see what’s "twisted" about that. The relevant difference is that I can give consent to have my leg eaten, while a non-human animal can’t give consent like that. Why then should it be ethically permitted to eat the non-human animal’s leg? Or if you come from the other direction: How would it be exploitative/cruel (against me) if I give true consent? | |
| Apr 1 at 16:06 | comment | added | user6686 | And I thought vegans had a lifestyle of ethics. What a twisted ideology that permits eating flesh of a person but forbids the flesh of an animal. Shameful. | |
| Nov 7, 2019 at 13:46 | comment | added | President James K. Polk | Thank, good point. | |
| Nov 7, 2019 at 11:39 | comment | added | unor | @JamesReinstateMonicaPolk: Keeping humans as slaves is non-vegan, similar to how keeping animals as livestock is non-vegan. When slaves/livestock die of natural causes, products made out of their bodies would still be non-vegan (because of the conditions they lived under). Otherwise it would be possible to capture wild animals, to cage them, to wait until they die of natural causes and then to sell their meat as vegan. | |
| Nov 7, 2019 at 0:38 | comment | added | President James K. Polk | This answer matches my views, so naturally it must be correct :) But there is subtlety which might interesting to think about. The laws of supply and demand are such that if demand for human flesh were to become significant then market forces would exert pressure on the supply side. This could in turn cause pressure to get sick people dead sooner than later (e.g. less aggressive treatments) and, in extreme cases, murder. | |
| Nov 7, 2019 at 0:27 | comment | added | President James K. Polk | Why the distinction on whether or not the person was a slave? | |
| Jun 21, 2019 at 0:53 | vote | accept | Hannibal Lettuce | ||
| Mar 11, 2019 at 10:58 | history | answered | unor | CC BY-SA 4.0 |