Why shouldn't I eat a baby?

I really have come to care about whether the things I believe are true and warranted or whether they are based on assumptions and lies. Many of the things I once held sacred and true vanished before my eyes in a puff of logic. Eventually I came to a nihilist position and I embraced absurdism as the only viable personal philosophy. Though soon a thought popped into my head nagging me. If life is meaningless and valueless, why should I seek to protect it? Why would killing still be bad or wrong if there aren't moral rules worth looking to? So the easier to grasp question is this: Why shouldn't I eat a baby? Why is a baby so inherently valuable that I shouldn't just marinate and eat one? This is not a joke. This is completely serious and I want to know what you think. Is there sufficient reason for me to not eat a baby? Assume I won't get caught so there aren't any pragmatic concerns.

TL'DR I just found a dumpster baby and am about to roast it over an open fire and eat it. Give me a logically sound reason why I shouldn't.

Humans aren't purely logical beings so we can't use pure logic on how we live. According to pure logic, we are nothing but a chemical reaction and there's no meaning to anything ever, so all of us might as well lay down and die. Since you're not on the ground dying yet I can assume you don't really think life is meaningless or valueless.

So you eating a baby can't be excused with the argument that life is valueless, just that you think other people's lives are valueless. Which isn't a real logical argument, just horrible morals.

And I do hope that with "This is not a joke. This is completely serious and I want to know what you think", you're talking about how you want us to discuss this seriously, not that you seriously have a baby you're about to eat. 'Cus that would be fucked up.

No I don't really have a baby that I'm going to eat. I just want to seriously talk about some hypothetically delicious babies.
Much of Western and post-modern philosophy in particular has its goals set in removing us from our biases and prejudices no matter how ingrained they might be. That is what this discussion tries to do. That being said it is quite difficult for anyone, including myself to get away from a viviocentric and anthropocentric worldview. So I guess for now I have to use some double-think to get by. Secondly if all life is in fact meaningless and valueless then logically there wouldn't be any prohibitions to baby eating. Furthermore I wouldn't have any obligations to not eat babies. And thirdly supposing the truth of moral relativist theory then personal moral systems are all equal and cannot be weighed against one another. So even if my particular moral system said that every other person's life is meaningless and valueless then I wouldn't have sufficient reason not to eat a baby. While you might have such a reason, which I would be happy if you would share, I wouldn't and thusly there wouldn't be anything objectively 'fucked up' about eating some barbecued baby. I hope that sufficiently defends my point.

1. That's cannibalism with is bad for your system. 2. Humans are very greasy and unhealthy, why eat such a disgusting snack when you could get munchies instead, or something 5xs more appealing. 3. Eating a baby would be fucked up because you wouldn't someone to eat you. Do onto others as they do onto you. 4. If you ate a baby, then you would be psychologically fucked up, there are all these documents about how soldiers come home mentally unstable, I don't think you hearing a baby being burned alive, smelling the charred human flesh, or eating something that you know is human would be good for your mentality. 5. A baby hasn't done anything to you, be a man if you wanna eat a human and do it to someone that pisses you off, not some random dumpster baby. I can think of a number of other reasons, but I won't because I have a question. How would you prepare the baby for it's roasting?

We aren't worried about pragmatic concerns. So the only one to respond to reciprocity. Why should a baby when it hasn't done anything to me. That doesn't answer the question I ask.Moreover you would have to warrant why fairness is something that's important in determining moral prohibition. Why shouldn't eat a baby?

an adult who has been eating processed food might be like that, but i would think a baby would be closer to milk fed veal. still pretty 'clean' and free of chemicals.

OK, nothing pragmatic, let's try this; eating a baby is an incorrect thing to do because to eat a baby you would be taking away life. While some may think that life is worthless, based on the definition of worth this is completely false. People give almost anything for their own lives, and varying amounts for others lives to end or to prolong said lives. By eating a baby, you are taking something that doesn't belong to you. Being fair is important because of straight math of equality. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Any other way and you would get stabbed for stepping on my white Nikki's.

Life is objectively worthless and valueless. The fact that some people care about it only creates subjective value which is irrelevant. Your answer doesn't work.

um wut. Since when did that become objective?

You don't eat babies because humans have empathy, dignity and morals. If you're going to try and disregard them with a hypothetical situation then i might as well reply to your question with how i want soar into space on a unicorn.

Answer me this then, what makes your statement, "life is objectively worthless and valueless", true? If life is as worthless as you believe it to be, then you, as a creature with life, present arguments with no worth as well. Isn't that what you are implying?

Discussing the main topic, I can say you shouldn't eat a baby because human morals tell us not to. If one cannot see anything wrong in eating a baby then that is, suffice to say, inhuman. To put it simply, if eating babies is OK for you, you are a creature of Nihilism. Defending this point, no real human, or sentient being, for that matter, strives for destruction. Such is the reason why sexual urges are powerful, why we can't seem to stop needing to eat food, and why survival instincts kick in when we are in danger. I dare any philosopher who believes in Nihilism not to instinctively move away if I aim a knife to his eye.

