Newsweek: Cannibalism Is Taboo 'For Now'

Don't let the title of Newsweek's article fool you. While reading, don't be distracted by the disgust seemingly directed towards cannibalism. You see, Newsweek's article titled "Cannibalism is Common in the Animal Kingdom - Here's Why for Humans Its the Ultimate Taboo" gives itself away in the closing paragraph after dropping hints along the way. For the writers of the article, cannibalism is a taboo "for now" that, like other taboos, will one day be revisited, reevaluated, and undone.

After explaining how cannibalism can be found throughout the animal kingdom, including chimps eating baby chimps, writers Jared Piazza and Neil McLatchie drop in the claim that "For humans, though, cannibalism is the ultimate taboo. In fact, our aversion to cannibalism is so strong that consent and ethics count for little."

Right. I agree, cannibalism is the ultimate taboo. ... Wait, on second thought, not right.

The second sentence in that quote is the first hint of the overall subtext of this article. You see, even if someone isn't averse to cannibalism, ethics stamp a big fat NOPE on the activity. However, the subtle pointing to the belief that our feelings override ethics reveals that the writers aren't convinced that ethics prohibit cannibalism, to begin with. It's a just a socially constructed taboo, after all. Like the belief that a man can't be a woman and vice versa.

Lest you think I'm layering an unfair subtext into the writers' intent with their article, read it for yourself. Throughout the article, the prohibition against cannibalism is always couched within the parameters of post-modernism and social constructs. Nowhere does the article state that we shouldn't eat other humans because it's dehumanizing and morally wrong in all times and all places. They can't claim that because the leftist agenda is hell-bent on dehumanizing us and undermining humanity's ability to flourish (in case it's unclear, I used the word "hell" on purpose). Claiming that something is objectively wrong contradicts the left's teachings on morality.

We mock the calls to set our air conditioning at 82 degrees while we're sleeping, but do any of us doubt that the leftist trajectory is heading toward banning a/c altogether? Does anyone doubt that the left will eventually remove the taboos associated with pedophilia? Does anyone doubt that the left will eventually embrace Peter Singer and company's support for infanticide? Does anyone doubt that my three questions are pointless because the answer to all three is already a frightening "No, we don't doubt any of that because all of it is already happening"?

In their closing paragraph, Piazza and McLatchie write, "For now, we're as happy as you are to continue accepting the 'wisdom of repugnance': human flesh, despite its biochemical similarities to that of other mammals, shall remain firmly off limits."

"For now?" Seriously, I ask again, "for now"?!? And why the quotation marks around "wisdom of repugnance"?

The answers, of course, are obvious: Like all leftists, for the writers of this repugnant article, morality is subjective. And if morality is subjective, then all taboos can eventually become acceptable and even desired behaviors, including cannibalism.