Proof the cannibalism was wrong [Mild Spoilers] - Alive (1993) Discussion

[–] wildthing226 10 years ago

What?!
Not everyone has a relative on the plane. Maybe he's advocating eating not eating survivors deceased relatives first. There would be a even deeper psychological trauma if they ate relatives first.

reply

[–] herbsuperb 10 years ago

wildthings said it. You don't eat a man's sister before eating somebody nobody cares about. Just not right, and might cause a rift between other survivors that they could ill afford. Besides. They weren't cannibals. They didn't kill anybody for sustenance. They simply ate human corpses because they were starving to death and had no other source of food. There is no wrong in it. But even in that situation the feelings of the other survivors should be respected. Hence, you if you can eat the corpse of somebody nobody was related to and don't really care about, do that first.

reply

[–] redban02 10 years ago

You don't eat a man's sister before eating somebody nobody cares about. Just not right, and might cause a rift between other survivors that they could ill afford.

But see, there's an inconsistency there that violates the laws (in ethics) called "Impartiality" and "Universalizability":

Universalizability: "whatever is right (or wrong) in one situation is right (or wrong) in any relevantly similar situation"

Impartiality: Make similar evaluations about similar actions, regardless of the individuals involved.

Ethan Hawke's character didn't want anyone to eat his sister; cannibalism in this situation was wrong. But then he advocates eating someone else. Suddenly, cannibalism becomes right. The situations and actions (i.e. cannibalism) is the same. The only difference is that the individuals involved are different. In one case, it involved his sister, someone he is partial to. In the other case, it involved a stranger, someone he is not partial to.

Clearly, he violated the law of impartiality, making his promotion of cannibalism invalid.

To put it another way:

The stranger whom they ate obviously has a family and friends at home who dearly love him, just as Ethan Hawke loved his sister (I don't understand how you say he is someone "nobody cares about").

If Ethan Hawke were at home and his sister were trapped in the mountains, he wouldn't condone anyone eating his sister. Likewise, the people at home, who love this stranger, wouldn't condone anyone eating their friend, brother, sister, father, or husband.

If the cannibalism is wrong in one situation, it doesn't become right because a stranger is involved.

reply

[–] herbsuperb 10 years ago

Universalizability: "whatever is right (or wrong) in one situation is right (or wrong) in any relevantly similar situation"

Impartiality: Make similar evaluations about similar actions, regardless of the individuals involved.

Just because somebody writes it, and names it, doesn't make it true or right. Think for yourself my friend. Different situations call for different actions and different feelings. If these people stuck to your rigid Philosophy 101 books, they'd all have died. Wine and Chocolate don't get you out of the mountains. Your writing screams 'liberal arts college freshman'. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.

Clearly, he violated the law of impartiality, making his promotion of cannibalism invalid.

Tell me. Why is he bound unto death to abide by the law some guy wrote in a book you read in the safety and comfort of your well provisioned school? What they were going through, and the actions they were forced by circumstance to resort to, were awful enough already. Having to subsist on a human corpse is unpleasant to most people by their very nature and the cultures they come from. Doing it to a person whom you knew in life and shared a close personal bond with is even less desirable. Like I said. In such a situation, people HAVE to get along as best they can. Eating the corpse of another survivors close relative, when other options were available, has the potential to create bad blood they could ill afford.

making his promotion of cannibalism invalid

Nobody was 'promoting' cannibalism. They were accepting the fact that if they did not derive much needed energy and strength from the materials available to them, those left alive were not going to survive.

The stranger whom they ate obviously has a family and friends at home who dearly love him

So? So what? At that particular moment in time the feelings of those far away people had no potential to negatively impact their situation. The law of survival will trump your books every time my friend. That is the nature of man. Perhaps you would sit there and die comforted by the fact that your rulebooks were upheld. But you've no right to ask others to die with you when there are options (however abhorrent and macabre they may be) available.

the people at home, who love this stranger, wouldn't condone anyone eating their friend, brother, sister, father, or husband.

