Human cannibalism is morally wrong.

(I certainly admit that definition 6 is less relevant than the others). I'd like to thank my opponent for an excellent opening argument, Argument 1: Rights of the Deceased. My opponent argues that, "The deceased is simply not around to care what is happening to them, and to argue that the rights of the deceased outweigh the rights of the living is absurd. One should barely be taken into consideration, the latter is the defining factor." And uses two examples to illustrate her case. "The mother, knowing help will not arrive before she and her child starve to death, opts to cook and eat the father to survive." Though the pragmatic value of such cannibalism in a survival situation are clear, and hard to argue against, I can argue against the morality of it. Consider what will happen to the Mother and Child upon rescue, the media will either suppress the sordid details of the affair out of kind consideration to the two survivors, or more likely make it the focal point of the story to create scandal and sensation in order to sell as many papers as possible and generate as much wealth as possible. Why is this? It is because the act of cannibalism evokes a nigh-universal sense of moral violation. Our (as in the general public) clear disgust and fascination with the subject is evidence that it is a violation of normal morality. Human Cannibalism is therefore morally wrong. The rebuttal to this is that without committing the act of cannibalism the mother and child would not have survived. This does not alter the morality of the act, simply mitigates how we regard the cannibals. Something can be rationally right, but also immoral at the same time. Morality is not simply the question of what is most pragmatic or even beneficial. As evidence of this it would be unreasonable to suppose this act would forever haunt the lives of the mother and child. It is inconceivably that they would not feel guilt, guilt is your reaction to a violation of your morality. In the event that Mother and Child contract a fatal disease as the result of the cannibalism, or commit suicide as a result of the guilt and/or media attention would the original act of cannibalism still be considered morally sound by my opponent? Example two. "An individual dies of some similarly innocent cause. Perhaps he has had a fall, or committed suicide. He has made it clear he wishes for his body to be made available for any who wish to eat it." In addition to simple emotive moral outage it can be specifically deemed immoral for the reason It could create a market demand for human meat, this would result in murders being committed to meet market demand. An analogy could be drawn with the trade in Ivory. It is generally not legal to simply wait for an elephant to die in order to harvest it's ivory, whilst logically speaking there is nothing wrong with this act in of itself it is illegal because it would strengthen the market demand and encourage poaching. It is clear that the morality of an act can not be determined simply by the immediate context of the act, but by its deeper ramifications. The harvesting of human meat ultimately threatens human life, so is therefore immoral. The other main objection would be the reactions of friends and family, my opponent has already pre-emptied me on this and in a sense it is the same point as the reaction of wider society that I was already mentioned. So it is time to specifically address that, Argument 2: Upset to Friends and Family "Furthermore is does not make an act immoral if it upsets other parties--if this were the case homosexuality and miscegenation would be terribly immoral." Morality is derived from moral principles and emotional consensus, and it is not always possibly to know where the dividing line between the two is. Homosexuality and miscegenation were considered immoral, (and still are by some), partly because it did/does upset other people. Public outrage was the motivation and the justification for the fact that both of these actions were previously outlawed. My opponent appears to be assuming a utilitarian morality, this is not the morality of public consensus which does hold that 'upset' has a moral value. Argument 3: DISGUSTING AND UNNATURAL "Obviously irrelevant, unless my opponent wishes to disagree on this point." The issue of disgust is the same as upset etc, which has already been addressed. Unnatural is almost meaningless in this context. Health Concerns "These do exist, however I maintain that it is not immoral for a person to harm themselves knowingly and willingly, as their choice does not harm any others against their will. They have consented to the harm." Why therefore can not upper class males settle their differences with fatal duels? Why is bare knuckle boxing illegal, why is it illegal to sell, possess and use heroin? All these situations require that the participants are subjecting themselves to potential harm, knowingly, willingly and with full consent. Society deems these actions immoral and they are therefore outlawed. In the specific case of human cannibalism it can cause Prion Disease, (e.g. mad cows disease). http://www.sciencedaily.com... (The article is mostly about how we have evolved due to cannibalism so most of it is not relevant). It can be argued that the Government has a moral imperative to prevent self-harm, however consensual and indeed this is the moral basis for many of our laws. My opponent concludes that, "Unless my opponent can offer other reasons for cannibalism being immoral, or wishes to further pursue one of the supposed problems, we can only conclude that cannibalism is not, in fact, immoral. All of the usual reasons are either irrelevant or circumstantial, which means that if there are moral problems they arise from the situation and not the act of eating human flesh." I believe that my opponent has made the mistake of equating morality with what is simply utilitarian, or most pragmatic. This is simply one approach to moral reasoning, one that that is not employed by the majority of people, I feel that I have demonstrated how Human Cannibalism is a violation of morality, or as a general rule that it offends the morality of most societies and peoples.