Oh, I'm pretty sure it's like most things...it's just misunderstood.yes well, Even good people ( or Dragons) can do an evil act and think they are still doing good, from a cultural or even historical or religious points of view, Doesn't make it right. Just like thousands of years of slavery wasn't right.
Well, I'm sure that is relatively true, from some subjective standpoint, and relatively false, from others.
The vast majority of the world for the vast majority of history thought slavery was a good thing, too. Does that mean that keeping slaves is now a Good act?No, but it would be fair to say that slavery isn't a natural taboo for humans.
Edit: This quote was from Paul Watson... I screwed that up somehow.
So is the Eucharist evil? Are those who truly believe in the truth of god, who take the wafer and wine are, regardless of the actual nature of the material, willingly eating what they believe to be human flesh and blood.
Are people who consume human blood because they believe it counter the symptoms of porphyria, regardless of its actual effectiveness, evil?
What is the logical basis for your...
How would you define evil or good for that matter?
I’m not being sarcastic here, I’m merely asking outside faith and/or culture how would you (or others) define what is evil?In the Dark Ages they burned witches, something I think of as an evil act in any age. Yet they did it to protect themselves against disease, famine etc (in their mind and with their understanding).
Yet in the Old Testament it reads that you are not to let a witch live (or words to that effect). However, this was before the age of grace (before Christ) and was really addressing the Jewish people, who where under strict laws to keep themselves pure from other nations.
Yet to say to do that which you like as long as doesn’t harm another fails also. Such as the drug user, who harms society, his friends and family by self destruction.
If it’s all morale relativism (and I’m not saying that this is your view) then is there any such thing as evil?
I’m not being sarcastic here, I’m merely asking outside faith and/or culture how would you (or others) define what is evil?
Actions which cause a net balance of suffering are "evil"; those which, on the whole, ameliorate more suffering than they cause are "good." I'd apply this definition regardless of intent, by the way. "He didn't mean to maim and kill all those people when he was driving drunk" doesn't lessen one iota the suffering caused by that action.
Murder and rape are clear-cut, but this argument can be made to apply even to such obscure prohibitions as that against eating shellfish in Leviticus -- if waters in that area had a high natural metals content, then prohibiting the eating of the shellfish there would reduce the toxic effects of those metals in everyone who obeyed. Certainly taboos such as incest and cannibalism can be made to fit that definition as well.
|
I’m not being sarcastic here, I’m merely asking outside faith and/or culture how would you (or others) define what is evil?Actions which cause a net balance of suffering are "evil"; those which, on the whole, ameliorate more suffering than they cause are "good."
Murder and rape are clear-cut, but this argument can be made to apply even to such obscure prohibitions as that against eating shellfish in Leviticus -- if waters in that area had a high natural metals content, then prohibiting the eating of the shellfish there would reduce the toxic effects of those metals in everyone who obeyed. Certainly taboos such as incest and cannibalism can be made to fit that definition as well.
And in most cases cannibalism will be Evil, too. However, just as killing things in self-defence isn't evil, or even following them back to their home and slaughtering them while stealing their stuff (aka adventuring) isn't Evil, I can't see how cannibalism in the very limited circumstances presented by the OP is evil. There is no suffering. In fact, it's a reward and an honour. Doesn't mean the characters can't think it's evil, but this one act? Not necessarily. Of course, that doesn't mean the Kobolds are not Evil, just this isn't what's making them so.
|
And in most cases cannibalism will be Evil, too. However, just as killing things in self-defence isn't evil, or even following them back to their home and slaughtering them while stealing their stuff (aka adventuring) isn't Evil, I can't see how cannibalism in the very limited circumstances presented by the OP is evil. There is no suffering. In fact, it's a reward and an honour. Doesn't mean the characters can't think it's evil, but this one act? Not necessarily. Of course, that doesn't mean the Kobolds are not Evil, just this isn't what's making them so.I’m not being sarcastic here, I’m merely asking outside faith and/or culture how would you (or others) define what is evil?Actions which cause a net balance of suffering are "evil"; those which, on the whole, ameliorate more suffering than they cause are "good."
Murder and rape are clear-cut, but this argument can be made to apply even to such obscure prohibitions as that against eating shellfish in Leviticus -- if waters in that area had a high natural metals content, then prohibiting the eating of the shellfish there would reduce the toxic effects of those metals in everyone who obeyed. Certainly taboos such as incest and cannibalism can be made to fit that definition as well.