Oh wow. That's rich. How could you possibly know that kid? Explain that to me. Did you call all the relatives of the people who died on the plane and ask them? What were their answers? Names and dates please? Yeah. I'm being a bit sarcastic now. But honestly. Don't boast about knowledge you could not possibly possess. Going to college doesn't instantly make you smart. It simply has a way of revealing how dumb you've always been.

If somebody (nobody would) called me up out of the blue and said they crashed in the mountains and my brothers/sister/mother/father were killed in the crash, and asked my permission to eat their corpses so that those that survived the crash might possibly survive (a ludicrous situation, because nobody in such a situation would do that, they would use that communication capability to secure a rescue) I would grant it. When a person is dead, their spirit (such as it is or may be) has flown. The corpse is simply meat. Calories. Sustenance. 'Yeah. If my sisters corpse can give you a chance to survive, and she's already dead, then by all means do it. Best of luck to you. Call me back if you need anything else.'

That's my answer.

If the cannibalism is wrong in one situation, it doesn't become right because a stranger is involved.

Necro-cannibalism is not wrong in this situation, regardless of who the corpse was when it was alive. But at that point they could afford to take the feelings of the dead person's relatives into consideration. So they did. What's your problem? Does this really bother you? Or are you just REALLY excited about what you're learning in Philosophy class? Trust me my friend, it won't help you in any concrete way. Go to business school. Go to engineering school. Something useful. I have a strong suspicion that your current course work will one day lead you to 'Barista School' and nothing further.

reply

[–] redban02 10 years ago

First:

I give no responses to the superfluous personal attacks (e.g. "Barista School," "Going to college doesn't instantly make you smart ... revealing how dumb you are," "liberal arts college freshman").

Second:

The laws of Universalizability and the laws of impartiality are not just philosophy that "somebody" (singular) wrote. They are principles touted by countless people, schools of thought, and religions throughout history. Hence, it commands influence. The only point you make is that "somebody" wrote it; you don't say whether the principles underlying both laws are right or wrong yourself. From a strictly common sense approach, these laws represent the most basic yet most noble idea -- Do to others what you would consent being done unto you if you were in the same situation. There is no reasonable opposition to it.

http://www.teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html

Third:

Tell me. Why is he bound unto death to abide by the law some guy wrote in a book you read in the safety and comfort of your well provisioned school?

Red-herring -- you don't know if I reside in "the safety and comfort of [a] well provisioned school," and even if that be true, how does it pertain to the main point outside of a personal attack?

He is not "bound unto death to abide by the law some guy wrote." He is bound unto death to abide by a (generally considered) honorable code of ethics that, again, countless people, schools of thought, and religions have touted since the beginning of recorded history. Are not virtue, goodness, love, uprighteousness, and consistency ideals worth dying for?

Nobody was 'promoting' cannibalism. They were accepting the fact that if they did not derive much needed energy and strength from the materials available to them, those left alive were not going to survive.

Cannibal means ": the eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of the same kind." Ethan Hawke's character was the first to raise the option of eating the corpses. Thus, he promoted cannibalism.

So? So what? At that particular moment in time the feelings of those far away people had no potential to negatively impact their situation.

"So? So what?" The ethical laws of universalizability and impartiality answer that question. Ethan Hawke's character didn't want anyone to eat his sister in this movie, so likely, if he (he, not you) were at home while his sister was dead in the snow, he wouldn't want anyone to eat his sister. But then he eats someone's else loved one, thereby exposing hypocrisy. He didn't do to others what he wants others to do for him.

If you want to promote cannibalism in this situation, then you cannot make distinctions between "my people" and "other people." You either let people eat everyone including your sister, or you don't let people eat anyone at all; otherwise, you're inconsistent and, therefore, wrong.

You might respond by saying that they were seeking survival, but again, "Are not virtue, goodness, love, uprighteousness, and consistency ideals worth dying for?"

