Cannibalism is a topic that evokes both disgust and wonder; while the mere idea of eating human flesh is one that makes a person’s stomach twist and turn, it is also one that brings forth the question of how far humans are willing to go in order to survive - or how twisted they can sometimes become with their desires. The question that is always raised when speaking out about the topic of cannibalism is whether or not it is acceptable in our culture, despite the backlash behind it. Before one can truly discuss this topic, however, they must realize what exactly cannibalism is.
Cannibalism is defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary as “the (usually) ritualistic eating of human flesh by (another) human being.” One must recognize the emotions …show more content…
The early settlers who came during 1607 on the Susan Constant saw many signs of Native American tribes practicing the taboo, mainly due to religious beliefs and ceremonies. (NEED MORE INFORMATION AND A TRANSITION TO BOOK) Savage Harvest by Carl Hoffman is an extremely informative book detailing the events in which the journalist travels to find Michael Rockefeller who disappeared during 1961. This book describes Hoffman’s discovery of a tribe in New Guinea that practices cannibalism through various rituals, all with religious meanings. This book firmly supports the fact that cannibalism is indeed sometimes related to religion, moving on from death, and celebrating one’s life afterwards. This brings us to a reason why cannibalism should be more accepted in our society - religion. America was founded on religious tolerance and freedom and that belief is supposedly still carried on into our modern times. If cannibalism is an important factor in a person’s religion, then it should be accepted, otherwise said person’s religion is being discriminated against, and the bold claim of America been religiously open no longer holds true. Cannibalism has proven to be important to many religions when it comes to the burial process, as some believe that this helps the person carry on to the other life. By refusing to accept this belief …show more content…
Not all morals are alike, and someone’s morals that they consider correct could be seen as wrong by someone else. By this logic, using moral reasonings as an argument against cannibalism is simply unreliable. We cannot rely on the majority’s view of right or wrong because it does not fit the definition of everyone else’s. Another thing I would like to add to this is that, if a person consents to being eaten after they die, then that is something they view as correct. Who is society to deny them something that they see as right? This brings me to my final, most popular point that many people use to argue against cannibalism - committing murder in order to consume human
Cannibalism is defined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary as “the (usually) ritualistic eating of human flesh by (another) human being.” One must recognize the emotions …show more content…
The early settlers who came during 1607 on the Susan Constant saw many signs of Native American tribes practicing the taboo, mainly due to religious beliefs and ceremonies. (NEED MORE INFORMATION AND A TRANSITION TO BOOK) Savage Harvest by Carl Hoffman is an extremely informative book detailing the events in which the journalist travels to find Michael Rockefeller who disappeared during 1961. This book describes Hoffman’s discovery of a tribe in New Guinea that practices cannibalism through various rituals, all with religious meanings. This book firmly supports the fact that cannibalism is indeed sometimes related to religion, moving on from death, and celebrating one’s life afterwards. This brings us to a reason why cannibalism should be more accepted in our society - religion. America was founded on religious tolerance and freedom and that belief is supposedly still carried on into our modern times. If cannibalism is an important factor in a person’s religion, then it should be accepted, otherwise said person’s religion is being discriminated against, and the bold claim of America been religiously open no longer holds true. Cannibalism has proven to be important to many religions when it comes to the burial process, as some believe that this helps the person carry on to the other life. By refusing to accept this belief …show more content…
Not all morals are alike, and someone’s morals that they consider correct could be seen as wrong by someone else. By this logic, using moral reasonings as an argument against cannibalism is simply unreliable. We cannot rely on the majority’s view of right or wrong because it does not fit the definition of everyone else’s. Another thing I would like to add to this is that, if a person consents to being eaten after they die, then that is something they view as correct. Who is society to deny them something that they see as right? This brings me to my final, most popular point that many people use to argue against cannibalism - committing murder in order to consume human