My question would be how do "the powers that be" feel on the subject in the game world? Do they see it as an evil act? If so then even if the Dragons/Kobolds do not, well we can all be wrong on something.
I can't see how cannibalism in the very limited circumstances presented by the OP is evil. There is no suffering.
You're assuming that there's no spread of disease through cannibalism that would not exist if diet were restricted to other species -- kuru aside, think instead in terms of AIDS, hepatitis, etc. If kobolds are immune to all ingested kobold-borne illnesses, then you are correct -- there is no evil in their ceremony. On the other hand, if it causes a proliferation of disease, then the definition needs to be re-checked. And that's ultimately the call of each individual DM.
|
|
My question would be how do "the powers that be" feel on the subject in the game world? Do they see it as an evil act? If so then even if the Dragons/Kobolds do not, well we can all be wrong on something.And in most cases cannibalism will be Evil, too. However, just as killing things in self-defence isn't evil, or even following them back to their home and slaughtering them while stealing their stuff (aka adventuring) isn't Evil, I can't see how cannibalism in the very limited circumstances presented by the OP is evil. There is no suffering. In fact, it's a reward and an honour. Doesn't mean the characters can't think it's evil, but this one act? Not necessarily. Of course, that doesn't mean the Kobolds are not Evil, just this isn't what's making them so.I’m not being sarcastic here, I’m merely asking outside faith and/or culture how would you (or others) define what is evil?Actions which cause a net balance of suffering are "evil"; those which, on the whole, ameliorate more suffering than they cause are "good."
Murder and rape are clear-cut, but this argument can be made to apply even to such obscure prohibitions as that against eating shellfish in Leviticus -- if waters in that area had a high natural metals content, then prohibiting the eating of the shellfish there would reduce the toxic effects of those metals in everyone who obeyed. Certainly taboos such as incest and cannibalism can be made to fit that definition as well.
That would depend entirely on the individual powers that be (or DMs as I understand they prefer to be known). ;-)
|
|
That would depend entirely on the individual powers that be (or DMs as I understand they prefer to be known). ;-)My question would be how do "the powers that be" feel on the subject in the game world? Do they see it as an evil act? If so then even if the Dragons/Kobolds do not, well we can all be wrong on something.And in most cases cannibalism will be Evil, too. However, just as killing things in self-defence isn't evil, or even following them back to their home and slaughtering them while stealing their stuff (aka adventuring) isn't Evil, I can't see how cannibalism in the very limited circumstances presented by the OP is evil. There is no suffering. In fact, it's a reward and an honour. Doesn't mean the characters can't think it's evil, but this one act? Not necessarily. Of course, that doesn't mean the Kobolds are not Evil, just this isn't what's making them so.I’m not being sarcastic here, I’m merely asking outside faith and/or culture how would you (or others) define what is evil?Actions which cause a net balance of suffering are "evil"; those which, on the whole, ameliorate more suffering than they cause are "good."
Murder and rape are clear-cut, but this argument can be made to apply even to such obscure prohibitions as that against eating shellfish in Leviticus -- if waters in that area had a high natural metals content, then prohibiting the eating of the shellfish there would reduce the toxic effects of those metals in everyone who obeyed. Certainly taboos such as incest and cannibalism can be made to fit that definition as well.
Which is why I stated things as my opinion only.
Random weirdness. Female rabbits (particularly in captivity) in a situation where they don't feel there is enough food for their young will 're-absorb' them. (That's the politically correct way of saying they *eat* their little naked pink hairless babies.)
Evil? Icky? Both? Would it be less evil to let the helpless baby rabbits starve to death?
They'll also reabsorb them before the kittens(baby rabbits are also called kittens if memory serves) are born.
So is the Eucharist evil? Are those who truly believe in the truth of god, who take the wafer and wine are, regardless of the actual nature of the material, willingly eating what they believe to be human flesh and blood.
Are people who consume human blood because they believe it counter the symptoms of porphyria, regardless of its actual effectiveness, evil?
What is the logical basis for your...
How would you define evil or good for that matter?
I’m not being sarcastic here, I’m merely asking outside faith and/or culture how would you (or others) define what is evil?In the Dark Ages they burned witches, something I think of as an evil act in any age. Yet they did it to protect themselves against disease, famine etc (in their mind and with their understanding).
Yet in the Old Testament it reads that you are not to let a witch live (or words to that effect). However, this was before the age of grace (before Christ) and was really addressing the Jewish people, who where under strict laws to keep themselves pure from other nations.
