Meital Pavolotzky, Week 2: Being Superior Does Not Make You Ethical

Humans should not eat humans. Obviously, eating human flesh would be cannibalism and considered completely unethical. But what about other animals? How far does cannibalism go? Should we consider eating an ape cannibalism since we derived from them? Most importantly, should the meaning of cannibalism change due to the practices of wildlife?

The literal meaning of cannibalism is the practice of eating the flesh of one's own species. To fully understand this, we first need to know what the word species refers to. The biological definition of species is a group of organisms that can reproduce with one another in nature and produce fertile offspring. According to this, we can freely eat apes without thinking about it twice. However, there are many instances in nature where I feel that the scientific definition of cannibalism should be changed.

Imagine a fish, that is relatively big, comes across another fish that is smaller than the first fish. The bigger fish needs to survive. So, it eats the smaller fish. Defined by science, this is fine and not cannibalism. On the other hand, through my eyes, this scenario seems unethical. At the end of the day, the only difference between the two fish is that one is bigger than the other. As well, the color or way of life could be different but they are still both classified as fish.

This leads me to believe that the literal meaning of cannibalism is incorrect or insufficient. I do not think that it is enough to say that one species should not eat their own flesh. Instead, it would be better to say that a type of organism should not eat that same type or group of organisms. 



What do you think should be the rule to help define what is ethical to eat and what is not?

 

Comments

  1. This was a very thought-provoking blog post that made my head spin a little. Cannibalism is usually unethical, but what if it is for the sake of survival? Nevertheless, some moral dilemmas can be solved easier than others, like cultures (a.k.a. lab-grown) meat. In the end, I believe that the line for ethics should be drawn when livestock gets mistreated or inhumanely killed. As for non-domesticated animals in the wild... it's probably best to leave them and their 'survival of the fittest' mentality alone.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I believe the definition of cannibalism is perfectly fine and draws the line between what is ethical and what isn't as far as eating other animals. The example you gave of the bigger and smaller fish is, in my opinion, not ethically wrong at all since the fish are different species and most likely have more differences besides their size. Going by that logic you could say that Sharks are horrible creatures since they eat fish even though they themselves are fish and you could even go as far as saying any human that eats meat is unethical since cows, sheep, and deer are all mammals just like us.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is super fascinating! I hadn't thought about this idea at all, though I personally won't eat a mammal (or bird). You're right, though - how far out should it stretch?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Sarah - Week 4 - Florida whether is not a great as people say it is.

Leah Mousseri - Week 2 - A Book in a Game?!

Zander 5: Why Do We Care About Remakes?