are morals relative? and if so why can't i eat humans?

Question

its just like eating animals , only society doesn't accept it right?

Answer 1

Have you seen what humans eat. Its disgusting. You would not want to eat anything that ate the way that they do.

Love and blessings Don

Answer 2

Yes indeed morals are relative unless there are some sort of guidelines to absolutely state what is right and what is wrong, I am a Christian (by the way I am not trying to push Christianity here, just answering the question), as a Christian I rely upon and believe the Bible to be my guide for what is acceptable and what is not, whereas others do not, so in one culture, something may be acceptable, and in others it may not. In this country it is not acceptable to eat humans...

JB

Answer 3

All existents, whether they be physical objects or mental phenomena, laws of physics or morals/ethics, are relative . . .

But that doesn't mean that just because virtually everything is relative, that they aren't concrete in the way that they operate in relation to everything else. For example, directions might be relative, ultimately speaking -- "north" makes no sense without "south", and both are arbitrary in the larger scheme of things -- but that doesn't change the functionality of understanding that Canada is north of the United States. Just because direction is ultimately relative, you won't get to Chicago from St. Louis if you head south (assuming you don't want to traverse the south pole lol).

Exactly the same applies to morals. Often when people hear that morals are relative, they conclude that that means that they have no meaning whatsoever. But this is like, again, concluding that just because the calender is relative, that you could celebrate Christmas on June 3rd. Morals may ultimately be relative, but they have concrete ways in which they work within the relative structure of this world, just as everything else does. And just as you can't escape the realities of direction by tossing up your hands and declaring direction to be relative, or renounce feelings just because they are relative, or speed just because the speed limit is relative, or burn your money just because money is relative, you can't escape the realities of morals just by saying they too are relative.

Morals exist for various reasons, and there are reasons for how and why they work as they do. But that would take forever to address here. The important point is that they are not merely arbitrary, they have a logic, purpose, and functionality, just as virtually everything in this world do. If it were otherwise, there would be no way to account for their existence, or why so many human beings share basic moral values, such as that eating humans is wrong. Just saying that because some human beings out there might feel that eating other humans is morally acceptable, that we should be able to eat a human without compunction is like saying that just because some humans don't use US dollars, that we should be able to buy a Big Mac in Denver using Rwandan francs.

For most of us, eating humans would be immoral for a vast number of reasons, many of which we are probably not even aware. But just because these reasons may ultimately be relative, we have no power -- if we wish to remain functional human beings -- to completely ignore them anymore than we could excuse being late to work everyday by declaring time to be relative.

Answer 4

Morals are not relative. The word "moral" refers to a ethical statement that is held throughout a group of people.

You can eat humans-- that is to say that you are not ontologically prevented from doing so. However, the logical consequences of such an action include your own imprisonment and possibly death at the hands of other humans.

Answer 5

You are confusing morality with legality.

Morals are completely relative because they are completely subjective.

Laws are not subjective....something is either legal or illegal.

When making laws we should not be basing them on subjective morals....but objective goals. What is the purpose of having laws? And does this specific law help us obtain that goal?

First and foremost the goal of the law should be to protect the rights of individuals from those that would violate them.

So while you may find a particular action immoral because of your personal morality, I don't think it should be illegal if that action is not interfering in the rights of someone else.

Answer 6

Morals are not relative. Eating humans exhibits a huge disrespect of others, ergo: you can't eat humans. If you are truly interested in that subject, I suggest you see a psychiatrist at once.

Answer 7

No, it's a bit more complex than that. Most carnivores eat herbivores by choice. It's actually toxic to eat a meat eating animal - even cannibals eat very little human flesh. It's considered a treat, not part of their everyday diet.
It's why we dont' eat lions etc as a matter of our everyday diet. (Besides the fact that lions, tigers and even humans would take strong exception to being eaten.)

Answer 8

A large part of the argument is the social taboo. There are, however, some health concerns I feel I should raise with you.
If you are serious about researching this subject, look up Laughing sickness, also known as Kuru (check the Wikipedia entry). I'm not trying to scare you with misinformation, just offer you a little more knowledge.
Good luck with your search.

Answer 9

Morals, as well as justice and many other things is relative. If you don't believe it, just listen to a mother defending her child, when she has no idea what he does behind her back. And even if she sees him doing it, most mothers will either defend his actions or be in denial that it happened. If you think that people don't eat each other you are very naive.

Answer 10

You can eat humans.

Just not HERE.

You're allowed to depending on the context.
1) Under extreme circumstances in order to survive
2) Cannibalist nations