Since you like philosophy, consider Socrates' death. If he were like you, he would have renounced his beliefs (and ruined his honor and respect) in order to live, since survival seems to supersede morality and ethics in your opinion. Instead, Socrates drank the poison to maintain consistency. Today, people universally praise him for that decision. His decision and the ensuing response show that values are worth dying for; survival is not the ultimate goal for man.

reply

[–] herbsuperb 10 years ago

I give no responses to the superfluous personal attacks (e.g. "Barista School," "Going to college doesn't instantly make you smart ... revealing how dumb you are," "liberal arts college freshman").

Ugh. Again with the crybabiness. What is it about IMDB and crybabies? You people spout ridiculous nonsense that you can't defend, then you whine about people being mean to you so you don't have to defend what you say. What gives?

The laws of Universalizability and the laws of impartiality are not just philosophy that "somebody" (singular) wrote. They are principles touted by countless people, schools of thought

So is Christianity. So is Islam. Am I, or you, or anybody else bound to ascribe to their doctrines? Not in this country pal. And if that be true, then why are you the only one I've ever heard advance this ridiculous argument? Find me another. I challenge you. Prove that argument valid.

Red-herring -- you don't know if I reside in "the safety and comfort of [a] well provisioned school," and even if that be true, how does it pertain to the main point outside of a personal attack?

Because to you, who can afford a computer, and the time to debate this nonsense, and therefore needn't concern yourself with simple things like having no food, these rules may seem like they apply. Not to everyone, and not to every situation. Different situations call for different actions. Your 'universawhatever' does not apply to everything. There is nothing wrong with a human being consuming dead human flesh to survive when no other options are available. There is likewise, nothing wrong with asking if a person who has just eaten human flesh took it from a relative you previously loved dearly, when other, less emotional options are available.

Are not virtue, goodness, love, uprighteousness, and consistency ideals worth dying for?

Perhaps, but those ideals were never under threat in that situation. Breaking a cultural taboo, is preferable to certain death. Surely you must realize that human flesh is indeed consumable, and digestible to human beings. We are naturally built with the capacity to consume human flesh and derive sustenance from it. Nature also compels us not to, in order to ensure the survival of the species. But in desperate situations, those natural proclivities can quite easily be overcome. If nature had not intended those options to be exploited in situations of dire need, then those natural proclivities would be impossible for people to overcome. Are you denying the nature of mankind? If so, explain why.

"So? So what?" The ethical laws of universalizability and impartiality answer that question.

No they don't. You simply wish they did. You are putting WAY to much thought into a simple question. The character did not DEMAND, or WRITE LAWS that said THOU SHALT NOT EATETH MINE SISTER! He simply asked a question. Did you ever hear of this again? At the end of the film, perhaps they had eaten the corpse of his deceased sister. Who knows? I'm honestly asking, as I've not read the book in a long time, and don't recall. You obviously know all of the feelings of all of the parties involved, so you tell me.

If you want to promote cannibalism in this situation, then you cannot make distinctions between "my people" and "other people." You either let people eat everyone including your sister, or you don't let people eat anyone at all; otherwise, you're inconsistent and, therefore, wrong.

So go and arrest him if it's so important to you. Charge him with a crime. I'd have to ask what crime, because 'violating the laws of universialitization and impartialimikation in a life-or-death survival situation' is not going to cut the cheese my friend. If you tried, those wretched, starving people would muster the energy to bellow out a good hearty laugh, and then kick you out of their Godforsaken valley.

You might respond by saying that they were seeking survival, but again, "Are not virtue, goodness, love, uprighteousness, and consistency ideals worth dying for?"

Again, NONE of those virtues are threatened by consuming dead flesh of deceased human beings. If it can save the lives of survivors, let it be done. Where is this coming from? Seriously, explain to me why you think this is such a big deal? Why do you insist on condemning people to death to uphold your rigid philosophies, when you have NEVER faced their situation. I say that as fact, and know it to be true.

Today, people universally praise him for that decision.

I don't. That was stupid. Think of the good things he might have done, had he lived. Besides. Socrates was ancient when he died. Estimated to have been over 70. In that time, few lived that long. He probably knew he wasn't sacrificing all that much. So he made his choice. So be it. The people on that mountain, were young, and fit, and in the prime of their lives. They had a great deal left to live for, and weren't going to throw away their lives, rather than eat a dead piece of edible tissue. You wouldn't either pal, and you know it.

