John Stuart Mills's Ideology And The Meaning Of Cannibalism
Although in most developed countries around the world cannibalism is strictly prohibited there are still a few countries and tribes found around the world where cannibalism is still practiced and is morally accepted. To talk about how John Stuart Mills would feel about cannibalism we must first talk about his ideology and the meaning behind Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism was founded by Jeremy Bentham then later taught by John Stuart Mills. The idea of Utilitarianism is simple enough yet complex at the same time. Utilitarianists believe that the only intrinsically good thing in the world is pleasure and the only intrinsically bad thing is pain. So, the ultimate goal in life is to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. However, Utilitarian’s take
…show more content…
These particular monks believe that they become more spiritually enlightened by consuming those who have passed away. There used to be hundreds of these monks but in today’s times the number has dwindled down to about 20 or so. “The ritual includes drinking from bowls made of human skulls, with their own bodies covered in the burnt remains of the dead. They only eat bodies that are already dead, though; they never kill the humans that they eat.” So, in the view of Mills there would be no question about if what they are doing is acceptable or not. There is all pleasure and no pain. The people they are eating are already dead so they are not harming them at all or causing any pain and in the minds of the monks it truly benefits them so from a utilitarian’s perspective the answer is obvious. However, there was a tribe in the Democratic Republic of Congo in which the soldiers there were eating people alive. “the Ituri province’s Congolese rebels were eating the Mbuti people…alive.” This particular case would be a little bit harder to decide on because it is very vague. If the rebels were eating these people as a way for survival then a utilitarianist may say that it is ok. However, if they were just eating them solely out of hatred then it would not be morally acceptable. “The object of this essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings
These particular monks believe that they become more spiritually enlightened by consuming those who have passed away. There used to be hundreds of these monks but in today’s times the number has dwindled down to about 20 or so. “The ritual includes drinking from bowls made of human skulls, with their own bodies covered in the burnt remains of the dead. They only eat bodies that are already dead, though; they never kill the humans that they eat.” So, in the view of Mills there would be no question about if what they are doing is acceptable or not. There is all pleasure and no pain. The people they are eating are already dead so they are not harming them at all or causing any pain and in the minds of the monks it truly benefits them so from a utilitarian’s perspective the answer is obvious. However, there was a tribe in the Democratic Republic of Congo in which the soldiers there were eating people alive. “the Ituri province’s Congolese rebels were eating the Mbuti people…alive.” This particular case would be a little bit harder to decide on because it is very vague. If the rebels were eating these people as a way for survival then a utilitarianist may say that it is ok. However, if they were just eating them solely out of hatred then it would not be morally acceptable. “The object of this essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings