These people's ethical opposition to what Thomas Dudley, Edwin Stephens, and Edmund Brooks did is rooted in several significant concerns. Firstly, they argue that exploiting the vulnerability of another individual, especially one who is defenseless and dependent, is inherently unethical. It violates the principles of empathy, compassion, and human dignity, which human societies often hold in high regard.
The act also infringes upon the fundamental right to life, as Peter Parker's life was taken away without his consent. Consent forms a foundational aspect of moral decision-making, and by ignoring this crucial component, Dudley, Stephens, and Brooks are seen as disregarding an individual's autonomy and agency over their life.
Furthermore, these individuals contend that the perceived benefits gained from consuming Peter Parker do not morally justify the act. They believe that the end does not justify the means, and using another person as a means to an end is an ethically flawed perspective. In this case, benefiting others by cannibalism violates societal norms, cultural values, and humanistic principles that prioritize the respect and well-being of every individual.
Ultimately, these individuals's opposition is derived from an understanding that ethical decisions should uphold the principles of fairness, respect, and justice. Exploiting another person's vulnerability, taking their life without consent, and using their body for gain contravene these values, regardless of any pragmatic benefits that may result.
Some people are opposed to what Thomas Dudley, Edwin Stephens, and Edmund Brooks did when they decided to eat the cabin boy, Peter Parker. They argue that it is wrong to use a human being in this way--exploiting his vulnerability, taking his life without his consent--even if doing so benefits others.
1 answer