I would rather let every person on earth with cancer die, than let one single human take cross sex hormones, ever again.

>>41437432
1: no. esp cus he was alr trying to be honest about it. he just did what he had to do.

2: yes. disfiguring a body without their consent is bad. despite the fact that the body’s gonna be cremated anyways. i just think cannibalism would be a very intimate thing. if u don’t know the person and they didn’t want u to eat them then that’s not good and it’s against the integrity of the person. it would be ok if it was consensual cannibalism.

3: im killing myself

File: GruSdUGXoAEcnYp.jpg (1.15 MB, 2000x1804)

1.15 MB JPG

>>41437432
1. Ketchup did nothing wrong.

2. Jennifer violated the dead person's consent and body. Corpses are generally still considered to have personhood despite no longer experiencing.

3. hot.....

>>41437432
1. No, the druggist was being stupidly greedy.

2. It's at least concerning and also a violation of the body in question's right to peace in death, and not in some life or death situation that would necessitate it either.

3. Not sure about this one, depends on their personality maybe. The fact that the topic could be brought up in the first place is pretty unhinged (speaking as woman who has a brother). As humans are unstable and irrational, I think incest should generally be avoided and the general culture forbid it (and by this combination I mean incestuous pregnancies being avoided don't just depent on (whatever means to prevent pregnancy are called in english, don't remember). But personally I idk. My gut instinct is "incest yucky"

heinz didn't murder and rape (in that order) the druggist when he had the opportunity meaning future heinz people will be subjected to the tyranny of the druggist

jennifer is straight up retarded from the lack of protein in her diet so has a lower threshold of moral agencies. is it immoral for a retard to drool on another person? a true philosophical mystery

mark denied his sister cummies and therefore contributed to white genocide which is perfectly moral however julie had absconded from her job as a tram driver to get piped down by her brother in france and the retard jennifer was ordered to cover the shift leading her to careen into a family of africans firmly tilting the needle away from white genocide the whole scenario is therefore immoral because mark will not continue fucking julie and denying her white mutant children thus not contributing to white genocide to the degree they have set it back by contributing to ramming a tram into a family of darkies.

>>41437432
1. obv not, it's the same morally as single mothers stealing from stores

2. i kind of get where she's coming from. it's not like anyone was putting the meat to better use, though i wouldn't be happy if this was someone close to me

3. not technically wrong on any level, they're both consenting adults. gross either way imo

>>41437432
1. stealing is wrong so they should be punished, but it's a permissible crime given the circumstances

2. it is fine so long as no one finds out and it happens right before cremation

3. obviously that's fine, you have to have something wrong with you to say it isn't. one might find it "gross". I'm a straight man and I find the thought of male homosexual sex gross, but obviously there's nothing "immoral" about it or "wrong" with it

>>41437432
1. No, medical patents are a net loss for society.

2. Yes, the violation of the presumed agreement with the donor to only use their body for medical research outweighs the avoidance of waste, especially since nothing was likely to consume the human meat anyway.

3. Kinda gross but completely fine.

>>41437432
>radium cures cancer
Huh? Also doesn't most of Europe have socialized health care?

>>41437432
1) mostly right, he could've killed the druggist or at least steal for some other people, but this kind of selfishness is understandable given the situation

2) wrong, the fact she flipped from a vegetarian in a heartbeat suggest there's something profoundly wrong with her and the motivation she gives is probably bs, bitch is psycho

3) wrong, the fact they understand the taboo in particular but see themselves above it (it's okay if WE do it because WE used a condom) means these fucking midwits don't understand the bigger picture about social utility of taboos in general

huge fan of virtue ethics btw
consequentialism is lame shit for r/atheism subscribers

>>41437432
Autism bait. 9/10 times these "ethical" dilemmas arnt about ethics at all. They just need reframing.
>>1.)
Ethics is not zero sum. The question is leading.
>>2.)
Cannibalism and Disrespecting the dead are taboo. Its not about veganism. The question is leading
>>3.)
Incest is instinctually gross so its taboo. Not a ethics question