Yet to say to do that which you like as long as doesn’t harm another fails also. Such as the drug user, who harms society, his friends and family by self destruction.
If it’s all morale relativism (and I’m not saying that this is your view) then is there any such thing as evil?
I tend to take a non-anthrocentric utilitatian stance. I beleive all animals, including our selves have five basic extrinsic rights, which we choose to veiw our interaction with the world through. These are called the Five freedoms.
Freedom from thirst and hunger
Freedom from discomfort
Freedom from pain, injury and disease
Freedom to express normal behavior
Freedom from fear and distress
The effects of failing to provide these rights are measurable and provably detrimental to an animal.
In an objective sense, i would judge that eating an already dead human whom has concented and who's family will not suffer from knowing that it occured to survive is, is less morally objectionable than say eating halal and kosher meat.
I tend to take a non-anthrocentric utilitatian stance. I beleive all animals, including our selves have five basic extrinsic rights, which we choose to veiw our interaction with the world through. These are called the Five freedoms.
Freedom from thirst and hunger
Freedom from discomfort
Freedom from pain, injury and disease
Freedom to express normal behavior
Freedom from fear and distress
So are you in effect saying that we are no different than animals and if so why should we behave differently?
Just asking for clarification and as a general question.In my way of thinking to the OP question on canabalism, the core question should be what is evil? Something we probably will not resolve here as there are so many different opinions on the matter, but thanks for the input (not saying yours is not valid).
Going by what you stated above, I can see your point. Except perhaps on the expression of normal behavior, as the opinion of normal is highly subjective (i.e. is normal defined as what animals do in nature or what the average person considers normal).
I tend to take a non-anthrocentric utilitatian stance. I beleive all animals, including our selves have five basic extrinsic rights, which we choose to veiw our interaction with the world through. These are called the Five freedoms.
Freedom from thirst and hunger
Freedom from discomfort
Freedom from pain, injury and disease
Freedom to express normal behavior
Freedom from fear and distress
So are you in effect saying that we are no different than animals and if so why should we behave differently?
Just asking for clarification and as a general question.In my way of thinking to the OP question on canabalism, the core question should be what is evil? Something we probably will not resolve here as there are so many different opinions on the matter, but thanks for the input (not saying yours is not valid).
Going by what you stated above, I can see your point. Except perhaps on the expression of normal behavior, as the opinion of normal is highly subjective (i.e. is normal defined as what animals do in nature or what the average person considers normal).
It is not a case of being no different from animal, we are animals. You are being anthrocentric. Be do not behave fundermentally differently than animals. However, we are able to build extrinsic right systems and meme based cultural ethic. They are in fact part of our naturual behaviour.
The problem is, that for the most part, those who are expressing the opinion that it is evil are not providing a logical backing for their veiws, that stands up to examinations.
What is normal behaviour is not subjective. The study of behaviour is a a highly refined set of sciences which is not based on subjectivity.
]You're assuming that there's no spread of disease through cannibalism that would not exist if diet were restricted to other species -- kuru aside, think instead in terms of AIDS, hepatitis, etc. If kobolds are immune to all ingested kobold-borne illnesses, then you are correct -- there is no evil in their ceremony. On the other hand, if it causes a proliferation of disease, then the definition needs to be re-checked. And that's ultimately the call of each individual DM.
From the report on eating your own species' dead:
In the animal kingdom, this is a common transmission route for many diseases...
"We have shown that group cannibalism by multiple individuals on one victim is a necessary (albeit not always sufficient) precondition for disease spread through cannibalism. However, in the animal kingdom, cannibalism is generally a one-on-one interaction in which a larger and stronger individual kills and consumes a smaller and weaker... Under these conditions, [one eater to one eatee] cannibalism is likely to be an ineffective mode of disease transmission.
"Humans have also had the required social structure and social practices that promote disease spread by cannibalism. Historically, members of families or a village often shared captured individuals in ritualized meals (Volhard 1968; Sahlins 1983;Wendt 1989), and the group size of individuals sharing one victim was often very large. Additionally, some human societies practiced cannibalism across groups and necrophagy within the group (Volhard 1968; Conklin 2001). This seems to have been the case for the Fore people of Papua New Guinea, in which both intraspecific necrophagy and cross-group cannibalism were common (Lindenbaum 1979; Rumsey 1999). Thus, in the case of Kuru, necrophagy could maintain and spread the disease within a village, while cross-group cannibalism could be the mechanism that promoted the disease spread on a larger meta-population scale. Cannibalism in humans has been a common and widespread practice that dates back at least to the Neanderthals (Defleur et al. 1999; Marlar et al. 2000). Several authors have argued that cannibalism has been a part of the natural ecology of human societies owing to the substantial nutritional gain (Darnstreich & Moren 1974).