If you and I were stranded somewhere, with no food and little hope of rescue, I'd eat you after you were dead. Beats starving to death. Face their situation and then tell me different. Or wait, like an imbecile, you'd be dead. Then what good would you be to anybody?

First:

I give no responses to the superfluous personal attacks (e.g. "Barista School," "Going to college doesn't instantly make you smart ... revealing how dumb you are," "liberal arts college freshman").

You just did. No response is NO RESPONSE. The fact that you bothered to address it at all speaks a great deal about you.

Red-herring -- you don't know if I reside in "the safety and comfort of [a] well provisioned school," and even if that be true, how does it pertain to the main point outside of a personal attack?

There it is again. :-).

reply

[–] redban02 10 years ago

There is nothing wrong with a human being consuming dead human flesh to survive when no other options are available. There is likewise, nothing wrong with asking if a person whose just eaten human flesh took it from a relative you previously loved dearly, when other, less emotional options are available.

*sigh*

Again, the two sentences here are inconsistent! The two sentences here are inconsistent! The two sentences here are inconsistent!

I'll explain this as slowly and clearly as I may.

Under the principle of impartiality, all persons must be treated equally. I assume that you don't object to the principle of impartiality, that you believe all persons must be treated equally. So let's agree that all persons must be treated equally pursuant to the law of impartiality, okay?

Now, if you agree with the principle of impartiality, then cannibalism to survive cannot be ethical in one situation and unethical in another situation, where the only difference is the people (or corpses involved).

Otherwise, it's not impartial! And if its not impartial, then its inconsistent. And if a belief, argument, or idea is inconsistent, then that belief argument, or idea is wrong and needs to change.

I'll put it into bullet-points to repeat:

1) The principle of impartiality entails that situations must be evaluated identically, regardless of the people involved.

2) If consuming dead human flesh to survive is ethical, then under the principle of impartiality, consuming any corpse must be ethical, regardless of the people (or corpses) involved.

3) In the movie, the characters feel it is unethical to consume one specific corpse (the sister) and not another; the standard changed with the people (or corpses) involved.

4) Therefore, consuming dead human flesh to survive is not ethical.

reply

[–] herbsuperb 10 years ago

Under the principle of impartiality, all persons must be treated equally.

They're not. Yeah, I said it. They're not treated equally. Perhaps in advanced nations, the LAW is required to treat everybody equally. But there was no LAW out there but what those people came up with for themselves. They decided it was okay to eat their dead friends, because they wanted to live, and had NO OTHER CHOICE. No government or law enforcement agency prosecuted them for that after the fact. Why do you suppose that is? If you universal law says it was wrong, why were they not charged with a crime. What are YOU going to do about it?

People are treated differently every day, all over the world. The reason is.....get ready.......WAIT FOR IT........PEOPLE ARE ****ING DIFFERENT! If everybody were exactly the same in every conceivable way, then maybe your little 'impartiality law' would serve us well. But they're not, and you have to treat different people differently.

Do you buy a book as a gift for a one year old child, simply because you bought a book for your disabled grandfather? You should. Under your cute little law, you should. Though it wouldn't make any sense at all because a one year old child cannot read. Get it?

So let's agree that all persons must be treated equally pursuant to the law of impartiality, okay?

Uh. NO!

I assume that you don't object to the principle of impartiality, that you believe all persons must be treated equally.

Nope. That's a bull**** law that only ultra-liberals believe in. You have a weird problem with assumptions. But that's okay. We all do.

The principle of impartiality entails that situations must be evaluated identically, regardless of the people involved.

That's stupid and asinine. Different situations call for different actions. Eating the dead pilot will cause absolutely no immediate danger or strained emotions to anybody relevant to the current situation. Nobody cared about the pilot, because he crashed the plane, and nobody knew him or was related to him. Eat him first. Deal with the ramifications (whatever they may be) LATER. After everybody is safely away from the life-threatening situation. Avoid eating relatives of the people on the plane for the time being, because it's simply not necessary to cause somebody actually IN that situation undue stress, when other options are available. That's all there is to it my good chum.

