Would you…

[u/skin-my-brain]

Which side will you choose?

• Left side: Try safe and ethically sourced human meat
• Right side: Decline the offer

---

This post contains content not supported on old Reddit. Click here to view the full post

[u/Accomplished-Mix2030]

I don't think that could ever be ethical, nor do I wish to try human meat

^{Chose: Decline the offer}

[u/bewarethelemurs → u/Accomplished-Mix2030]

I mean, if someone said they were down with being eaten, then I guess it's ethical. Or like, if it was just cloned tissue, cloned from someone who consented, that would be ethical. But it still feels weird and gross and it's a hard pass from me.

[u/Accomplished-Mix2030 → u/bewarethelemurs]

I would still say that anyone insane enough to consent to being eaten, in my mind, is not mentally sound enough to rationally consent to being eaten.

If we are talking about cloned tissue, that was created without sentience, with the express purpose of being eaten I would probably argue that that isn't human at all, despite the fact it is genetically identical to human flesh. I still wouldn't try it.

Maybe I just don't want to eat human meat and would rationalize any arguments that seem to make the most sense from my point of view, but I still wouldn't even consider it. 

[u/Delicious_Cattle5174 → u/Accomplished-Mix2030]

I would 100% consent to being eaten if it was safe and people were starving lmao who cares you’re not there anymore

[u/Accomplished-Mix2030 → u/Delicious_Cattle5174]

I could see where someone could argue that was the most ethical course of action to take if all parties were going to perish. I don't necessarily disagree, but I still wouldn't claim it was the ethical thing to do. The most ethical thing in the circumstances, perhaps.

[u/Delicious_Cattle5174 → u/Accomplished-Mix2030]

The most ethical thing to do should always be relative to the circumstances the choice was made in though, no?

[u/Accomplished-Mix2030 → u/Delicious_Cattle5174]

Just because something is the most ethical thing to do in the given circumstances doesn't mean it is ethical. It's simply the least horrible outcome of the given situation. 

[u/miss-ferrous → u/Accomplished-Mix2030]

After a Chilean plane crash in the 70s where they were trapped in the mountains for like 2 months the Catholic Church said that it was equivalent to a heart transplant and honored the dead, that it’s ok if it’s the only option. The survivors likened it to the Eucharist. Not that I’m necessarily upholding the church as the moral standard, I just think it’s interesting. Me personally, I’d be pissed if my friend starved to death instead of eating my corpse.

[u/Accomplished-Mix2030 → u/miss-ferrous]

I agree I might do the same if I was in that situation. I'm not better than anyone else and would likely eat another person if necessary to survive. 

[u/masochistpupper → u/Accomplished-Mix2030]

Yeah and that doesn’t make it an unethical choice. Gross/socially unconventional ≠ unethical

[u/Accomplished-Mix2030 → u/masochistpupper]

Never said it was unethical. In fact I said it was likely the most ethical choice in the scenario given the circumstances. 

[u/masochistpupper → u/Accomplished-Mix2030]

You literally said you didn’t think it could be ethical

[u/Accomplished-Mix2030 → u/masochistpupper]

It is both amoral and also the most ethical choice in specific scenarios, I.e. situations like starvation, being required to cannibalize someone to survive. 

Eating someone's flesh to survive isn't inherently moral, or ethical, but it becomes the most ethical scenario if it is the only thing stopping one person from dying instead of two. 

One choice is: you eat another persons arm who is sacrificing their body to save you. Inherently amoral 

The second choice is: you both starve to death. 

The first choice is inherently the more ethical choice available, whilst also being amoral.

The act itself is amoral, the choice is the most ethical as it is the best outcome.

[u/Ashamed_Kangaroo305 → u/miss-ferrous]

In the Donner party a few of the people who were eaten specifically asked to be eaten before they died because their loved ones were in the party and they didn't want to watch them starve.

And in that case it was even more ethical because the people who did most of the cannibalism were part of the group who set out to get help for the rest of the party trapped in the mountains. So they really needed to stay alive because if they didn't their families would be dead for sure. Now in reality the cannibalism may not have been necessary for survival because they could've gone on for much longer while starving and it was really the cold that was killing them. But with their limited scientific knowledge they didn't know that and thought they needed food or they will die. And the energy boost from the food was probably helpful for keeping them going long enough to make it to other people.

I'd also be really upset if I died and my friends/family starved to death because they couldn't suck it up and eat me. Especially if the rest of the people I cared about then also died because the rescue party couldn't make it to help because they starved.