Our results suggest that the occurrence of a disease such as Kuru in humans is most probably the result of the frequent occurrence of group cannibalism and/or group necrophagy. Additionally, the persistence of Kuru into modern times may in part be explained by the pathogenic agent’s resilience to cooking, although, in many of the cannibalistic rituals, raw human flesh was often consumed
Because regular feature of human populations, it is not possible to assess the degree to which other diseases may have had this transmission mode. However, it has been speculated that the transmission and establishment of tapeworms in humans may have been aided by cannibalism (Hoberg et al. 2001), and it is quite conceivable that a number of blood-borne infections may have been regularly transmitted in the same way."
In short, group consumption of same species creatures is the most effective way within various forms of cannibalism to transmit disease. It's evil because it's bad for the health of the society.
You are being anthrocentric. [W]e do not behave fundermentally differently than animals.
Most animals are anthrocentric. I've never seen a cat feel badly about a mouse's pain. If we're equivalent to animals, then us acting like predators or prey should not be a problem to you and a poster being "anthrocentric" should not be a problem to you. If we're supposed to be better than that, then that puts a prescriptivist hole in your descriptivist arguments.
Creating art, philosophy, and science are not behaving fundamentally differently from the other animals?
You are being anthrocentric. [W]e do not behave fundermentally differently than animals.Most animals are anthrocentric. I've never seen a cat feel badly about a mouse's pain. If we're equivalent to animals, then us acting like predators or prey should not be a problem to you and a poster being "anthrocentric" should not be a problem to you. If we're supposed to be better than that, then that puts a prescriptivist hole in your descriptivist arguments.
anthropocentric
adj.1. Regarding humans as the central element of the universe.
2. Interpreting reality exclusively in terms of human values and experience.
I see few cats believing they where created for our pleasure.
Certainly we, like all animals certainly will do what ever it takes to survive, such as eating other animals if they are obligate carnivore. The does not mean that they hold a delusional belief that the world was specially made for them.
The point is that we are not special, we have a genetic imperative to survive certainly, but no special right to, no license to believe that our actions are moral, just bcause we are human and the subject is not.
You are being anthrocentric. [W]e do not behave fundermentally differently than animals.
Most animals are anthrocentric. I've never seen a cat feel badly about a mouse's pain. If we're equivalent to animals, then us acting like predators or prey should not be a problem to you and a poster being "anthrocentric" should not be a problem to you. If we're supposed to be better than that, then that puts a prescriptivist hole in your descriptivist arguments.
anthropocentric
adj.
1. Regarding humans as the central element of the universe.
2. Interpreting reality exclusively in terms of human values and experience.I see few cats believing they where created for our pleasure.
Nice try, but you know exactly what I was using the word to mean. I'm terribly sorry that I didn't make up an awkward word like "feline-centric" to make that extra special clear to you. It was one example of how all animals are "animal-centric," which was another awkward word I was trying to avoid. Name-calling and pedantry are not going to win me over, just FYI.
Certainly we, like all animals certainly will do what ever it takes to survive, such as eating other animals if they are obligate carnivore. The does not mean that they hold a delusional belief that the world was specially made for them.The point is that we are not special, we have a genetic imperative to survive certainly, but no special right to, no license to believe that our actions are moral, just bcause we are human and the subject is not.
They certainly act like they have that belief.
I tend to take a non-anthrocentric utilitatian stance.
I see that "anthrocentric" is an acceptable term for YOU to use, but you correct me for not using "anthropocentric." Nice.
Care to respond to the implications of the peer-reviewed article I posted for group discussion?
Creating art, philosophy, and science are not behaving fundamentally differently from the other animals?
** spoiler omitted **
These are more complex expressions of behaviors which other animals perform. Certainly we have refined the behavior.
New Caledonian crow have been shown to possess casual reasoning skills, Binobo chimpanzees have been shown to have highly complex societies in which sex is used as a means of social control by females, other forms of chimp are have been shown to make weapons and even observed performing behaviors which may be worship.
If we are unique, it is that we have each of the elements, developed to a reasonably high level. On a fundamental level, we are not truly different. The same mechanism rule us as others animals, we have the same biological imperatives, and little variation in our genes form theirs.
