Thread: Recycling people?

1) Most bacteria/virii have a limited lifespan outside of a living host. Also, of course you'd treat it like any other mean, properly prepared. Irradiation will kill most anything. Sure, diseases would be a worry, but they're a worry in any food preparation, and humans wouldn't be any different.

2) It may be against religions, but it is HARDLY against ethical theories. In fact, most if not all ethical theories would permit it, including Kantian, Utilitarian (both Rule- and Act-Utilitarianism), etc.

Plus, it's not even against religions. Judaism/Christianity explicitly permits it, in the Old Testament/Torah (presumably the Jews would have to prepare it Kosher though). The New Testament never forbids it. No religions believe that any soul remains in a body after death, so from a religious point of view, the person is already elsewhere, and whatever they leave behind might as well have some good use.

It would be highly unethical to murder a person for food, but I can't think of any way you could argue that it's unethical to eat a corpse that is already dead. They no longer exist or no longer inhabit that body, depending on your beliefs. Although you could argue that their body, like other possessions of theirs, would go to their next of kin, if the next of kin wanted to eat them, I don't think you should stop them.

A person IS a special and unique creature. But the body that remains after death is nothing more than a rapidly decomposing lump of flesh. Once dead, there's nothing different about a human corpse or a cow corpse besides some cosmetic differences. A corpse is as human as a rock; it deserves no special rights because once it held a person within. Like clothing, once discarded, it is nothing special.

Heck, if I had to choose what happens to my body, I would WANT it to be consumed by some living thing. As that's unlikely to happen (or at the very least, it would be slowed by casket, and embalming), I plan to be cremated. It sure beats being "preserved" by chemicals. Death is natural, and so is life living off of the dead. Every animal lives off of other living things' deaths, and as I have consumed to live, so I want to be consumed when I am dead; kind of a circle of life thing. If my body was not allowed to naturally decompose, it may as well be burned. As carbon dioxide and water, my body would at least provide for the trees, and eventually the atoms of my body would reenter the chain of life. I don't see this body as "mine" -- after all, all of the materials which make it up have come from other living things -- I'm just sort of leasing it for a while. When I'm done with it, I want to give back the stuff I've borrowed.

Honestly, I think embalming is, if not immoral, at least horrifying and unnatural. To attempt to preserve a person's body after they die always seemed to me to be a hideous mockery of life, a denial of what made the person special, and a denial of that person's death.

Christianity is CENTERED on cannibalism! Partaking in the flesh and blood of Christ is central to the masses/services.

And, in the RC church anyway, the Eucharist *is* the body and blood, it is NOT a representation or a reenactment, but is believed to BE the body and blood of Christ, in a physical sense as well as in a spiritual sense.

Re: Kant -- A corpse has no dignity. It's not human. Merely an object in a world of objects. It is not an end in itself, it is nothing more than nothing. Kant was concerned with people, not corpses. A corpse is not alive, it has neither right nor dignity.

And no, you could certainly not kill me under rule utilitarianism, and under act utilitarianism, your benefit from my death would have to exceed my loss, and the loss of anyone who cares about me/benefits from my existence, so you probably would not be allowed to, unless you REALLY benefitted. Murder in act utilitarianism is only allowed if it serves the "greater good" of all of humanity. I.e. it would be morally MANDATED to kill someone like Hitler, because his death would have a net positive effect on humanity as a whole. As most people's murders would have a net negative effect on society, their murder is morally forbidden.

Well, it would be nice (of course with the approval of the reciclee), but wouldn't cats or dogs get something like a "Mad kitten disease"?, well, I'm just considering what happened with the cattle

Oskilian

Originally posted by EvenFlow
I strongly disagree with humans eating humans. See my points earlier on why I feel this way. I can't believe that you, educated people, are seriously suggesting such a barbaric notion.

What does education have to do with beliefs? If you belive its morally wrong to eat human flesh then fine, that's no different from a vegetarians argument... but from a completely logical standpoint it makes perfect sense... at least it would if supermarkets weren't so widely available...

Sorry for not joining your discussions,
but I totally forgot, that I've sent this message here...

>>Recycling people is just wrong. What made you come up with this crazy idea?

Why wrong? Why crazy? I think it's a pretty good idea. Eating dead bodies isn't so ethical, but say me what's called "the ethics"? It means the thoughts of the most people. (OK, maby I'm not so good in english, but I truely hope, that you understood what I ment). If you're not satisfied with my opinion then you can just forget it. But for the others I say, that the old traditions have to change! Eg. there are hundreds of people dying in hunger, but this would be a good solution for that.

Do you really care what happends to your body after the death.

P.S.
Once more sorry for the misspelling...