Human cannibalism is morally wrong.

== RESPONSES == "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." Morality does indeed concern itself with right conduct. Conduct is not a matter of social interaction, however, [1] and public opinion is a matter of culture. That it varies by culture at all, which you have admitted, negates your claim. There is no gradual change in how moral an action is based on the amount of people who think it is immoral. Furthermore I reject that it is nigh-universal except within the present day. Evidence shows that in our evolutionary past, cannibalism was so prevalent that we adapted to it. Clearly it was not always as abhorred as it is today. [2] "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." You have not introduced any new argument here which I have not addressed above or in my last post. You do, however, bring up a point. There is a cost to human health which society wants to guard against, this however does not make it immoral. In cultural anthropology, aspects of a culture are adaptive, neutral, or maladaptive. I had some difficulty finding online as opposed to print definitions of the term but here's one: "It is maladaptive when a population maintains beliefs or practices that so seriously impair the physical or mental health of its members that thay [sic] cannot adequately meet their own needs or maintain their social and cultural systems." [3] Because these behaviors lead to either individuals or entire cultures not surviving to pass the behavior on (much like genes), generally cultures are made up of adaptive traits. Maladaptive practices are weeded out of societies. For example, in societies with certain nutrient deficiencies, sex too soon after pregnancy is taboo even though the societies are not aware of the underlying reason for their considering the act immoral. My opponent states that there is a cost to society and human health, and conduct with a cost to society and human health becomes taboo. "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." My opponent points out the flaw in his reasoning: what we believe is right or wrong is a matter of socialization and conditioning. As feelings of guilt are based on socialized and conditioned morality, guilt is not evident of any real moral wrongdoing. (It sounds like you meant 'is not immoral' in this sentence, apologies if I'm wrong: "may intellectually 'know' that there act is 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." Irrelevant, we are not debating whether cannibalism should be legalized. Even if we were, legalizing the act of eating human flesh does not place it on the market. It can be made illegal to sell or produce. Furthermore, the health consequences are known, the disgust is general, and legalizing it would not remove cultural taboos. But again, we are not debating legalizing it. It is not legal, therefor the potential consequences you speak of are impossible unless it is legal. And it isn't. "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." See above. "The moral responses of the wider society that share the same well of moral conditioning and socialisation." Again, you admit that this is a result of moral conditioning and socialization. The act is not immoral, we are simply trained to see it as such. You miss my point, however. Imagine the cannibal never leaves the hermit's home and simply lives out the rest of his life in isolation, no one ever finding out. "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." This is precisely what I argue, that an act is only immoral if it causes harm. Consequences of actions are situational and must of course be judged for each situation, but they do not make the act itself immoral. It is not immoral to have sex simply because it might eventually lead to the birth of another Hitler. And of course I repeat that legalization of cannibalism is not being proposed, the debate is simply whether or not the act of eating human flesh is immoral. == SOURCES == 1.http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2. http://www.sciencedirect.com... 3. http://www.culturism.us...