Of course "on a more fundamental level", because this is a reductionist move. Yes, we are on a continuum with all life, and for that matter, all that is not alive, on some levels. But I do not buy the denial of a threshold that makes us utterly different. The examples you provide serve to highlight this because of what is at least an enormity of difference quantitatively, and likely due to disanalogies that indicate a qualitative difference. Consciousness of consciousness, meta-reflection--even taboos--moral arguments, NASA, the Louvre...on a continuum with cave paintings, not with using a stick to get termites.
But I am pretty convinced that arguments and evidence on this subject will never sway people on different sides of this question, due to differences in first principles which are equally unprovable (strictly speaking--not to say that they are not subject to rational discourse or unknowable) but are necessary on both sides.
I tend to take a non-anthrocentric utilitatian stance.
I see that "anthrocentric" is an acceptable term for YOU to use, but you correct me for not using "anthropocentric." Nice.
Care to respond to the implications of the peer-reviewed article I posted for group discussion?
I thought name calling wouldn't sway you. Perhaps you shouldn't make poor ad hominim attacks based my spelling mistakes, if you believe that i shouldn't bring you up on using an objectively inappropriate word. I at least use the right words for the job. the reason i picket up the 'correct' spelling was to correct my self, not you.
Regardless, anthrocentric is in common usage to describe the same concept as anthropocentric.
With regards to the peer reviewed article, happily i will need time to fully digest it, but at a glance i can see one problem for your position. That is that the author himself points out that trophic transmissions common place. It is in no way unique to necrophagy or cannibalism. I'll give it a proper read when i am at home.
|
|
There's a good reason that incest is almost universally considered "immoral": the offspring are less viable, on the whole.
In many, but not all cases, incest is also inbreeding. Although jurist Henry Maine first argued that incest necessarily leads to an increase in congenital birth defects, this is not necessarily the case. Inbreeding does not directly lead to congenital birth defects per se; it leads to an increase in the frequency of homozygotes. An increase in homozygotes has diverging effects. A homozygote encoding a congenital birth defect will produce children with birth defects, but homozygotes that do not encode for congenital birth defects will decrease the number of carriers in a population. The overall consequences of these diverging effects depends in part on the size of the population. In small populations, as long as children born with heritable birth defects die (or are killed) before they reproduce, the ultimate effect of inbreeding will be to decrease the frequency of defective genes in the population; over time the gene pool will be healthier. In larger populations, however, it is more likely that large numbers of carriers will survive and mate, leading to more constant rates of birth defects.
I think people have hang-ups with incest for other reasons.
|
|
I think people have hang-ups with incest for other reasons.
The genetic argument also ignores the potential of superior genetic structures. That is the entire basis of animal breeding, and forms the core of most eugenics theories.
If you have certain negative conditions (Hapsburg insantiy and mandibular prognathism, or Romanov hemophilia), incest is exceptionally bad.
If you do not (Egyptian royal lines, general Semitic populations, lots of others), incest is nothing particularly big.
So indeed, those other hang-ups tend to be the dominant determinant in the degree of consanguinity acceptable in a community, with rather significant preferences for first cousins and uncle-nieces in large areas, even in the face of other cultural prohibitions.
Meanwhile, if anyone wants to read a fun book on food and sexual taboos, including cannibalism and incest, I recommend Gluttons and Libertines by Marston Bates. He puts some really fun perspectives on a whole bunch of "nasty" things.
Just a note: Ritually Unclean does not equal Morally Wrong.
Note: you've still not answered the counter argument that your descriptivist arguments have a prescriptivist tint to them.
Wasn't "Suffer not a witch to live" originally "Suffer not a poisoner to live" until King James came along?
|
|
Freedom from thirst and hunger
Really? And how do we do this, exactly?
Freedom from discomfort
We're talking about animals in nature, right?
Freedom from pain, injury and disease
again, animals in nature, right?
Freedom to express normal behavior
Define "normal"?
Freedom from fear and distress
Really must get around to teaching lions not to scare and distress those poor zebras...
The effects of failing to provide these rights are measurable and provably detrimental to an animal.
Wow. Taking thigs to an extreme, eh? "Provide"??? "Rights"???
"Rights" exist as a HUMAN (i.e. "anthropomorphic") construct, they don't exist in NATURE.
Nature = "Survival of the Fittest". "The Food Chain". "Only the Strong Survive". Mother Nature doesn't play favorites, she lets the chips fall where they may...
