This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Is necrophilia immoral?

Scroll to see replies

If I said no it doesn't you'd be equally as dissatisifed with my answer as I am with yours.

Besides, it's not obvious that the bear does take a dump in the woods, it could be a polar bear.

If a bear DOES take a dump in the middle of the forest with nobody around to see it, will anyone catch him performing necrophilia?

Reply 21

History-Student

Would you want someone ****ing your nan after the funeral?

Reply 22

bananaterracottapie

Original post by whythehellnot

There's nothing to consent, they're dead. Consent is only required for the living because without it you may be in danger of causing emotional trauma. Since there are no emotions to traumatise, I fail to see how consent is applicable.

how about somebody in a coma? or a vegetative state?

Reply 23

History-Student

Original post by bananaterracottapie

how about somebody in a coma? or a vegetative state?

You can come out of a coma. Veeeeery difficult to overcome deadness.

Reply 24

innerhollow

Original post by whythehellnot

So I've been thinking, is there anything inherently wrong with necrophilia?

The facts:

1. No one gets hurt (lets assume that no one finds out about it for a while)
2. <ost people wouldn't rationally object against using a sex toy.

IF we are going to get all emotional, that's fine I suppose, but from a rational perspective is there anything morally wrong here? :colone:

I really don't see anything morally wrong with it myself. A dead body is inanimate, it has no emotions or sensations for consent to be required. You could say that harm is caused to the deceased's loved ones, but then you could also say that far greater harm is caused to the necrophiliac...

Don't expect any serious discussion on this topic to ensue though...

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 25

MrMoonmunch

yes! you sick bastard

Reply 26

Broderss

According to Utilitarianism it would be acceptable as long as the body had no relatives who would be hurt if they found out and the necrophiliac rapist would gain a large amount of pleasure from the act.

Reply 27

antonfigo

My name is Buck. And I'm here to ****?

Reply 28

lovely_me

Original post by whythehellnot

There is a difference between a HUMAN BODY and an OBJECT!!!

Reply 29

IlexBlue

I find it greatly disturbing that you're comparing a corpse to a sex toy.

Reply 30

username156343

Original post by antonfigo

My name is Buck. And I'm here to ****?

Not necrophilia (comaphilia?)

Reply 31

antonfigo

Original post by Rizzletastic

Not necrophilia (comaphilia?)

Reply 32

User374699

A moral code is a system of morality (for example, according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. - According to Wikipedia.

So acting against the teachings of respect for human bodies that is present in most religions/cultures/societies. I'd say: yes, necrophilia is therefore immoral.
It's not innately destructive, but it does affect people in a very emotional way.

I'm assuming it's mere curiosity on the OP's part.

Reply 33

Something_Ironic

Must you, seriously, must you ask this question?

Is necrophillia immoral?

Is genocide immoral?

Reply 34

callum9999

Original post by G8D

You can't assume consent, so yes it is wrong.

You can't assume they consent to be buried, does that mean a burial is unlawful imprisonment?

Reply 35

Something_Ironic

Original post by History-Student

You can come out of a coma. Veeeeery difficult to overcome deadness.

I overcame 'deadness' once, easier than you think.

Reply 36

username156343

Original post by DreadfullyFun

It could be moral/could be immoral, dependent on the exact circumstance and (more importantly) the moral viewpoint you take. e.g the utilitarian viewpoint (the only 'real' one imo) this could be moral