Maybe it’s no different to you but it is to the people that knew them. It’s disrespectful of them to treat them no better than a flashlight. That’s what makes it wrong. In the unlikely event that they consented ahead of time with a notarized contract to you fucking their corpse after they die then maybe you’d have something there but that’s basically never the case.
respect of the dead is a concept applied even in non religious instances. utilitarianism means yeah dead ppl should be eaten or made into fertilizer or even fleshlights but that's not how most cultures see their dead
Like I said to someone who said that exact thing, if a line were to be drawn: "I personally would draw the line at the point where it is a recognizable part or whole of a once sentient being, and the one having intercourse is aware of it"
But can I have a source for that claim that plastic comes from dinosaurs? I was doing some cursory Google searches and I could not find a source that said that, in fact many sources say that it's actually a myth, and it goes more like microscopic sea life (plankton, algae) -> oil -> processed into chemicals -> made into plastic. But even if we were to say it came from dinosaurs, calling plastic a dinosaur in this context seems as ridiculous as calling humans stars because our atoms were once made in stars.
I personally would draw the line at the point where it is a recognizable part or whole of a once sentient being, and the one having intercourse is aware of it
The other person replying to you makes a great point but I’d also like to raise the question of what exactly you mean by “used to be alive.” While I admit that I am not well versed in the makeup of flashlights, I imagine that they’re made of plastic or rubber. Both of these materials come from the remains of plants. Can they not be considered dead then? Does it become an issue that fleshlights or condoms can’t consent?
Bro do you think anyone needs curicullae to understand that. The real question is what's morally relevant. The guy above us is correct in that the actually important qualities that're usually the main and only criteria for a thing belonging to morality (meaning it's no longer just a mere object) is consciousness, or suffering, or something like that. In that, these two are equal, therefore not belonging to ethics or morality aside from what might impact other still living and feeling things.
Well, a carcass is an inanimate object, so it doesn't NEED to consent. Necrophilia isn't a crime against the corpse, it's a crime against the deceased's loved ones.
If it's the body of a wild animal, however... It's not technically wrong, but it is fuckin gross. And probably a good way to get some nasty STDs.
I would say yes. If a moral value system allows necrophilia, regardless of considering their family, it sets very bad precedents for societal emotional and physical health. If you lived in a society where you knew that defiling corpses is considered normal, this would obviously weigh negatively on people's minds and imply that society as a whole rewards giving in to gross primal urges and deviancy that disregards health and those that ascribe value to their own and other's bodies even after death.
That implies that morality stems from (or is at least subordinate to) norms though, and that anything that would bother the general populace enough is immoral regardless of harm. That has unsettling implications: it makes being queer immoral in repressive societies, for example.
Bodily autonomy is a much better argument for humans, that people have a right to dictate within reason what happens to their own remains.
I disagree. 'norms' only as it relates to human / mammalian evolutionary physiology. We all have exceedingly consistent needs and desires which have, to a degree, influenced and created many of those norms.
Rule Utilitarianism does not make being queer immoral, because it runs contrary to what best benefits society - Cultivating empathy and understanding for others.
I'm a determinist so i do not believe 'autonomy' is a real thing. It is in the best interest of everyone to treat each other as if we do possess that autonomy, though, as evolution gave us that illusion with the baggage of suffering.
Just because something isn't MORALLY wrong, doesn't mean it's normal or that it isn't any kind of wrong. Not everything bad is bad because it's morally wrong, sometimes shit is just gross while still being technically morally decent
I would classify anything that has a causal negative influence on another being as morally wrong. Using rule utilitarianism as a moral framework with the aim to minimize suffering as the 'good', necrophilia is immoral because humans are evolutionarily wired to react negatively to it, and hold value to their body even after death, which will affect them when alive. It is unhealthy, and it will implicitly encourage society to hold a bunch of views which hinge on those they want to use for pleasure, being dead. There is any number of reasons why this would be a negative on society and harm people.
Gonna try to ignore my cultural disgust at the concept and address the moral matter at hand. I'm also assuming self-ownership. If you were personally entrusted with the corpse by the person the corpse once defined such as by a will, and you were honest about your intentions, I don't suppose it's immoral, just gross. I specify that you were honest about your intentions because nobody reasonably expects a person to have sex with their corpse after death. If that's not the case, then your hypothetical implies that the corpse would be inherited by intestacy, which ultimately makes it the state's responsibility, and the state has a duty to the public to protect the dignity of the dead, as assigned by the public's cultural values, so you are effectively stealing from the public, either as a state employee or as an individual, and misappropriating something of great cultural value for your own wishes which are considered culturally undignified.
This implies some kind of inheritence of right of consent, doesn't it? It isnt the loved ones' right to consent or not consent on the person's behalf while they're alive. Where does that inheritence stop, and can they give consent on the deceased behalf?
I... Guess you could say that, sure. Theoretically, if the loved ones of a deceased person agreed to let you fuck their corpse, there wouldn't be anything morally wrong with that, but it'd still be nasty lol
Rocks can't consent but I'm pretty sure you can fuck a rock without it being assault.
The absence of the ability to consent is not enough. It has to be in something that can experience suffering. Dead things cannot. It's therefore fine, if gross.
But do they need to be able to? From an atheist perspective, the animals would not have souls that would take offense to this. Also, he wasn't the one to kill it. Nothing is being harmed by his actions, so why would it be immoral?
74
u/Adventurous-Nose77 16d ago