Cannibalism in russia

[Pallida Mors]

I was discussing morality with friends this weekend when during the course of conversation social worker friend states the current trend in Russia regarding Cannibalism, lawyer friend who is her husband chimes in and states the early part of the 20th century as reference and some show they watched stated that it happens today. I remember hearing about this, but put it out of thought based on how remote and extreme things may become in hard times. However, they continued to pursue this as if it is far more frequent then what I previously thought. After being told to look into it further, I found some information on it. Is this a current issue? It seems as though it was something that wasn’t frowned upon during the times of hardship and now is something that occurs more often then previously thought. Is this all true? That being said is it O.K? If you think that morality is sujective then you cannot think this is wrong. Other animals eat their own, why would it be wrong aside from morals?

Sources:

http://www.mayhem.net/Crime/ukraine.html

http://mosnews.com/news/2005/07/18/cannibals.shtml

http://www.sptimes.ru/index.php?acti...story_id=15996

[Fenris]

Well it depends... eating already dead bodies in times of extreme hardship would be ok. But not killing people to eat them.

[Spiff]

Bah other thread was closed.. heres what i said there

It is not alright to kill another so that you may live, as you have no actual duty to stay alive over someone else. Though I see no reason why you may not use someone else who has recently died of causes you are not responsible for as a source of food in circumstances, as you say, "of extreme hardship".

Essentialy from a case we did in criminal law.. these people were marooned on the ocean in a small boat, they killed they cabin boy who was near death and ate him. They were all guilty of murder.

Notable case, its old - the judges essentialy asked "What would Jesus do?"

Ive no idea why they admited killing the boy though :laughing:

[Gaidin]

It is not alright to kill another so that you may live, as you have no actual duty to stay alive over someone else. Though I see no reason why you may not use someone else who has recently died of causes you are not responsible for as a source of food in circumstances, as you say, "of extreme hardship".

500 million years of natural selection disagrees with you.

Essentialy from a case we did in criminal law.. these people were marooned on the ocean in a small boat, they killed they cabin boy who was near death and ate him. They were all guilty of murder.

Notable case, its old - the judges essentialy asked "What would Jesus do?"

Ive no idea why they admited killing the boy though :laughing:

Necessity determines ones actions at any given point in time. Survival outweighs morals until survival is guaranteed. It's instinctive, and only heavy training(enter Religion, among other possiblities) can really overcome it to the point that one is willing to starve to death instead of taking a very non-traditional food source in order to survive. This can also play the reverse, as there was an article about satanic ritual and cannibalism therein. Survival is not the only thing that determines necessity.

The catch is that often the crimes determined by as necessary by survival are the ones that leave the people feeling a personal guilt bad enough that they'll come forward and take what punishments the legal system decrees necessary.

[Spiff]

500 million years of natural selection disagrees with you.


Necessity determines ones actions at any given point in time. Survival outweighs morals until survival is guaranteed. It's instinctive, and only heavy training(enter Religion, among other possiblities) can really overcome it to the point that one is willing to starve to death instead of taking a very non-traditional food source in order to survive. This can also play the reverse, as there was an article about satanic ritual and cannibalism therein. Survival is not the only thing that determines necessity.

The catch is that often the crimes determined by as necessary by survival are the ones that leave the people feeling a personal guilt bad enough that they'll come forward and take what punishments the legal system decrees necessary.

How does it disagree with me? The fact i was highlighting is that they should not have killed to save themselves. Common sense would have shown them that if they had waited for the boy to die they would have been able to use him with a much clearer conscience. They did however choose to simply kill him to serve their own needs, and were punished as a result. The fact of the matter is they could have been rescued at any time - indeed they were rescused shortly after killing the boy. he never got a chance at life because the two other men made a call to kill him then and there on the assumption that if they waited longer they themselves would die.

I think they were right to be punished.



knowing my luck they probably appealed or something though, i cant actually remember

[Gaidin]

How does it disagree with me? The fact i was highlighting is that they should not have killed to save themselves. Common sense would have shown them that if they had waited for the boy to die they would have been able to use him with a much clearer conscience. They did however choose to simply kill him to serve their own needs, and were punished as a result. The fact of the matter is they could have been rescued at any time - indeed they were rescused shortly after killing the boy. he never got a chance at life because the two other men made a call to kill him then and there on the assumption that if they waited longer they themselves would die.

I think they were right to be punished.



knowing my luck they probably appealed or something though, i cant actually remember

Ironically, none of the instances shown in the articles not about the documentary say anything about the physical condition of the persons being killed to eventually be eaten. So I'm not really sure where you're assumption of 'they could have waited for the boy to die' came from.

The cases say nothing of the victims, and only suggest the possibility of two things for the perpetrators: nutjobs ir desperate bastards. Mostly nutjobs, but there are one or two that don't hit at nutjob at all.

[Pallida Mors]

Well it depends... eating already dead bodies in times of extreme hardship would be ok. But not killing people to eat them.

But why not, Is it because of morals? Or is it because of the laws? In a different thread you stated 'morality is subjective."

Essentialy from a case we did in criminal law.. these people were marooned on the ocean in a small boat, they killed they cabin boy who was near death and ate him. They were all guilty of murder.

I dont know enough about your stance on morality and life to comment much on the ethics. As long as your consistent then thats perfectly ok by me. But, what I was told about were cases where people in russia get really drunk and kill someone and eat them. Where people may not be in dire situations.

[Spiff]

If you get drunk by your own actions, kill someone and eat them, i think you are guilty of murder.. though beats me if cannibalism is actually a crime in normal circumstances.

