Human cannibalism is morally wrong.

Thank you for your response and your time. I'll respond to your counterarguments before wrapping up. RESPONSES "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." 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] "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." 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. "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." I disagree that either of these things prove immorality. A terrible image may haunt a life forever, 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. "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." 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. If that were the case, spreading the Black Plague might have been moral because it led to more individual rights. I challenge my opponent to explain why an emotional negative reaction makes something immoral. 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. "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." Again, we are not debating whether such things should be legalized. An interracial marriage might anger someone enough to cause them to go on a shooting spree targeting minorities but that does not make interracial marriage wrong. "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...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." My opponent argues ad populum. I assert that if an action harms no one against their will, and does not create unfairness, only sensibilities, tradition, and authority remain as common enough values which contradict that action. Cannibalism only offends sensibilities, for no logical reason. Indeed, this seems to be true, as my opponent's only moral argument is that it offends sensibilities. This, however, is a weak reason to consider an action immoral, especially considering that sensibilities are incredibly relative. 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? "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)...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 states that these things are illegal (under American law), not immoral. These things are illegal because they offend our sensibilities and because governments do not wish to have injured or drugged up populations. Legal issues do not change whether something is immoral, as mentioned earlier. All my opponent has proven is that it is common for people to force their sensibilities and wishes on others, NOT that self-harm is immoral. My opponent has made no attempt to show that it is not immoral for a person to harm themselves if they so wish, meaning they are either unable or unwilling to do so. If a person commits an action against themselves they have consented to whatever harm occurs. "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." My opponent's argument continues to rest on law and consensus morality. I will note that my opponent has also mistaken what utilitarian morality is, which I assume refers to utilitarianism: "Utilitarianism (also: utilism) is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its utility in providing happiness or pleasure as summed among all sentient beings." [3] This is not my argument. My argument is not that it is not immoral because it causes happiness, my argument is that it causes no harm to the parties involved, aside from offending sensibilities (which I maintain is a worthless or at best near worthless judge of morality, unless we wish to consider, for example, not praying at dinnertime an immoral action). There is no living being within the body to be harmed, the cannibal has consented to any harm, and anyone else is simply offended because of their cultural norms. My opponent relies on consensus morality, yet most of the people who make up the consensus rely on their cultural norms and values which conflict well and often and change over time. Agreed-upon values such as non-harm and fairness, and the logical application of these values, can prescribe a more objective and realistic moral system as opposed to simply describing whichever system dominates at a certain place and time. Sources 1. http://discovermagazine.com... 2. http://www.infoplease.com...