Like I said. You have NO idea how it panned out later on. Perhaps Ethan Hawke's character changed his mind when they started running out of other things to eat. All the guy did, was ASK whether his friend had partaken of her flesh. Was it necessary? Probably not. Did it really matter? Not really. But IT'S A ****ING MOVIE!!! Get over it. The simple fact is that in a survival situation, it is EXTREMELY important that the survivors do not turn on each other. When a person is grieving over the death of a dearly loved relative, you don't consume their flesh, while other corpses are available. Give the bereaved party a chance to come to terms with their death, and if it is necessary to consume the flesh of the deceased, don't tell them about it if it can be avoided. These are simple, and reasonable accommodations to make to help ensure that survival of all parties involved.

2) If consuming dead human flesh to survive is ethical, then under the principle of impartiality, consuming any corpse must be ethical, regardless of the people (or corpses) involved.

You are assuming this is 100% truth. It's not. You want it to be, but it's not. You read it in a book somewhere, or some Phil 101 professor told it to you, so you assume that everybody has to live that way, and that it is 'universal'. You obviously have no understanding of cultures beyond your own. If you did, you would understand how VASTLY different the laws and customs people live by throughout the world are. What is true and right for some, may not be true and right for others. Women in Africa walk around topless, and women in western cultures don't. Who is right? Tell me, right now, who is right? Not only that, but explain why. If you dodge or weave on that one, I will press you on it, so just get it over with.

reply

[–] redban02 10 years ago

They're not. Yeah, I said it. They're not treated equally. Perhaps in advanced nations, the LAW is required to treat everybody equally. But there was no LAW out there but what those people came up with for themselves. They decided it was okay to eat their dead friends, because they wanted to live, and had NO OTHER CHOICE. No government or law enforcement agency prosecuted them for that after the fact. Why do you suppose that is? If you universal law says it was wrong, why were they not charged with a crime. What are YOU going to do about it?

People are treated differently every day, all over the world. The reason is.....get ready.......WAIT FOR IT........PEOPLE ARE ****ING DIFFERENT! If everybody were exactly the same in every conceivable way, then maybe your little 'impartiality law' would serve us well. But they're not, and you have to treat different people differently.

Do you buy a book as a gift for a one year old child, simply because you bought a book for your disabled grandfather? You should. Under your cute little law, you should. Though it wouldn't make any sense at all because a one year old child cannot read. Get it?

Straw man.

The law of impartiality means you make identical judgments in any exactly or relevantly similar case, regardless of the individuals involved. Buying a book for a child is not an "exactly or relevantly similar case" as buying a book for a disabled grandfather, per common sense.

Women in Africa walk around topless, and women in western cultures don't. Who is right? Tell me, right now, who is right? Not only that, but explain why. If you dodge or weave on that one, I will press you on it, so just get it over with.

Fallacious false analogy -- comparing ethics with clothing styles / norms.

Eating the dead pilot will cause absolutely no immediate danger or strained emotions to anybody relevant to the current situation. Nobody cared about the pilot, because he crashed the plane, and nobody knew him or was related to him. Eat him first.

Avoid eating relatives of the people on the plane for the time being, because it's simply not necessary to cause somebody actually IN that situation undue stress, when other options are available. That's all there is to it my good chum.

*sigh*

Again, you're giving this inconsistency; you're going in circles.

Whether you eat the pilot or you eat the sister, cannibalism for survival is done. The situation is exactly or relevantly similar, with the only difference being the individuals concerned.

They eat the pilot because, as you say, "Nobody cared about the pilot ... nobody knew him or was related him." Here, eating the pilot is right because nobody feels stressed after eating him.

But then you say, "Avoid eating relatives" (i.e. the sister) because it creates "undue stress." The "undue stress" resulting from eating the sister means the cannibalism here isn't right.

