Michael Sandel, professor of philosophy at Harvard University recently gave a lecture discussing the morality of murder. He offers his audience a number of situations in which they are asked to determine the fate of others. This exercise created a utilitarian debate that is not new practice in philosophy. However, the discussion became more complex when he broached the subject of cannibalism.
Is there a case for cannibalism? Are there any situations that may warrant cannibalistic behavior?
Sandel utilizes a famous law case from the 19th century to give substance to the debate. A shipwrecked crew of four is lost at sea. After 19 days, the captain decides to kill the cabin boy, the weakest amongst them, so they can feed on his blood and body to survive. What would you do if you were the captain? What if you were a member of the crew? What if you were the cabin boy? Can cannibalism be justified with utilitarian beliefs?
Sandel raises some interesting points… Check out the video and let me know what you think.
My metaphorical God! I haven’t cringed so hard in a long time. I’m talking about some of the student’s answers…
Would consent or a lottery make it morally permissible/justified he asks? Utilitarianism? Categorical moral-ism? How does one go about answering that question? How does one say that a thing is a thing is wrong or right? The answer, practically speaking, is to look and understand the situation and then check to see whether we feel good or at least not bad about it. Nobody checks with the moral theory they subscribe to when making this moral pronouncements, even when the moral theory they subscribe to is normative in nature. They fight for the theory. Argue about it. Say it’s the right one, or at least the least wrong, but they don’t ever really use it in the way they say it’s purposed for. Think about it. You know it to be true. It’s a sham. A post hoc lie.
My conclusion therefore is that that which is said to be morally permissible, right, good, just is also that which we at the very least don’t feel bad about. The end point of this kind of conversation is to come up with a theory that yields answers which don’t deviate from our knee jerk moral sentiments. But the one thing I don’t get is why when people want to say that something is right, they appeal to the theories themselves, and not actually the foundation upon which those theories rest and the very thing by virtue of which a moral answer is generated, namely sentiment. It’s not a principle that generates these moral answers in people, although I guess you can generalize some principle to describe mankind’s uniform sentiments. It’s not a theory, and it’s not “right” or “permissible.” it’s just, “I don’t feel bad about this.”
Going from “I don’t like this” to “IT, the act itself, perhaps even categorically, is wrong” is not only unjustified, but also, and more significantly, a means of psychological coercion. Saying, “THAT is right,” instead of “my sentiments don’t really have a problem with it” is a way of convincing others to think your way about an issue, because you’re not merely expressing what you feel (which is all you’re epistemologically justified in doing); you’re pronouncing final judgment on the act itself, how it ought to be seen. Then we get into discussions of how the act or acts similar to this ought to be seen by all. Rightness and wrongness. It’s wrong to see it this way, right to see it that way, and to me this whole thing is like trying to show that it’s right to like broccoli and wrong to like pizza. It’s just a matter of taste.
So how do you choose? I presume the given prejudice is upon the cabin boy, even though the biggest man would feed them all for longer? Who would be the last survivor, if there was a woman I presume it would be her?
Another question is that one would have to live with it for the rest of your life, is it not better to die moral that to live immoral?
But we’re not necessarily talking about making laws, we’re talking about making decisions in a very specific set of circumstances. We don’t necessarily make laws to determine what’s rational from a moral perspective - more the other way around, and based at least in part on specifics not outlined in the more simplified scenario with which we’re here presented. Under law, murder is not permitted, but law is logically black and white whereas morality is rife with contextual grey areas where things like human sentiment (as per XZC above) inevitably preside. Law is arbitrary - morality is subjective. To declare that the act of cannibalism is intrinsically wrong ALL THE TIME is a rationally arbitrary judgment to make. The fundamental question from a MORAL perspective (as opposed to a legal one) becomes: should human flesh be considered sacrosanct simply because it’s human? If you say yes, you need to make a rationally feasible moral argument as to why. That’s when the absolutist (the one who answers yes) either relents or falls back on scriptural dogma of some sort.
How about; is the eating of human flesh ok? E.g. if someone is already dead then why not eat them ~ generally.
that’s the standard for the moral right? What happens if the cabin boy doesn’t want to be either killed or eaten. Imagine the scenario whereby he has to die as there is a limited amount of food, would it still be ok to eat him after he has given up his life so you can all eat what rations are left.
Though I think these sorts of scenarios are useful and thought-provoking, I also think there is an analogy to be made here to the maxim, “Hard cases make bad laws.”
When you find yourself in severe moral conundrums, it is “moral” to act upon your assessment given in terms of the details.
But I don’t think the assessments made in such contexts relate well to explications of everyday morality (i.e. where we all (I broadly assume) live 99.44% of our lives and make the choices which define the greater part of ourselves). They certainly expose technical issues about moral rationality, but at the same time, they’re poor referents upon which to build our more general thoughts and perspectives.
Mixing those two parts you get this: “unless you are to eat His flesh and drink His blood you have no life in you” (Jn 6:52ish)
Jesus being considered by some to be the ultimate moral right Let’s get the corpses on the tea-table and our finest cultery.
On a related note, wasn’t it Peter Griffin who upon drinking communion wine said, “Jeez this is the blood of Christ, that guy must have been permanently wasted”.
Haha, nice sayings, I think the first one is about bread and wine, so by eating you become one with the body of christ, or something like that. Second one is a classic.
Let’s get the corpses on the tea-table and our finest cultery.