As far as everything else goes, no, we aren't "special", we are just the top of the food chain, the occasional mountain lion or shark getting one of us notwithstanding. If we took a completely natural view, we owe NOTHING to the other species on the planet. The fact that we CAN make a conscious decision to give two s**ts about other species seperates us, to a degree.
And as far as the common housecat is concerned, it really doesn't matter what they "think" they were put here for, they were specifically bred by humans to be domestic housepets. So, regardless of their "beliefs" they WERE "were 'created' for our pleasure".
Freedom from thirst and hungerReally? And how do we do this, exactly?
Freedom from discomfortWe're talking about animals in nature, right?
Freedom from pain, injury and diseaseagain, animals in nature, right?
Freedom to express normal behaviorDefine "normal"?
Freedom from fear and distressReally must get around to teaching lions not to scare and distress those poor zebras...
The effects of failing to provide these rights are measurable and provably detrimental to an animal.Wow. Taking thigs to an extreme, eh? "Provide"??? "Rights"???
"Rights" exist as a HUMAN (i.e. "anthropomorphic") construct, they don't exist in NATURE.
Nature = "Survival of the Fittest". "The Food Chain". "Only the Strong Survive". Mother Nature doesn't play favorites, she lets the chips fall where they may...
As far as everything else goes, no, we aren't "special", we are just the top of the food chain, the occasional mountain lion or shark getting one of us notwithstanding. If we took a completely natural view, we owe NOTHING to the other species on the planet. The fact that we CAN make a conscious decision to give two s**ts about other species seperates us, to a degree.
And as far as the common housecat is concerned, it really doesn't matter what they "think" they were put here for, they were specifically bred by humans to be domestic housepets. So, regardless of their "beliefs" they WERE "were 'created' for our pleasure".
I have never claimed that the five freedoms where Intrinsic or in anyway govern nature. They are an extrinsic rights system developed to govern our most common interaction with animals in law. It was the foundation of modern welfare reform and something of a masterpiece. It’s based on research and represents one of the greatest advances in improving animal welfare in modern history.
If you really want a definition of ‘normal behavior’, I can point you in the direction of ‘the Ethology of Domestic animals: an introductory text.’ By CABI Publishing. The definition is a little longer than I really want to have to type out here but boils down to ‘nature that the animal would perform in nature’.
For the record, the conditions found in nature are detrimental to welfare. Most animals die before reaching sexual maturity. Disease, starvation and predation are common place.
We have every reason to give care about other species, all of them selfish. From kin selection based mathematics to increased understanding through study and potential disease cures.
With regards to the house cat, your taking an anthropocentric stand point. They were not 'created' for our pleasure. We formed a symbiotic relationship with them that exerted a selective pressure on them. One might even hypothesis that the can and the human are in a biological arms race to see who can get the most out of the relationship.
With regards to the house cat, your taking an anthropocentric stand point. They were not 'created' for our pleasure. We formed a symbiotic relationship with them that exerted a selective pressure on them. One might even hypothesis that the can and the human are in a biological arms race to see who can get the most out of the relationship.
Looks over at his two sleeping fat felines
I think I know who won this arms race. Can't even get them to chase the mice in my house. Lazy sods.
With regards to the house cat, your taking an anthropocentric stand point. They were not 'created' for our pleasure. We formed a symbiotic relationship with them that exerted a selective pressure on them. One might even hypothesis that the can and the human are in a biological arms race to see who can get the most out of the relationship.
Looks over at his two sleeping fat felines
I think I know who won this arms race. Can't even get them to chase the mice in my house. Lazy sods.
You benefit from having a companion animal in other ways, lower blood pressure is a likely plus side. Of cause, it could be argued that, that is also an example of the the cat winning the arms race. As if their form and behavior manipulates us into being happy and content, they increase their likely hood of being feed without having to hunt and protected from predators by our presence. ;)
|
Wait, doesn't our society actually regularly practise a form of cannibalism? I mean, what would you call organ donation?
Yes, organ donation doesn't entail chewing up and digesting the flesh of another, but the organ receiver still 'consumes' a bit of a dead person's body. Our society doesn't view this as evil, it frequently praises it; people are encouraged to volunteer to agree to be 'consumed' after death.
Tying this back into my original question, some people who recieve donated organs report taking on portions of the personality of the person the organs originally came from.
Tying this back into my original question, some people who recieve donated organs report taking on portions of the personality of the person the organs originally came from.
Yeah, like my mother-in-law thinks she's psychic because she "predicts" stuff -- forgetting that 99.99% of her predictions turn out to be false. With that kind of a track record, I'm a hell of a psychic.
