Why is cannibalism immoral?

nothing is moral or immoral, you faggot, it's just impractical and results in a net loss of calories for humanity as a whole
do you know how much energy it takes to even gestate a baby for 9 months? way less than you get from eating the baby, numbnuts

>waiting 9 months for a single meal
>this is what cannibals ACTUALLY believe

shit isn't sustainable

>>2583255
Either because:

A) It requires an act of killing, which is generally considered to be a Bad Thing, or at best a necessary evil. Murdering people so you can eat them is frowned upon for reasons that don't need explaining. Eating those you've killed in battle or as an execution is more complex, but it could be argued that this would lead to killing people for their meat which is a Bad Thing (just kill a cow you fuck).

B) Like many unhealthy things it's become a social taboo for valid reasons, just like fucking your sister or eating your own shit, which leads to being considered immoral. Cannibalism CAN be done in healthy and sustainable ways, but preparing the body would take skill, and the meat is more likely to contain dangerous diseases. Hepatitis is a five thousand year old disease, and eating a carrier who is not yet showing symptoms would not be the best idea. Better off eating a cow.

>>2583295
But what if there's no cows or you don't want to waste a milking cow when you already have someone that died from say an accident like falling of a roof.

>>2583318
it's energetically unsustainable
if you start eating other humans, they'll run out before more are born, because realistically, one adult human is about two (2) weeks worth of meat, and it takes 18 fucking years to grow

>>2583354
But if there already dead from a accident you might as well eat them if you get to save a cow for later.

>>2583255
Morality and Immorality isn't a universal concept, it only applies to certain groups of people at any given time.
Cannibalism also exists in the animal kingdom, more or less, so you can't say it is unnatural to us.
Therefore; survival of the fittest; Eat to your heart’s content.

P R I O N S
R
I
O
N
S

Because it's evil.

>>2583369
>Morality and Immorality isn't a universal concept
>>2583273
>nothing is moral or immoral
These.

>>2583366
it's also not really healthy to consume i guess

File: C.S. Lewis2.jpg (65KB, 368x473px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 368x473px

>>2583377
>>2583369
>>2583273
>muh moral relativism
>dude there's nothing wrong with cannibalism
>its just society that decides, lmao we're animals! god doesn't exist. *tip*

>The Existential Problem & Religious Solution
Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iw36V_iXR2k
Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkh2TXCHpNs

>Man or Rabbit?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9fR1vSxNEQ

>The Laws of Nature
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_20yiBQAIlk

>Mere Christianity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_VYCqCexow

>The Origin (or 1,2,3,4)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tw9biRRv_bM

>‘Right & Wrong’ – A Clue to the Meaning of the Universe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmHXYhpEDfM

>The Reality of the Moral Law
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqsAzlFS91A

>What Lies Behind the Moral Law
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcRFYGr1zcg

>The Poison of Subjectivism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgcd6jvsCFs

>The Rival Conceptions of God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaGwF7A79_w

>The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxwnHVr192A

>Why I Am Not a Pacifist
Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2xY2k26HFo
Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jreq3mVvDgc

>Bulverism (Foundation of 20th Century Thought)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH53uFBOGbw

>The Necessity of Chivalry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBT9LasyC3E

>The Three Parts of Morality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtTeCyrgjIQ

>Sexual Morality
Part 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RkZXZx6HCI
Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AXi4-_HPRk

Now kill yourself.

>>2583394
>spamming

& humanities strikes again

Because all meat eating is wrong.

>>2583420
>humans eat meat for over 200.000 years
>it suddenly becomes wrong

>>2583456
>200.000 years

That's weird, since the world is 6000 years old.

And eating meat was only allowed after the Flood.

>>2583464
That's still ~4000 years worth of meat eating.

File: design.png (1MB, 1350x1680px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1350x1680px

>>2583505
So?

God's original creation did not include meat eating.

>>2583366
See point B. Eating people is dangerous because... Okay, you ever heard of the concept that animals have degrees of seperation from humans? Different animal species are further from human, and the further they are the harder it is for one of their diseases to infect us?

All humans have pretty much the same diseases available. A cow has a lot of minor things that won't fuck you up if you eat it, but anything a person has when you eat them you will almost certainly catch, especially if you don't cook them well.

This is of course vastly oversimplified, but it gets the point across.

>>2583589
lel

>keep the carrot whole instead of slicing it, suddenly its better for your bones because it is shaped like one

>>2583589
>that pic
wait holy shit I've heard about that concept in the study of esotericism
it's called, like, sympathetic magic or something
do you believe in it? can you elaborate?

>>2583255
the only reason you would think cannibalism isn't immoral is if you were presuming either utilitarianism or moral skepticism
if you were presuming moral skepticism in general there'd be no reason to ask this particular moral question
so you're presuming utilitarianism
and even then, under rule utilitarianism it's easy to say cannibalism is immoral
so you're presuming act utilitarianism

why would you be an act utilitarian?

Sometimes it's not, for example some American tribes eat their dead ancestors.

because it is such that we tend to disapprove of it

>>2583589
Several of the things on that list look radically different than their wild progenitors due to human selective breeding.

>>2583255
If he's already dead, then there's nothing immoral about it necessarily.

If you're the one killing him, that violates the non-aggression principle