However, I do believe in the end this may not reach a conclusion that is mutual between you and I. If I say our points are worthless, then they are untrue. If I demand my point, you shall demand yours as true and we will be caught in a cycle of "I'm right, you're wrong." As the saying goes, for belief, no explanation is necessary. For skepticism, no explanation suffices. Neither of us transcends the other. You are no greater than a human being, and neither am I, so neither of us can truly say our point speaks for all.

Alas, the irony of philosophical arguments. That is why I choose to side with faith.

Instead of being hypocritical with your "worthless life" motto by taking other people's lives, how about you take your own life and leave young children who still have the potential to not be an unmotivated piece of shit like you are. Both our problems are solved.

On a not-dick state;
Cannibalism is the number one way to catch prion diseases, many of which are fiercely neurodegenerative. With a baby it's impossible to know if it shows symptoms or has family history of prion problems.

Nice reply. You pretty much took the words out of my mouth if I wanted to go all out too. Unfortunately, something tells me people who even question if a baby should be eaten or have a different, weird way of thinking and thus may refer to any "you're wrong, fuck yourself" arguments as uplifting himself, believing such answers to be indicative of how degenerate our minds and thoughts are compared to his higher level of thinking.

Put simply, he looks at any pro life argument as worthless. So fight him on his "philosophical" level of thinking to even the playing field. ;)

Addressing the thread author, no offense if this is not how you think, Mr. Should-I-Eat-Babies-Or-Not. But if it is, then I shall be the one to argue on your twisted level of thinking.

I will make my answer simple. You don't need to eat a baby, since there are lot of food resources other than your own kind, unless if it is for the sake of your survival, however, that alone shows your selfishness towards other people. Well, your statement is full of it.

Actually that isn't what I am implying. In order for life to have an objective meaning it would have to come from somewhere. I will concede subjective meaning can exist but I petition you to present evidence of some objective meaning. I do not imply that any individual argument is meaningless, nor that we shouldn't evaluate arguments you are making. Though that isn't to say that the act of arguing itself as well as any other action wouldn't be irrelevant. Unless of course one were such a powerful orator that it would stop the universe from expanding or something of that nature.



You seem to have missed my argument on moral relativism. Personal moral theories cannot be weighed against each other. If I cannot see that eating a baby is wrong is not 'inhuman' but merely permitted under my moral code and not yours. I might then be wrong under your moral code but not so under mine. As for your part about destruction I'm not sure what your warrant is for why sentient beings cannot strive for destruction. As for instinctual urges, sure we all have them but I don't see your point. The point of posing this question is not to justify my meal choices but to try and remove myself as well as you from this flawed viewpoint of viviocentrism.



I would hope that we can come to a mutual conclusion on this issue. I would like for there to be a reason why I objectively shouldn't eat babies but I just don't see that happening. Also deeming an argument worthless does not make it untrue. I could argue with you whether the sky is blue and though the act of arguing itself would be pointless, one of our views would match up with the truth while the other's did not. I would agree that neither of us is better than any human being but the point of post-modern philosophy is to try and get away from our base assumptions and seek truth. That is why I posit this question.



That is where you and I diverge I suppose.

To prove that, kill yourself. Obviously you wouldn't mind, since your life is worthless and valueless.

I've gone over this before.

Every human being places a subjective value on whatever it is they value. As social creatures we tend to agree on most things that we value, one of those being life. We've agreed that all of us would rather not have our lives taken away, so when lives are taken away, we disapprove of the person doing them, and place them away from society.

It's this strange idea that a lack of 'objective values of life' is in any way a bad thing. Subjectivity isn't worthless, in fact for a lot of matters, it's all we have. I am my own personal moral authority. So are you, so is everyone else. We can convince eachother as to what makes something moral or immoral, but we do this by appealing to other people's subjective sense of what they value.

When you hold up a baby, you don't want to eat it. Unless you're a sociopath you feel empathy for other living things. So why would you go against that intentionally just because there's hypothetically no 'logical' reason to not to?

I mean, in my subjective opinion it's an immoral act to eat a baby because it causes unnecessary suffering for the baby, and doesn't in any way promote the health and well being of others, ESPECIALLY that baby. It IS objectively true that you are causing harm to that baby. The question is, do you care? If not, then me, and most of the rest of society don't want you near other people. Even if people don't agree with my definition of what makes something moral, 99 times out of 100, if I can demonstrate somethign to cause unnecessary suffering, and diminishes the health and well being of others, people will agree it's an immoral act, for their own reasons.

It's a lot simpler than you seem to think it is. You have a responsibility to everyone you live with, if you decide to skirt that responsibility, then expect to be shunned from society.