What's right in one case becomes wrong in another exactly or relevantly similar case. This change marks an inconsistency, which means the view is wrong. The only ways you can make this inconsistency consistent is:

1) Make cannibalizing everyone permissible.
Or
2) Prohibit cannibalizing anyone.

But you cannot make exceptions for certain people without asserting your inconsistency and wrongfulness.

reply

[–] herbsuperb 10 years ago

The law of impartiality means you make identical judgments in any exactly or relevantly similar case, regardless of the individuals involved. Buying a book for a child is not an "exactly or relevantly similar case" as buying a book for a disabled grandfather, per common sense.

Buying a book as a gift is the identical situation in both cases. In the first case you are 'buying a book as a gift'. In the second case you are 'buying a book as a gift'. The child, and the elderly gentlemen are two different people, whom you say should be treated identically, because the situations are identical. So you've just admitted that it is right and proper to treat the two people differently, by the simple virtue that they are different people. Your phony baloney law just flew right out the window kid.

Fallacious false analogy -- comparing ethics with clothing styles / norms

What makes the consumption of dead human tissue as food (to avoid starvation) any more or less a 'moral' issue than walking around topless? Explain.

Whether you eat the pilot or you eat the sister, cannibalism for survival is done. The situation is exactly or relevantly similar, with the only difference being the individuals concerned.

No. It's not. Different emotions are driven by the two different situations. If you eat the corpse of a beloved relative, you enhance the negative emotions already present. In a survival situation one should avoid that, because it decreases everybody's chances of survival. Eating the corpse of a man nobody shares a close personal bond with, doesn't do that, and is therefore the better option. What about that can't you understand? Explain, as if you don't live in a pie-in-the-sky theoretical academia driven world. The folks on that plane lived in a very REAL world. You would do well to put yourself in THEIR situation before passing judgment on them.

But you cannot make exceptions for certain people without asserting your inconsistency and wrongfulness.

Survival and a need for harmonious relationships among the survivors trumps your 'inconsistency and wrongfulness' in this situation. If they were all sitting in a Berkley coffee house, things would be different, and the decisions we've been discussing would not be necessary. They weren't. They were sitting in the middle of the mountains, with no food, no transportation other than what their own personal strength could muster (which requires sustenance of some kind), and no clear picture of when their situation might change for the better. Your little philosophy books mean NOTHING to them. As well they shouldn't. Go study something useful for a change. Oratory and debate are apparently not in your wheelhouse.

Proof the cannibalism was wrong

Still haven't seen any. Show me the statute they violated. Show me the court documents. Show me their conviction. What were they charged with. THAT kind of stuff is a lot closer to 'proof' of wrongdoing than your cute little 'law of impartiality' bit. Or that universe thing.

reply

[–] redban02 10 years ago

Buying a book as a gift is the identical situation in both cases. In the first case you are 'buying a book as a gift'. In the second case you are 'buying a book as a gift'. The child, and the elderly gentlemen are two different people, whom you say should be treated identically, because the situations are identical. So you've just admitted that it is right and proper to treat the two people differently, by the simple virtue that they are different people. Your phony baloney law just flew right out the window kid.

The situation is not "exactly or relevantly similar" because of the obvious IQ / personal tastes / mental development between a child and an elderly gentlemen, particularly the ability of one to enjoy the book versus the inability of the other to enjoy that book. To be "exactly or relevantly similar" in the example of buying a book as a gift, both would need a similar taste for books.

The principle of impartiality doesn't ignore differences in age, class, sex, intelligence levels, or gender etc. It never has, and it never will. Anyone saying that it does is merely misrepresenting it for their own sake (i.e. straw man). The principle of impartiality negates, primarily, personal predilections and prejudices.

What makes the consumption of dead human tissue as food (to avoid starvation) any more or less a 'moral' issue than walking around topless? Explain.

Violence is more harmful than indecent exposure. Fallacious faulty analogy. This subject about topless people is drifting too far from the subject (viz. Was cannibalism right or wrong in this movie).

If you eat the corpse of a beloved relative, you enhance the negative emotions already present. In a survival situation one should avoid that, because it decreases everybody's chances of survival.