I personaly feel it is moraly wrong unless as mentioned, you are in an extreme situation. An extreme situation does not really justify murder though, though i may justify eating someone who is already dead.

EDIT
Yea im a fan of legal positivism, so long as the law is just we have a duty to obey. An unjust law is one so defined in my view by Lon Fuller

1. The lack of rules or law, which leads to ad-hoc and inconsistent adjudication.
2. Failure to publicize or make known the rules of law.
3. Unclear or obscure legislation that is impossible to understand.
4. Retroactive legislation.
5. Contradictions in the law.
6. Demands that are beyond the power of the subjects and the ruled.
7. Unstable legislation (ex. daily revisions of laws).
8. Divergence between adjudication/administration and legislation.

[Fenris]

But why not, Is it because of morals? Or is it because of the laws? In a different thread you stated 'morality is subjective."

Morality is subjective, but you asked my opinion, I answered with my opinion that is based on my moral.

By the way, I just finished reading a book on cannibalism and they said that in every cannibalistic society, human flesh was known to be the finest.

[Habelo]

meh cant see how it would be wrong going into the graveyard if ure poor n hungry...

[Spiff]

You mean aside from the mental harm caused to a family that finds out someone cracked open their loved ones coffin and started chewing on him?

Not to mention the fact that a corpse which has been in a grave isnt exactly likely to be.. wholesome.. to eat

[Spetsnaz]

I think that cannibalism in modern society is a crime and should be punished by death. I understand if we were living in forests and jungles and everybody hunted for themselves, there were no shops , but if we are a modern society we cant let go off such crimes as cannibalism, necrofilism, pedofilism.
I dont know why theme is cannibalism in Russia, i think the amount of sick people in all countries is equal.Just some are more payed attention some less.Also i think that the boom of cannibalism in Ussr-Russia was caused by bad social situation, and goverment paying not much attention to morality in people and belive in God and Good ( i mean time period from 1980-1999)

[Habelo]

I think that cannibalism in modern society is a crime and should be punished by death. I understand if we were living in forests and jungles and everybody hunted for themselves, there were no shops , but if we are a modern society we cant let go off such crimes as cannibalism, necrofilism, pedofilism.
I dont know why theme is cannibalism in Russia, i think the amount of sick people in all countries is equal.Just some are more payed attention some less.Also i think that the boom of cannibalism in Ussr-Russia was caused by bad social situation, and goverment paying not much attention to morality in people and belive in God and Good ( i mean time period from 1980-1999)

so it would be wrong to eat ure mother if u where hungry and she had been hit to a truck to death*?

[Spetsnaz]

so it would be wrong to eat ure mother if u where hungry and she had been hit to a truck to death*?

Yes.We must be humans and not animals

[Habelo]

Yes.We must be humans and not animals

so ure saying that everything animals do is wrong?:S
just becuse animals eat eachother makes it wrong?
a fight is kinda simualar to canabalism, instead of winning food for the day when you win the fight u win respect ore money(ore whatever u can win on it).
then war aint so dislike canabilism, you win somone else land and money if u win.
so thru ure philosophy any kind of fighting is wrong just becuse animals do it?

[the_mango55]

so ure saying that everything animals do is wrong?:S
just becuse animals eat eachother makes it wrong?
a fight is kinda simualar to canabalism, instead of winning food for the day when you win the fight u win respect ore money(ore whatever u can win on it).
then war aint so dislike canabilism, you win somone else land and money if u win.
so thru ure philosophy any kind of fighting is wrong just becuse animals do it?

What animals eat their own kind? only the most primitive kinds usually, such as insects and amphibians. Other mammals never use canibalism as a food source unless they are starving to death. The only other times are in some species, a newly crowned dominant male will kill and sometimes eat the children of the deposed ruler. It is probably more uncommon in 99% of other species than it is in humans.

I hope you aren't using "animals eat each other" as an argument when you are talking about one species eating another species, because that has absolutely nothing to do with canibalism, and is the same as humans eating animals.

[Gwendylyn]

I think that cannibalism in modern society is a crime and should be punished by death. I understand if we were living in forests and jungles and everybody hunted for themselves, there were no shops , but if we are a modern society we cant let go off such crimes as cannibalism, necrofilism, pedofilism.

Question:
Ever seen the movie ALIVE! (and same-titled book). It's a true story about a South American soccer team whose plane crashes in the mountains and, in order to survive, they eat from the dead until they can find help. Do you think they should be punished with death? Or does your injunction against cannibalism only include instances when its done for pleasure as opposed to survival?

[Spetsnaz]

Question:
Ever seen the movie ALIVE! (and same-titled book). It's a true story about a South American soccer team whose plane crashes in the mountains and, in order to survive, they eat from the dead until they can find help. Do you think they should be punished with death? Or does your injunction against cannibalism only include instances when its done for pleasure as opposed to survival?

I was talking as about cannibalism a sickness.Not as a methood to survive. I meant that maniacs amd serial killers who are cannibals should be punished by death .

[the_mango55]

Like I have said before, when grandpa dies, and instead of burying him he provides the feast at his own funeral, I don't see anything wrong with that (even though it definately isn't for me ). But killing someone to eat them is bad, like what the New Guinea tribesman did.

[Habelo]

Like I have said before, when grandpa dies, and instead of burying him he provides the feast at his own funeral, I don't see anything wrong with that (even though it definately isn't for me ). But killing someone to eat them is bad, like what the New Guinea tribesman did.

but well i thought this thread was about canabilism and not murdering. i think canabalism is ok(even thought it sickens me) but murdering just for the food is wrong ofcourse.