Thursday, December 23, 2010

Consensual Cannibalism is Less Wrong Than Childbirth

Tauriq Moosa argues that there's nothing wrong with eating somebody who wants to be eaten.

I proceed to tilt viciously in the direction of some dangerous windmills.

Also on 3 Quarks Daily, Tauriq's epic pessimist manifesto.

3 comments:

  1. Somewhat related, Downloading Nancy, one of the most resolutely bleak English-language films I've seen in a while.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Excellent article, and I agree with his main argument about cannibalism. But I'm a bit perplexed by two seemingly contradicting points he makes. The author argues for the virtues of being vegetarian, since the animals we eat do not give their consent, but then goes on to remind us that humans are no different from animals. Yet, we must not forget that lions don't ask consent from their victims, so why must we, as human animals, ask consent of the animals we will be ingesting?

    I think a stronger argument against eating meat can be found in the meat-as-a-commodity phenomenon that has arisen with the proliferation of factory farms.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Straw,

    The "(predatory) animals do it, so why can't humans do it, too" is precisely the reason why I believe ALL neurological life doesn't really deserve to exist: either you're a predator or prey (even the largest herbivores are hunted in teams by lions).

    I'm not advocating wanton hunting into extinction, but I am bringing up a reason why life - whatever beautiful moments in it we may enjoy - is not worth initiating.

    Having said that, I do agree that, due to strict nutritional requirement reasons (esp for children's need of protein), humans ought be able to eat animals if they so choose - though only the minimum amount required for good health. We may not be obligate carnivores like tigers and crocs, but (IMO) we're not obligate vegetarians either.

    ReplyDelete

Tweets by @TheViewFromHell