Eating the corpse of a man nobody shares a close personal bond with, doesn't do that, and is therefore the better option. What about that can't you understand?

This is about the 5th time you've brought this inconsistency despite my explaining it away each time so far.

The situation is "exactly or relevantly similar" because cannibalism remains cannibalism. The sister's corpse and the pilot's corpse provides the same meat, which they need for survival. It is, again, "exactly or relevantly similar."

ONE:
With this sister, as you now say, eating her corpse "enhance[s] the negative emotions already present" (Whether or not they should avoid the negative emotions to increase chance of survival is irrelevant to this discussion. What's important in this argument is that the negative emotions occur) The negative emotions in reaction to eating the sister shows that cannibalism isn't morally right. If it were so, then why the "negative emotions"?

TWO:
Now, while eating the sister's corpse isn't right, eating the pilot's corpse is supposedly morally permissible because "nobody shares a close personal bond with" him, so no negative emotions are aroused.

Hence, there is an inconsistency between ONE and TWO. The situation, again, is "exactly or relevantly similar" because cannibalism / survival occurs, whether they eat the sister or the pilot. But, one case is permissible while the other is forbidden solely because of partiality. If cannibalism for survival were legitimate right, then no one would feel "negative emotions" upon eating the sister. But they do feel negative emotions. For morality or consistency's sake, they need to avoid all cannibalism.

Survival and a need for harmonious relationships among the survivors trumps your 'inconsistency and wrongfulness' in this situation.

Depends on beliefs. Is virtue / goodness / righteousness not worth dying for?

If cannibalizing your sister is wrong, then cannibalizing someone else's sister isn't right. We go back to the Golden Rule again.

Still haven't seen any. Show me the statute they violated. Show me the court documents. Show me their conviction. What were they charged with. THAT kind of stuff is a lot closer to 'proof' of wrongdoing than your cute little 'law of impartiality' bit. Or that universe thing.

Did I ever bring up the legal system? "Right" and "Wrong" in my usage means moral or immoral, ethical or unethical. No one has brought up statutes and courts besides you, for whatever reason.

reply

[–] herbsuperb 10 years ago

The situation is not "exactly or relevantly similar" because of the obvious IQ / personal tastes / mental development between a child and an elderly gentlemen

So now you just cherry pick which parts of your laws you want to follow to suit your situation? Not very universal of you, is it?

You said:

Under the principle of impartiality, all persons must be treated equally.

So....now you're just full of **** I guess. You left no ambiguity, and expect none of others, yet now you just do whatever suits your current purpose. Answer for this inconsistency.

Violence is more harmful than indecent exposure. Fallacious faulty analogy. This subject about topless people is drifting too far from the subject (viz. Was cannibalism right or wrong in this movie).

Oh now you've done it kid. You've gone off the rails. I thought maybe there was hope for you. You at least try to speak intelligently about things you know little about. But now you've gone off into 'complete idiot' territory. My respect for you just plummeted to rock bottom. Just so I don't leave you in suspense, let me tell you why.

Ahem.......THERE WAS NO ****ING VIOLENCE IN THIS MOVIE!!!!

Did that get through? Nobody KILLED anybody to eat their flesh. All those whose flesh was consumed were ALREADY DEAD! That's called necro-cannibalism, and some other things, and it is NOT WRONG in this situation. The situation called for it, in order to preserve life (one of those virtuous activities you seem so fond of).

You just lost kid. You are wrong, and you are stupid. You sunk yourself. I knew if I strung you along enough, you would. Your kind always does. Your non stop stream of bull**** never bears much scrutiny. You're no different. I win and you lose. Nothing more to say. But I'll humor you for the time being. Your weak arguments amuse me.

This is about the 5th time you've brought this inconsistency despite my explaining it away each time so far.

You explained nothing. I'm not convinced. What you are saying is wrong, and you spout nonsense that doesn't support it, and then say it's supported. Try again.

Hence, there is an inconsistency between ONE and TWO.