Here's a thought experiment. Imagine you got innvited to a party. When you go there, don't wipe your feet on the mat, track dirt through the house, drink too much, call people names, eat all the dip and leave. do you think you'll get invited back again?

One of the biggest things to bare in mind is that you ought to do things you find good if you want to live with yourself. you live with yourself 24/7, and you have to deal with yourself. There is no escaping the fact that you are you. And if you don't like yourself, well then you becomme destined to live a rather diminished and depressing life.

1- You'd eat something and you don't even know where it's been?
2- Not much meat
3- Someone might come looking for it and then where will you be

But...
SERIOUSLY?
IT'S A DAMN BABY, AND CANNIBALISM IS FROWNED UPON AND ILLEGAL.
If it is dead, report it to the police. If alive, call child services or your local law enforcement to see what can be done to have it put in protective care.

I don't even see how this got into SD.

Not an objective statement.

You want an objective answer to a subjective matter, this entire thread is pointless.

As a human you must possess some form of morality, you may argue that you have none but then your lack of common notions of morality would simply end up constituting your morality. If indeed you feel this is the case then there is no amount of reasoning that will stop you from eating a baby.

Regardless, you may want to consider that you were once a baby (whom nobody decided to marinate and consume), or that one day perhaps you will end up fathering babies of your own (whom you may not want to be marinated an consumed by strangers).

Welcome to life bro. This is the sort of revelation one has when they sit there and, for the longest time, ponder exactly what the significance of everything they do is. A long time ago I remember sitting back and looking around at those around me and feeling a really great disconnection. Everyone around me had strong opinions, and I always wondered why. When I asked, they had little to offer in terms of explanation. They were taught by their parents what to believe. They were taught by their parents their religion. They were taught by their parents their political views. It all seemed silly to me. So I suppose I thought to myself, "Well, I want to step back, and see what exactly I make of the whole situation," and so I did. I'm sure many others have done the same. They want to know the truth, so they begin to peer at the world through the eyes of an observer. They stay up at night, pushing great philosophies and common truths through their minds, assessing with the most profound thoughts they can muster the purpose of it all. Why something is right, and why something is wrong.

If you have a truly logical mind, it all breaks down, as anyone might assume it would. Without a god, or without an illogical purpose, there simply is no point. You begin to recognize the rights and wrongs of humanity as simple generalizations of the whole. One can very well say that murder is bad because it damages the race- if we are meant to breed and perpetuate human existence, then killing each other is certainly negative. However, if you look at it with the most stoic of views, you could then say that the necessity of existence is once again just another concept fabricated by the common consent. Roasting a baby over a spit would infuriate most humans in our world, but in a world where it was common place, no one would object.

When it comes down to it, and I'm sure you've reached this conclusion in the past, reality is nothing more than you make of it. If you truly believe that there is no god, and there is no purpose, than you have no choice but to create your own. Nothing is inherently right or inherently wrong. But, in all honesty, this is entirely incompatible with our nature. Humans strive to find some sort of happiness or satisfaction above all else. Those who do not tend to remove themselves form the race quite swiftly. You either work towards what you think is right, what you are told is right (and believe so because of it), or you seek satisfaction in the form of your actions. If eating babies was the only thing that gave you happiness, or, rather, what your perceive as happiness, it can be assumed that you would eventually go to such lengths as to secure it. If in your mind nothing is wrong with doing it, then certainly you will.

There is nothing wrong with it, in a logical perspective. The universe will keep moving. If no one knows, no one will be effected. If we assume that there is no god or greater deity, or Karma or anything like it, there will be no retribution. Personally, my suggestion to you is that you simply give up on trying to pin reasons on things. If there is no answer, you certainly will not find it. I think for a long time I tried to find reasons in things that I knew to be rather pointless, and I simply ended up depressed. The path of pointlessness is the most prominent trail to inevitable misery.

My advice would be, stop caring whether it maters or not to eat a baby. Would you do it? If you would, alright. Go eat one. For my sake, I'd be glad to see you removed from the race if that were the case. For me life is about happiness. If I like something, I pursue it. I don't question myself as to why it's fun, and I certainly don't bother myself with frivolous hypotheticals about human nature. In the end, logic itself is flawed. There is no reason for logic to be logical, it's the same as anything else. It can be beaten down and decomposed, and in the end, it was fabricated the same way as everything else. Anyone can sit in here and argue the inumerable reasons why we believe eating a baby isn't right, and in the end, you can sit there, and I believe you KNOW you can sit there, and say, "well it doesn't matter anyway". Well if nothing matters anyway, then you have two options- either accept it, and be content in your existence, or make your own purposes. I prefer the latter, but I suppose it's your choice.

If the above is too long to read, just try fapping. No one seems to care whether that makes sense or not.