Organ donation? "Ooh, I'm feeling angrier than usual, this kidney transplant must be from a murderer!" Or maybe you're just frustrated that your latest houserule didn't make it into Pathfinder.
If we're going to talk about projecting our views onto animals, let's also talk about the other kinds of irrational projections that people are prone to... of course, what's total BS in real life might provide ideas for really cool effects in a fantasy campaign... maybe the kobolds actually do get something out of their cannibalistic rituals? Maybe a +5 profane bonus vs. disease -- or, if it's all psychosomatic after all, make that a +1 morale bonus!
Tying this back into my original question, some people who recieve donated organs report taking on portions of the personality of the person the organs originally came from.Yeah, like my mother-in-law thinks she's psychic because she "predicts" stuff -- forgetting that 99.99% of her predictions turn out to be false. With that kind of a track record, I'm a hell of a psychic.
Organ donation? "Ooh, I'm feeling angrier than usual, this kidney transplant must be from a murderer!" Or maybe you're just frustrated that your latest houserule didn't make it into Pathfinder.
If we're going to talk about projecting our views onto animals, let's also talk about the other kinds of irrational projections that people are prone to... of course, what's total BS in real life might provide ideas for really cool effects in a fantasy campaign... maybe the kobolds actually do get something out of their cannibalistic rituals? Maybe a +5 profane bonus vs. disease -- or, if it's all psychosomatic after all, make that a +1 morale bonus!
Or frustrated by all those anti-rejection drugs.
Speaking on the subject, which has kind of gotten a little mixed up, animals don't have the compunction against cannibalism we humans do. Of course, animals really don't have a concept of good/evil like we do, so I'm sure it doesn't bother them too much. Survival is a harsh mistress.
That being said, I do agree that human cannibalism seems to be one of those cross-cultural taboos that probably has a basis in biological reality (i.e.: eating members of your own species is likely to give you a dangerous disease, especially if you are cooking in a pre-technological age.). After all, the kosher/hallal laws that are followed by two of the Abrahamic religious traditions ban pork as unclean. This has been theorized to be because pork flesh can harbor the Trichinosis parasaite that can cross over from consumption to humans because of the similarity between pork and human flesh. We still have a compunction to serve pork cooked past pink even though (in America) there are roughly only 12 cases of Trichinosis a year.
In a fantasy setting, you can always hand waive over the ill biological effects. Perhaps consuming an ememy's heart does give you a bonus. Maybe a necromancer, in order to cast an Animate Dead would be forced to consume part of the corpse, in effect claiming it as part of themselves. There is a tradition of crafting items from a Dragon's carcass, including Heroism items from a Dragon's heart. If we include sentient beings under the cannibalism umbrella this would definitely qualify.
LOL, I am imagining a scene where I see a warrior with some spiffy new dragonhide armor meeting another Dragon in the wild ....
"By Tiamat's horns! Are you wearing my Aunt Flamifer as a SUIT OF ARMOR! You ..you... YOU MONSTER!"
|
|
LOL, I am imagining a scene where I see a warrior with some spiffy new dragonhide armor meeting another Dragon in the wild ....
"By Tiamat's horns! Are you wearing my Aunt Flamifer as a SUIT OF ARMOR! You ..you... YOU MONSTER!"
And do not forget the codicil if said new dragon happens to have a random scroll available:
"By the Power of Tiamat, return to me Aunt Flamifer!"
<POOF>
"Thank you nephew. Now as for the mammal who likes crawling in the mud and does not know how to wash his armpits . . ."
|
|
LOL, I am imagining a scene where I see a warrior with some spiffy new dragonhide armor meeting another Dragon in the wild ....
"By Tiamat's horns! Are you wearing my Aunt Flamifer as a SUIT OF ARMOR! You ..you... YOU MONSTER!"
And do not forget the codicil if said new dragon happens to have a random scroll available:
"By the Power of Tiamat, return to me Aunt Flamifer!"
<POOF>
"Thank you nephew. Now as for the mammal who likes crawling in the mud and does not know how to wash his armpits . . ."
Given that he'd be inside of Aunt Flamifer already when the spell was cast, I think that would have been taken care of. Hope he's not too gassy.
|
|
Tying this back into my original question, some people who recieve donated organs report taking on portions of the personality of the person the organs originally came from.
