You come from Cannibals

I appreciate this post, especially because I suspect that it's intended to be analogous to numerous other topics and to imply some things about how we moralize about out-groups.

But I suspect that you will find that the point of view that you're presenting will be accepted only by those who already accept it or are strongly predisposed to accept it.

A few months ago I was in a discussion on a major web-discussion site, a mostly progressive and open-minded community, about that Japanese man who got some people involved in willing cannibalism. The mood was almost without exception extremely censorious. Granted, within the context of a culture where this is very transgressive, such behavior is, well, unacceptable and naturally suspect (because I'm of the opinion that beyond reasonable limits, extremely transgressive behavior is in some sense harmful in context, though not usually inherently).

But the majority opinion seemed to be that this was wrong in some inherent sense. This from people who otherwise aren't prone to making such absolutist moral arguments. And, indeed, when pressed a lot of them weren't willing to make explicitly morally absolute arguments. Nevertheless, their instinct to assert that it's somehow deeply wrong prevailed.

All this is to say that I think that a lot of things that progressives tend to think are qualitative differentiations of themselves from conservatives are really usually merely quantitative. With cultural matters, at least. Liberals and progressives are really just willing to to be only moderately more accepting of non-mainstream behavior and values, and it's not so much that they fundamentally think about these matters differently (as they often imagine themselves to do).

A good example of this is the inability to empathize with or properly evaluate cultural positions that were progressive in the past but regressive or abhorrent from contemporary perspective. People imagine that they wouldn't have straddled lines concerning civil rights, such as supporting segregation, or being opposed to interracial marriage, but there are positions that these people endorse today that function in exactly the same way. Such as supporting gay civil unions but not gay marriage — something that was popular just a few years back.

There's a lot of positions on certain issues that most contemporary progressives think are laughable, absurd, so extreme as to self-evidently not be worth taking seriously. Being opposed to male circumcision, or favoring animal rights, or the idea that any sort of marital arrangement between two or more people is nobody's business but those in the marriage, are all stupid, nutty, not to be taken seriously. But cultural conservatives think the same thing about gay marriage, or (for crying out loud) contemporary racism against black people in America (which they don't think exists anymore). Today's laughably absurd, not-to-be-taken seriously positions often turn out to be tomorrow's all-right-minded-people-know-this-is-correct position.

That's fine as long as the progressives criticize the conservatives on the merits of where conservatives are drawing their lines, and why. But progressives tend to argue as if their entire intellectual approach to these and similar issues is qualitatively distinct, and superior, to that of conservatives. And, I agree, if this reasoning really were mostly what my fellow progressives think that it is, it would be superior. It would be rational and have some strong foundation that isn't just convention or tradition. But, really, it's usually just what is conventional within one's particular subculture. Most progressives live within a subculture where gay marriage is acceptable, and so they agree that it's acceptable. Cultural conservatives don't, so they don't agree. And, as we see, as various forces conspire to redefine what is acceptable within a culture, then previously unacceptable things become acceptable. Not so much because individual people rationally and carefully considered the issues and decided on the merits, but most of them simply because they are accommodating the evolving mores of their (sub)culture. (Certainly it's the case that this sort of change arguably happens because some people are truly being thoughtfully and courageously progressive. But most aren't.)

And, again, I would have no objection if those involved were to understand this and present it as it is. But they often don't, they often claim that they're (we're) superior moral creatures than conservatives as if we individually and courageously embraced the morally correct position after a careful, rational, and informed examination of the issues.

But, for example, the way that people respond to the idea that maybe, just maybe, there's nothing inherently wrong with cannibalism, indicates that this isn't true for most people. Even when given the opportunity to do so, as you are providing in this blog, the vast majority just won't be able to step outside their own cultural context and think about this in the way that they otherwise imagine they are thinking about many other things that distinguish them from cultural conservatives.

Interesting food for thought. An aside note of sorts, I have a tic of sorts where, if I have a wound, I tend to suck on it. (I guess, after reading it, that it's less of a tic.) It seems to make it hurt less - though that's probably just a placebo effect.

However, from the couple of bad wounds I've had, I have tasted my own blood a few times. It's kind of a metally, salty taste. Not unpleasant really, though I'm not about to pour myself a glass.

--

That aside, this was an interesting read, and you bring up some good points about how words and labels like cannibal are often actually used to make judgements. Savages and barbarians come to mind as other words that often mean "not me". (To borrow a definition from John Green).

Media always focus on the negative and sensational aspects of cannibalism. Why don't we hear more stories about the good cannibals?

Can't recall where I read this (more than one source, decades ago), but some say that licking one's own wounds not only (somewhat) cleans the area, but gets whatever germs have come along for the ride into the mouth, where the immune system has a chance to mobilize antibodies much more rapidly than it does in whatever random part got injured.

Since you already have active antibodies for whatever lives in your mouth, the germs which move from there to the wounded area already face a full complement of antibodies.

It seems to work for the other animals.