Human cannibalism is morally wrong.

My opponent argues that, Unfortunately simply because a belief is widespread does not make it morally wrong. The logic simply doesn't follow. Condemnation of incest, after all, is "nigh-universal", despite there being nothing morally wrong about it inherently and reproduction between cousins at least is no more dangerous than allowing an older woman to have a child. [1] And I note that it is nigh-universal--it is well-documented that abhorrence of cannibalism is not present in all societies. [2] Morality concernis itself with the issues of 'right conduct'. Conduct is a matter of social interaction, public opinion must surely have some bearing upon what is deemed moral and immoral and what proper conduct is. Also please note I have used the term nigh-universal. "This is true. However, it is evidence to the fact that cannibalism is not inherently wrong--it is the circumstances which can make it wrong." If it was held to be a morally neutral act then human meat would be graded and sold in shops, coalition forces in Iraq would consume the dead to reduce military budgets. It is clear that most societies have a moral abhorence for the consumption of human meat. The cost to society and to human health reinforces this morality. Cannibalism in a survival situation may be justified, but the act sill attracts our fascination and disgust because it is a moral violation. On the subject of guilt my opponent states, "guilt can occur regardless of whether something was immoral or not. For the former, the more likely cause of being haunted forever is the image of a loved one's carved up body, which still does not make it immoral. Likewise, I may hit a cat with my car, and feel terribly guilty for it, but that does not make anything immoral. I may even run over an already decomposing cat and feel terribly guilty for it (and I have). It would only have been immoral had I gone out of my way and killed the cat on purpose." Guilt may not be a precise mechanism, you feel guilt for accidentally driving over a dead cat because you respect the cats life, or the feelings of it's owners. Ultimately you would never harm the cat, however driving over it's body is a step towards that violation, so therefore it still provokes the sensation of guilt. I still maintain that guilt is evident of what our morality is, we may intellectualise an act, but on an emotional level which most moral judgements are we have been socialised and conditioned into moral responses. The mother and child may rationalise the act of cannibalism, may intellectually 'know' that there act is immoral, but the guilt response shows that they have been imprinted with a moral code that is violated by the act. "We are not debating whether such things should be legalized, but whether the act of eating another human's flesh is immoral. Neither do vaguely potential consequences of an action make it immoral. " The provision of a new product or service onto the market will create demand, I do not consider this to be 'vaguely potential consequence'. The resonably forseeable consequnces of an act must impinge on our moral judgement of it. There is nothing intrinsically immoral with an artillery bombardment, but if you fail to care that someone may be walking through the meadow you are shelling that will generally be regarded as a morally negligent act. "I am also curious why, if cannibalism is so universally abhorred, there would be a market demand for it. You might argue that, after all, there is a demand for child porn. But condemnation of child sex is not universal. Countless cultures, even our own in the past, found it acceptable enough." Of course I never said universal, merely nigh universal. Moral outrage aside you can argue that there is nothing immoral with the consumption of human flesh, nor naked images of the underaged (the image itself I am referring to). However, by supplying both to the market place you will create a demand for these products, which will cause human suffering, under that criteria cannibalism can be deemed immoral. "Note!: My opponent has avoided the problem of the hermit. Here, no possible sensibilities are offended. What, then, makes the eating of a natural death'd hermit immoral?" The moral responses of the wider society that share the same well of moral conditioning and socialisation. My opponent is arguing that the morality of an act can only be ascertained by a purely logical analysis of whether or not it cause harm at that given time. My argument is that morality is a social and logical construct, emotional responses, however illogical they may be are a moral judgement and a valid one at that. In addition the likely consequences of an act should be taken into consideration.