The 'it was my evil hand!' defense doesn't hold up in a court of law, however. Unless you're trying to cop an insanity plea, and I'm pretty sure that you'd rather be in prison than a mental hospital. Prisoners have more rights and can eventually get paroled.
Huh. The 'you are what you eat' / absorbing properties from what you consume reminds me that Americans eat a lot of beef and chicken made from animals that mostly just stood around being fattened up and waiting to die, and here we are, turning into a sedentary culture that's getting pretty big around the waistline...
[tinfoil hat mode on]Almost like someone is fattening *us* up![/tinfoil hat mode off]
|
|
Tying this back into my original question, some people who recieve donated organs report taking on portions of the personality of the person the organs originally came from.The 'it was my evil hand!' defense doesn't hold up in a court of law, however. Unless you're trying to cop an insanity plea, and I'm pretty sure that you'd rather be in prison than a mental hospital. Prisoners have more rights and can eventually get paroled.
Actually the cases I had read about were more along the lines of "I used to hate vanilla ice cream, then I got this new liver and now I love it," type of thing.
|
|
Actually the cases I had read about were more along the lines of "I used to hate vanilla ice cream, then I got this new liver and now I love it," type of thing.
I remember ages ago reading an interview with some guy who got a heart transplanted from an actor who accidentally killed himself with a prop gun (Models Incorporated was the name of the show). He was a less athletic guy than the actor/model, and mentioned that since the transplant, he had to exercise every day, because he would get twitchy and irritable. He said that he might not be used to working out, but his new heart was, and he started getting jumpy if he didn't give it the exercise that it was accustomed to...
Creepy!
Interesting thread as a discourse on moral relativism. My opinion is simple. Science and moral relativism have little to no place in a game with moral absolutes and magic. D&D has good and evil. Absolutes. Why drag moral relativism into it and muck the whole thing up? If you do so, your game is going to have issues with classes, spells, necromancy, and vast amounts of angst about who's "right". paladins will probably all have a huge problem deciding what and who they should smite... it could be the end of the multiverse... or not :D
As for canabilism, DM choice whether it's evil or just disgusting. As for ritual, steal the enemies power / courage / mana, type canibalism... I'd say evil. I doubt the enemy wanted you to have it as a parting gift. If it's about keeping the good stuff all in the family (i.e. Uncle Kobold's courage staying with the tribe), maybe it's not evil. Unless it damages the soul of the departed (sympathetic magic, the soul still tied to the body for a time, etc.) in which case it is. Some cultures desecrated the bodies of their dead enemies to deny them their afterlife. If it involved canabilism, that type of canabilism would definitely be evil. In the end it's the DMs call. He's on the ground and has the best information on the intentions of his canabilistic little monsters. Or, in the case of dragons, big monsters.
By the way, eating sentient beings is evil in my game. Has to do with the soul. The spirit of an animal doesn't hang around. It's bright enough, or simple enough, to know the game is up and exits, stage right. Or left. Whatever. Sentient beings, however, get confused, hang out and suffer some more with their bodies. Religeous burial rights sever that link allowing them to go on to their rest / just deserts etc. This is what makes necromancy evil (in my game). As well as disgusting. YMMV
|
|
That being said, I do agree that human cannibalism seems to be one of those cross-cultural taboos that probably has a basis in biological reality (i.e.: eating members of your own species is likely to give you a dangerous disease, especially if you are cooking in a pre-technological age.). After all, the kosher/hallal laws that are followed by two of the Abrahamic religious traditions ban pork as unclean. This has been theorized to be because pork flesh can harbor the Trichinosis parasaite that can cross over from consumption to humans because of the similarity between pork and human flesh. We still have a compunction to serve pork cooked past pink even though (in America) there are roughly only 12 cases of Trichinosis a year.
I think the main reason with pigs is they don't turn up their nose at feces.
|
|
I think the main reason with pigs is they don't turn up their nose at feces.
That being said, I do agree that human cannibalism seems to be one of those cross-cultural taboos that probably has a basis in biological reality (i.e.: eating members of your own species is likely to give you a dangerous disease, especially if you are cooking in a pre-technological age.). After all, the kosher/hallal laws that are followed by two of the Abrahamic religious traditions ban pork as unclean. This has been theorized to be because pork flesh can harbor the Trichinosis parasaite that can cross over from consumption to humans because of the similarity between pork and human flesh. We still have a compunction to serve pork cooked past pink even though (in America) there are roughly only 12 cases of Trichinosis a year.
Well if you are what you eat, who wants to be a PIG?
Wasn't there a song about that?