Is cannibalism wrong? Is murder wrong? What about incest, flag burning, or polygamy? An easy answer to these questions for the average American is yes, those behaviors are morally wrong. For most people, the mere thought of these acts elicit a feeling of disgust and anger. But, as this chapter investigates, are there any circumstances in which consuming the body of another human, or taking the life of another human, or having a sexual relationship with a close relative, okay to do? To answer that question, there are quite a few ideas that must be considered first.
Of the key concepts of this chapter, the one that most stuck out to me is the notion of relativism. Relativism suggests that there are no true universal morals or values. To
…show more content…
Think back to the questions posed at the beginning of this reflection. Are cannibalism, murder, and incest wrong? A typical American would say yes. However, to understand this chapter, one has to look deeper than their own culture. One cannot judge an act or behavior with an ethnocentric mindset. There will always be circumstances surrounding a behavior that will, for lack of a better word, “excuse” said behavior. Most cultures today view cannibalism as wrong, but in other countries such as Papua New Guinea don’t have the same belief. Another way to justify cannibalism is to imagine someone stranded on an island with no food. He or she is the only survivor of a terrible accident, and there are dead bodies available to the survivor. If done purely out of necessity to survive, is consuming one or more of these dead bodies unethical? There are also ways to justify other “unethical” acts like murder and incest. There is always a situation in which something considered wrong in one culture is ethical in …show more content…
Take, for example, slavery. The process of enslaving (usually) African Americans and forcing them to work in awful conditions is nowadays considered an unspeakable act. However, before the Civil War in the southern United States, slavery was just a part of everyday life. Some of the most important people to the founding of our country owned slaves. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison, among others, all owned slaves. Because slavery is unethical now, does not mean we can look back and judge slave-owners for owning slaves, simply because it was not unethical at the time.
The idea of relativity presents an issue within the criminal justice system. If no norms are universal, but are instead relative to a particular culture, situation, or time period, then how do we make laws to prevent “unethical” behaviors. Laws vary by state, and in some cases by county. Prostitution is legal in certain counties in Nevada. If a prostitute from a county where prostitution is legal sells sex in a county where prostitution is illegal, is that prostitute unethical in the county where it’s illegal? Is he or she legally
Macklin, Ruth. "Ethical relativism in a multicultural society." Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 8.1 (1998): 1-22.
Bell, Rachel. "Historical Perspective." All about Cannibalism: The Ancient Taboo in Modern Times. Crime Library, n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2014. .
A discussion of moral theories must begin with a discussion of the two extremes of ethical thinking, absolutism and relativism. Moral Absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards where moral questions are judged and can be deemed right or wrong, regardless of the context. Steadfast laws of the universe, God, nature itself are the forces that deem an action right or wrong. A person’s actions rather than morals and motivations are important in an Absolutism proposition. Moral Relativism states, that the moral propositions are based on Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards that apply to all peoples at all times. Ethical relativism is the theory that holds that morality is relative to the norms of one's culture. That is, whether an action is right or wrong depends on the moral norms of the society in which it is practiced. The same action may be morally right in one society but be morally wrong in another. For the ethical relativist, there are no universal moral standards -- standards that can be applied to all peoples at all times. Culture and personal morals cause a person to make certain moral decisions.
Christopher McCandless, a young American who was found dead in summer of 1992 in wild land in Alaska, wrote in his diary about his moral struggle regarding killing a moose for survival. According to Jon Krakauer’s Into the Wild, Chris had to abandon most of the meat since he lacked the knowledge of how to dismantle and preserve it (166-168). Not only did he have a moral dilemma to kill a moose, but also had a deep regret that a life he had taken was wasted because of his own fault. He then started recognizing what he ate as a precious gift from the nature and called it “Holy Food” (Krakauer 168). Exploring relationships between human beings and other animals arouses many difficult questions: Which animals are humans allowed to eat and which ones are not? To which extent can humans govern other animals? For what purposes and on which principles can we kill other animals? Above all, what does it mean for humans to eat other animals? The answer may lie in its context. Since meat-eating has been included and remained in almost every food culture in the world throughout history and is more likely to increase in the future due to the mass production of meat, there is a very small chance for vegetarianism to become a mainstream food choice and it will remain that way.
Typical Western thought directs people to examine the practices of cannibalism as savage and primitive. More often than not, this type of association exists because the people viewing the action are frightened and confused by that which they do not understand. In fact, some would even claim that, “cannibalism is merely a product of European imagination” (Barker, 2), thereby completely denying its existence. The belief that cannibalism goes against “human instinct”, as seen in many literary works including Tarzan, reduces those who practice it to being inhuman. (Barker, 1) However, scientific findings demonstrate that those who practice cannibalism are still human despite their difference in beliefs; therefore, not only can rationalization be extrapolated from those who practice the act of cannibalism, but also denying the fact of the participant’s very humanity has been undermined through scientific findings.
“Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind” (Genesis 9: 5-7). If God created man in his image, what does eating a fellow human being suggest? We would certainly agree that it is wrong to eat the image of God. Unlike vices like murder or lying, cannibalism is hard to justify even when you’re deserted on an island with a few others with no food in sight. However, to believe that cannibalism is wrong or unnatural in every case might make us ignorant of what it can tell us about the breadth of human culture or about the balance between revenge and justice. Either way, our stance on cannibalism depends on our understanding of what it represents and the role it plays, as reflected
The codification of deviance can vary widely between different cultures, a norm in one culture can be considered deviant in another. For example, the notion of cannibalism has been proved by anthropologists to be a spiritually divine form of ritualistic sacrifice in the ancient Aztec culture of Mexico. Yet in Western culture murder and the consumption of human flesh is considered highly revolting, dealt with by harsher consequences by law than most other deviant crimes. These differences are due to the way each individual society develops their own moral codes. These codes are often defined by cultural ideologies, adversity to other cultures and ritualistic practises which have become accepted, as well established patterns in the development of culture. Lloyd, M 2007 implies this by saying 'we are born into a pre existing (social) order the comes ready made with a large stock of norms and rules we must learn if we are to participate as c...
Cannibalism, also known as anthropophagi, is defined as the act or practice of eating members of the same species. The word anthropophagi comes from the Arawakan language name for the Carib Indians of the West Indies. The Caribs are well known for their practice of cannibalism. Among humans, this practice has been attributed to people in the past all over the world, including rituals connected to tribal warfare. There are two kinds of cannibalism -- sociological and pathological. Sociological means living and eating in a culture where cannibalism is accepted, and the pathological means practicing cannibalism within a culture where it's not accepted. Much controversy exists over the idea of sociological cannibalism. Reports of social cannibalism are mostly pointed at the Americas and Africa, since these were the primary continents subjected to European killing and conquest sprees from the Middle Ages through modern times. Despite what anyone says, there are documented examples of cannibalistic cultures and practices. It was usually a spiritual ritual. In some cases, the bodies of enemies were consumed in order to abso...
Cannibalism played an important role within the societies of many ancient cultures due to both dietary and religious reasons. Although in the modern world cannibalism is viewed as barbaric, or psychotic, in the past the civilizations that practiced this had compelling reasons. Some of these reasons consist of famine and religious rituals. The Aztecs practiced sacrificial cannibalism as a religious practice as a way to honor the gods while other cultures would partake in this practice as a means of survival.
Every individual is taught what is right and what is wrong from a young age. It becomes innate of people to know how to react in situations of killings, injuries, sicknesses, and more. Humans have naturally developed a sense of morality, the “beliefs about right and wrong actions and good and bad persons or character,” (Vaughn 123). There are general issues such as genocide, which is deemed immoral by all; however, there are other issues as simple as etiquette, which are seen as right by one culture, but wrong and offense by another. Thus, morals and ethics can vary among regions and cultures known as cultural relativism.
Although cannibalism is defined as the eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of its own kind, there are several degrees of severity attached to it. For example, biting your nails is technically considered self-cannibalism, however it is a common occurrence and not many people consider nail biting a true form of cannibalism, whereas killing an individual for the harvestation and consumption of their flesh is considered a very dangerous form of cannibalism and is punishable by law. Personally, if I was stuck in an unfavorable situation where eating the remains of a human body was the only way to stay alive, I do not think I would be able to do so; I would not be able to live with the thought and guilt of it, especially if I knew
Rachels, J. (2013). The Moral Argument for Vegetarianism. In L. Vaughn, Contemporary Moral Arguments - Readings in Ethical Issues Second Edition (pp. 617-622). New York: Oxford University Press.
Is it morally permissible to eat meat? Much argument has arisen in the current society on whether it is morally permissible to eat meat. Many virtuous fruitarians and the other meat eating societies have been arguing about the ethics of eating meat (which results from killing animals). The important part of the dispute is based on the animal welfare, nutrition value from meat, convenience, and affordability of meat-based foods compared to vegetable-based foods and other factors like environmental moral code, culture, and religion. All these points are important in justifying whether humans are morally right when choosing to eat meat. This paper will argue that it is morally impermissible to eat meat by focusing on the treatment of animals, the environmental argument, animal rights, pain, morals, religion, and the law.
Moral relativism, as Harman describes, denies “that there are universal basic moral demands, and says different people are subject to different basic moral demands depending on the social customs, practices, conventions, and principles that they accept” (Harman, p. 85). Many suppose that moral feelings derive from sympathy and concern for others, but Harman rather believes that morality derives from agreement among people of varying powers and resources provides a more plausible explanation (Harman, p. 12).The survival of these values and morals is based on Darwin’s natural selection survival of the fittest theory. Many philosophers have argued for and against what moral relativism would do for the world. In this essay, we will discuss exactly what moral relativism entails, the consequences of taking it seriously, and finally the benefits if the theory were implemented.
For Cultural Relativism, it is perfectly normal that something one culture sees as moral, another may see as immoral. There is no connection between them so they are never in conflict relative to their moral beliefs. However, within the context of Ethical Relativism there’s a significant difference. Normally, two cultures will possess varying proportions of the same normal and abnormal habits yet from a cross-cultural standpoint, what is abnormal in one culture can be seen as properly normal in an...