If people didn't have souls, would it be okay to (for example) eat them?

[88MPH]

Aha, okay. The title is a joke.

But seriously, for the Christians (or others) of the sort that base differential treatment of humans and animals on your belief that humans have souls...how would your ethics change if you were convinced that humans don't actually have souls either? I'm not saying you actually have to be convinced, just....how would it change your outlook if you were? For example....if people didn't have souls, would it be okay to eat them?



Discuss!

[Ragabash]

Thread title changed to more appropriate. I'd also advise not to use certain nationalities as an example in conversations such as this, as it might eventually lead to a closure of the thread.

Feel free to change the title to a better one if you feel like, just as long as it's more serious than the original and in line with rest of the thread.

[Strelok]

Canadians eat souls. You see, souls are full of warm energy, and since we live in our igloos, ride mooses and it's always winter here, we need to stay warm somehow.



On a more serious note, I'm not sure how the existence of a soul can be proven or disproven? If you can prove without a doubt to a religious person that we do not hold our souls, that religious person can then go ahead and say that their God stores their souls in heaven, stored like a suit of armor and are only used upon our death, or something like that.

[Taiji]

'If you thought that someone did not have a soul would it affect your treatment of them?'

Baffling why you'd ask this... oh no hang on, it's a long shot but are you aiming at buddhists?

[88MPH]

It's a pretty straightforward question I'd think. Why wouldn't I ask it?

Also, why would I be aiming at Buddhists?

[Taiji]

It's a pretty straightforward question I'd think. Why wouldn't I ask it?

I can't answer this question very well - only you can. So, now I'm interested, why are you asking it?

Also, why would I be aiming at Buddhists?

Because buddhists put souls in animals and imagine a spiritual life for them, which becomes an obstacle to eating them like normal people do.

[88MPH]

You're saying that only I can answer the question of whether you would treat people differently if you thought they had no souls?

Interesting.

Well alright, fine then...I've decided that the answer is that if you thought they had no souls you would grind them up alive and use them for fertilizer, deaf to their pleas for mercy.

Also, I'm pretty sure that Buddhists don't believe that anything has a soul. It was a major point of contention between them and the Hindus, actually. They have other reasons for their ethics...

[Taiji]

Nope, I'm saying that only you can answer the question of why you would not ask this question in your OP. I don't have access to your ideas and tendencies and so am left to guess at what would demotivate you in this regard. The question I was after an answer to is 'why you are interested in peoples answers to this (OP) question?'. I don't know why you would or would not ask this question but I'm interested in why you would.

With regard to the buddhism; surely without something that moves at death to another host you can't have reincarnation. Since soul fits that part of the definition of something that exists after death.... that's how I got there

Tasty chicken that you think could well be your recently deceased grandad may not taste like it should

[88MPH]

Well, actually, Buddhists don't believe in reincarnation for exactly that reason---it implies that there is 'something' moving from host to host and they are very emphatic about that not being the way it works in their view. They do believe (I might not be putting it in a way they would like but it's as close as I can get, maybe they would forgive as they are all very keen on letting you know that it's impossible to describe correctly in speech/text) that there is a continuous process that spans what we would think of as multiple lives, stretching on forever until enlightenment, blah blah blah, something like that. Again it's not reincarnation but I guess it's close enough, and it's maybe not terribly important.

Anyway, why do you want to know why I asked the question? Do you have a habit of going around making sure you know everyone's motives when they start threads? If not, why was my question particularly interesting in that regard?

[Taiji]

Because you asked me why you should not ask the question after I told you that your motive for asking it was baffling me. Still don't want to answer? Of course you don't have to

Buddhists don't believe in reincarnation? Is that some particular sect or all of them?

edit: nvm I checked it out, it's just a definition issue. They prefer to use a different word to 'reincarnate' but it's a just synonym for me. I'm sure there's value in the technical differences for a buddhist but as far as I'm concerned rebirthing or rebecoming are fine substitutes for reincarnating.

edit2: my silly assumption about 'eating grandad' doesn't seem to be bearing true as I read about why they don't eat meat. It seems to be the same as for the Jews and Muslims with pork - i.e. not very good at raising healthy pigs, etc. - in some respects.

[88MPH]

Okay then...why were my motives particularly baffling?

Also, wrt the Buddhist thing, sure, like I said, it's close enough to be not that important from an outside perspective, maybe I shouldn't even have brought it up.

[Taiji]

Cos you won't tell me what they are... how long are you going to try to keep this up for? You don't have to answer my question at all but please stop asking me questions about it, it's boring me.

If you're playing a game, thinking that it's not fair that I haven't answer your OP question, then OK here it is: It would not affect my treatment of anything if I thought it had no soul, since so far nothing has a soul anyway.

[88MPH]

Well, part of my problem is that you seem to be implying that I have some kind of motive beyond the obvious reasons anyone would start a thread about anything---curiosity and a desire to see discussion on the topic. Like I asked before: is there some special reason you felt the ened to ask me why I posted this? As far as I can tell reading this forum, most people aren't subjected to such questioning. ???

[Taiji]

Well there is only so much time in the day, I can hardly be questioning everyone that posts a question so I hope you'll forgive me for only focusing on a post with a question, the motive for which interests me - Yours! It's not like I am picking on you or anything of the sort. I just wonder why you think the 'soul-less' might deserve different treatment for some people.

Sheesh you're hard work (it's not a bad thing, I promise!), welcome to TWCenter, it's nice to make your aquaintance

[88MPH]

Well, it really doesn't have anything to do with what I think. I haven't expressed an opinion either way.

My question is for those people (and only those people) who think that they have ethical obligations to humans because humans have souls---where a soul is something undetectable that could be present or not in someone and you could never tell the difference by their behavior---and who think that they don't have such obligations to animals because they think animals lack them. If they found out that humans don't have such things either, would that change their thinking on how to treat humans, and if so, how?

And my motive for asking is, well, to find out....

[Taiji]

I see, so you have a suspicion that some people only treat others well because of their religious views.

Well I think they might have convinced themselves of this but frankly I doubt they are right. I think it's more often the other way round - that people identify appropriate behaviour and then latch their religion onto it.

Like when they start a war and decide they have to kill a load of X type of foreigner, they then wrap it up in religious clothes by deciding this foreigner has no soul. It makes the killing more fun, just one of the many applications of the social swiss-army-knife that is religion.

At least that's my guess

[magpie]

I would say most humans would probably taste fairly bad, soul or no soul. Unless you kept them on farms and fed them a special diet, So the meat would aquire a better flavour.Then would they be better smoked? or basted and roasted with herbs.

[88MPH]

Well, there's only one way to find out, isn't there?

[MaximiIian]

But seriously, for the Christians (or others) of the sort that base differential treatment of humans and animals on your belief that humans have souls...

I always found that to be a strange and problematic basis for differential treatment, and can easily lead to abuse ("your ethnic doesn't have souls, but we do, so I can kill you!" kind of abuse).
Thus, I believe that all living beings have souls. From the smallest bacteria to the most complex mammal.

how would your ethics change if you were convinced that humans don't actually have souls...how would it change your outlook...?

Not a lot would change for me, really. They're still humans, and are thus worthy of dignity and respect. Having a soul is incidental.

[Helm]

There a good evolutionary reason as to why we wouldn't tend to do that. Humans probably taste foul anyway.