If there were no animals other than humans would cannibalism

yes?
I don't really understand your question. cannibalism isn't bad because we have other options. It's bad because you're denying that person their humanity.

>>9974440
>he still believes in objective morality
WTF are you 12 or something?

The moral axiom is arbitrarily defined whether there are animals or not

>>9974432
>If there's no women and I suck a penis am I gay?

File: plant power power plant.jpg (91KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 500x333px

>>9974432
>presupposing the necessity of carnivorism
mfw

>>9974432
So like no bugs or anything? Wouldn't matter we'd be dead but as this anon >>9974460 is trying to say a concept doesn't cease being a concept because of temptation

>>9974432
Animals have no concept of morality.
Problem is, not all specieis seen to cannibalize their own if there are other options
This may seen more a evolutionary trait other than a moral one.
My suggestion: ask a biologist about this and why is like this

It's a simple concept. I don't want to be eaten, so I won't eat someone else.That's in part due to some notion of the sanctity of the dead, and in part due to wishing to not be considered a food source. Supposing that this state was suddenly thrust upon humanity, I think that a fairly significant portion of people would still consider it immoral; however, there would be plenty more cannibals.

>>9974475
>Animals have no concept of morality.

How do you know that? And do you explain the taboo/shunning behaviours you can witness in multiple primate species?

>>9974487
Animals have no concept of morality because they can't speak. Mammals and other social animals can feel things like empathy. Allowing a species to act as a sort of super-organism is an evolutionary advantage. If cannibalism wasn't in some way avoided it would inevitably weaken social bonds. So, some sort of deterrent to cannibalism is found or put in place. This, simply because it's harder to differentiate "if it dies, I eat" from "I kill, and eat" then it is to say "don't eat." Tribalism also protects against the negative effects of cannibalism.

>>9974523
>Mammals and other social animals can feel things like empathy. Allowing a species to act as a sort of super-organism is an evolutionary advantage. If cannibalism wasn't in some way avoided it would inevitably weaken social bonds. So, some sort of deterrent to cannibalism is found or put in place

What you're describing is morality.

>>9974447
WTF are you postmodern or something

>>9974432
Pretty sure we'd all be vegetarians bruh

>>9974487
This is a biological trait.
After millions of years of natural selection, the groups we have today act as they do because their ancestors who had this behavior before then. This dosent mean that newer generations cant change (mutation is one of the basics of evolution and genetics), but is hard for you to give up millions and millions of years of evolution in just one lifetime, if possible.
Animals dont have morality because they dont have complex social dynamics as humans for example, and much less abstract thinking for this moral dogmas to make sense to a advanced mind.
Animals have no sense of self like the humans have, and this is another reason why they do nasty things at the same time they usualy dont do things like cannibalism (and I put emphasys at the USUALY, because if food is lacking, them they do it. And there are cases of primates killing and eating other primates m8)

File: what.jpg (60KB, 738x692px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 738x692px

>>9974903
>>9974904
how

>>9974903
Then we'd die out because we'd never be able to get enough nutrition for our brains

>>9974447
>he still debunks ethics using 19th century philosophy

are you 16 or something?

>>9975471
>Implying 19th century philosophy is inherently worse
Can you actually debunk the point?

>>9974432
yes. We don't eat other humans because they are sapient

>>9974913
His truth transcends time

>>9974904
This is false. There are venomous snakes who have a moral code when they compete for a mate. The code consists of one rule: no biting.

So, it is possible for animals to have a moral code without complex social dynamics (simple relative to human social systems of course). This would imply that morality is not necessarily conscious, therefore one could explain morality in terms of unconscious behaviors or behaviors which are hard coded into an animals brain/nervous system.

>>9974913
Animals have what we would consider morality even though they do not possess the tools for expressing this moral code explicitly.

>>9975457
We would not die out, but we would become more retarded as a result of vitamin b-12 deficiency.

>>9974432
Here's the real question OP: Is morality even real?

>>9974432
What group of humans would be comparable to Wagu beef

>>9975534
Exactly. I'd say it shows in cross species adoptions: where an animal who doesn't not need to eat for survival at the time encounters an abandoned youth from a different species and begins raking care of it instead of eat eating it.

>>9975553
Asians are tender in more ways than one

>>9976096
I remember reading somewhere in the depths of the internet a long time ago that. apparently, Chinese people tasted "best". I have no idea if this was a joke or grandstanding or what, but it stuck with me and I like to believe it's true.

>>9976129
> Implying Amerifats don't have the best marbling and flavour

>>9976145
Fat is gross and is a poor man's juicy tendons

>>9976707
Sounds like something a meat eater would say

welcome to /spk/ - spook general

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_(disease)
Yes

depends, are we under the presupposition that there is a moral axiom designating the immorality of cannibalism in the first place or are we just arbitrarily assigning our own moral distinctions?