>>41437432
1) no but he should be expecting to be prosecuted for it
2) yes because being eaten isn't according to the dead's wishes
3) yes because it's repulsive on an instinctual level

1. He acted immorally to correct the ethical failure of the doctor which is ultimately moral
2. Immoral bc there was no consent from the body before it died, then again Christ says to eat of the lion so that it may become a man and that could apply to dead bodies
3. Morally acceptable who cares

>>41439586
>Ethics is not zero sum The question is leading.
first of all that's debatable, second the question is clearly dealing with the tension between law and ethics

>Cannibalism and Disrespecting the dead are taboo. Its not about veganism. The question is leading
the question is clearly about the persistence of moral status and posthumous wishes after death, not the ethics of veganism and meat consumption

>Incest is instinctually gross so its taboo. Not a ethics question
incest has been common for the majority of human history, and is still a common practice for probably the majority of humanity today. the question is trying to grapple with locating the moral prohibition on incest which is most commonly leveled at potential harm to offspring.

You would be kicked out of an introductory undergraduate course on philosophy for being mentally retarded and subliterate, please don't comment on anything more complicated than organizing crayons by colour with any sort of authority ever again.

>>41437432
all of the above are okay and the first and second should be encouraged, actually

>>41437432
1. welcome to capitalism. also radium doesn't cure cancer; it's a carcinogen. heinz is a moron

2. there's more shit wrong with jennifer than cannibalism. she obviously doesn't care about being a vegetarian, she's just doing it because animals are cute. also if you think it's wrong to kill animals for food, you should think it's wrong to disrespect the last wishes of the human dead.

3. julie and mark are clearly fucked in the head. the incest taboo exists for good reasons, sex isn't just for procreation, it's also for intimate bonding between partners. choosing your sister as your partner is just really fucked up.

>>41439674
Thats a lot of words you wrote for me in the middle of the night. Do you want to make out or something? Would it help if u pretended i was ur sister on birth control?

>>41437432
1. wrong by law, but he knew that going into it. morally he didn't do anything wrong, because he was attempting to save a life. the medicine maker was in the wrong for the crazy markup though

2. cannibalism is wrong. we shouldn't eat our fellow human beings, and we should respect our dead and their wishes. i think if the person gave consent to be eaten prior to dying it'd be really weird but probably ok

3. they're protected from incest babies so no problem at all, although societally its very weird

>>41437432
1. not wrong
2. wrong. the corpse was not her property. if it was some random corpse and not a cadaver it would be ethical
3. not wrong

1. Heinz did literally nothing wrong
2. Yeah she should have made it into tartare or carpaccio
3. It was wrong of them to let something beautiful go to waste by only doing it once, clearly they were meant for each other

>>41437432
1. No
2. Yes, gross.
3. Gross but okay.

>>41437432
1)
Heimz is in the wrong. He should have taken out a loan, or make a contract that he will pay the doctor over a period of time.
2)
Yes. The people who donated their bodies did not consent for their bodies to be used in such way.
3)
Yes, only deeply disturbed people are attracted to closely related people.

>>41437432
1) Live in Europe
2) The guy who got eaten did not consent to this. I agree that if he did consent that it shouldn't be a crime.
3) I agree incest should be decriminalized but only for same sex. Birth control can fail.

>>41437432
1. No nothing wrong, he saved a life. Any law that condemns someone to die so explicitly is not a just one.

2. Yeah it's wrong. Cannibalism would not be considered "scientific research" by most people so unless the person had also specifically consented to that I think we must respect their wishes for their body as much as we can.

3. It's gross and ill advised in real life because it can cause conflicts in your family. In this hypothetical situation where we are guaranteed no one will ever know besides them I suppose it's morally neutral.

>>41437432
1. very wrong, should go to jail, that’s a cure that someone else won’t have access to

2. not wrong, the body is long gone

3. not wrong, should do it more offen