There SHOULD be inconsistency, because the situations have differences. Different situations call for different actions and different emotions. I don't care what your stupid little book of laws says, because your interpretation of it is horse****. What about that can't you understand? Things are different. People do different things for different reasons. To achieve your 'perfect consistency' would amount to sitting in a sealed room until you die. That's not life my friend, not that you'd know a life if you saw it.

Is virtue / goodness / righteousness not worth dying for?

So go ahead and die to uphold those things. Most people would rather live. That's their choice, not yours, and you are in no place to make judgments. What gives you that right. What qualifications give you the right to pass judgments on people who faced certain death, when you have not. Explain.

But, one case is permissible while the other is forbidden solely because of partiality.

Who said it was "Forbidden". Answer that question, or the line of argument is invalid.

If cannibalizing your sister is wrong

It's not. It's just not something a close relative wants to see. So avoid it in their presence if possible, and it was. The emotional impact is lesser with distance, and time. The relatives of the pilot, will not be as strongly affected, if they learn later their relative was consumed by the survivors, than the people who were right there watching it happen. It's not wrong, morally or otherwise, it is simply unpleasant to see. Do you understand that?

then cannibalizing someone else's sister isn't right

Sure it is, when done to preserve a person's life when no other options are available.

Did I ever bring up the legal system? "Right" and "Wrong" in my usage means moral or immoral, ethical or unethical. No one has brought up statutes and courts besides you, for whatever reason.

So now you believe that the justice is NOT intended to reflect the morality and culture of the people it applies to? Is that it? You're wrong again. Our laws reflect our morals and values. If the law says that the consumption of corpses by the crash survivors was not unlawful, then that decision is surely based in the moral consciousness of the people who made the laws.

Seriously. That 'violence' bit really sunk you my idiot friend. You have a flawed perception of reality, and live in a world of theory. Get your head out of the clouds and join us in the real world. Your Phil 101 professors have filled your head with garbage, and you've swallowed it hook, line and sinker. Have the last word. I know your kind well enough to know how much you CRAVE the last word in an argument you've lost. Take it. You've been outed (or rather outed yourself) as a complete ****ing buffoon. Mission accomplished. Have a nice day. I honestly can't figure why you are so intent on defending this indefensible position. Just your way I suppose. A stupid way, for sure.

Answer me one question kid. One simple question. I'll not respond to it since there really is no point. Your idiocy has been thoroughly demonstrated. I'm just being nice and giving you something to ponder.

Say you knew that your relative died in a plane crash, in which there were survivors found after a long time had passed. You knew your relative was NOT among the survivors. Beyond that you know very little about the series of events that unfolded. Now, say that a survivor of the crash contacts you, and you agree to meet, to learn something about the ordeal that took your loved one. During this meeting you learn that your relative's corpse, along with others, was consumed after he/she had passed, in order that the others mights survive. Now tell me, which situation would cause you more negative emotional stress:

#1: Hearing of the act, long after it happeend, and long after you were already aware your relative was dead or
#2: Sitting and watching it happen, as it happened, only a short while after your loved one passed into death.

Imagine, if you can, it is somebody VERY close to you that you care deeply about. Simple question, and I expect a simple and honest answer. Think about it. You quote me some stupid history or philosophy lesson, that just proves you cannot tackle the question head on, and are a dishonest coward. We are dealing with emotions here, not with schoolbooks and academia.

reply

[–] redban02 10 years ago

Have the last word.

No need -- The rampant personal / denigrating attacks on your part have soured this discussion too much for my liking. There's a reason they call person attacks a fallacy ("Argument Ad Hominem"). You think you're making an argument by name-calling and such, but you're really not.

reply

[–] herbsuperb 10 years ago

No need -- The rampant personal / denigrating attacks on your part have soured this discussion too much for my liking. There's a reason they call person attacks a fallacy ("Argument Ad Hominem"). You think you're making an argument by name-calling and such, but you're really not.

Translation: 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭

I knew you couldn't let it lie. Your type never can. 'No need' my foot. Not only are you horribly wrong, you are also pridefully wrong. I'd wager you consider yourself somehow too evolved, or otherwise above such things. That's a laugh. Well, let's try it again.

reply