There's archaeological evidence that proves there were cannibal societies

The argument

The evolution of the human species is one that is extremely intriguing. To reach the state we are in today required the adoption and elimination of different practices, and cannibalism is one of them. The idea of our ancestors eating each other to survive may seem too disturbing to the 21st-century mind, yet archaeologists have discovered irrefutable proof of caveman cannibalism which no longer allows us to ignore the truth of its significance in human history. The depths of the caves of Goyet, Belgium, revealed to the world the remains of four adults, one child and a newborn, dating back almost 40,000 years. After careful study, researchers have stated that the bones show signs of cuts and fractures inflicted to help extract the marrow within. They believe that these remains were of the time when Neanderthals were reaching their end and were slowly being replaced by homo sapiens. 1992 brought with it additional proof of such practices with the excavation of more bodies from the Gough's Cave in Somerset, England, which bore marks of human teeth, chewing, pulling of flesh and crushing of bone. These remains are said to be about 15,000 years old, showing that cannibalism was considered as normal not all that long ago. During the Mesolithic period in Europe, just before the agricultural revolution, roughly about 10,000 years ago, a major cultural shift was affecting the inhabitants of different settlements. Archaeologists have found evidence of groups of people in Spain indulging in cannibalism, by excavating their remains from a cave near the coast of Alicante. The human bones showed signs of being butchered and burnt, which prompted the researchers to arrive at their conclusion. Human history shows that cannibalism has always been a part of us; and the fact that the debate still rages today despite cannibalism being outlawed in most countries proves that it will never fully leave our genetic and instinctual makeup. How can something so innate and natural be considered unethical?

Premises

Counter-arguments

This discovery is a fascinating and, to some, surprising revelation about human history and evolution. But that is all it is. Humans have evolved beyond a lot of primal needs, such as body parts like the appendix, certain muscles, and even tails. We no longer need to hunt and gather, be greedy with our food and territories, or seek out simple shelters like caves in order to survive. Cannibalism is another one of these traits which once served humankind's need for survival, but is no longer necessary and is even in some cases detrimental to our health. Cannibalism was an adaptive behavior that humans once needed in order to survive, and later fell back on when they were desperate for food or cures for ailments. But as we have evolved, so have our needs evolved, and we no longer need to resort to cannibalism to full our bellies. We are more educated about how it does NOT, in fact, cure our ailments. And, as a result, it is no longer an ethical practice, but an unethical one for reasons of morality and of human safety (both for the eater and for the consumed).

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The finds establish that cannibalism happened, which nobody disputes. Cut marks and burnt bone show that a body was processed, not what the people processing it thought about doing so: the same evidence is read by archaeologists as funerary practice, as famine behaviour and as treatment of enemies, and those readings carry very different moral implications. [Rejecting P2] The inference from occurrence to acceptance is the argument's central weakness. Practices occur despite being condemned — which is often why they are remembered — and the premise's own examples are separated by tens of thousands of years and by hundreds of miles, so they cannot establish a continuous norm. "Until relatively recently" has no support at all: the most recent case cited is around 10,000 years old, and Greek and Roman writers already treated cannibalism as a marker of barbarism. [Rejecting C] The conclusion therefore rests on a gap of several thousand years between the evidence and the claim. The documented cases from later periods are overwhelmingly of shipwreck, siege and famine — circumstances in which those involved describe the act as a horror rather than a norm.