This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Is necrophilia immoral?

This is a pretty meaningless question. It's the equivalent of asking whether the statues of Vatican City are objectively beautiful. Ethics and aesthetics are both totally subjective if not meaningless branches of philosophy. There's no definite answer to your question and anyone who claims to have one has knowledge of a proof of objective secular ethics that has elluded the greatest minds in the history of thinking.

Reply 61

CharlieBee_90

10

It hurts the family of the deceased. And no, them "not knowing" does not justify it. There are a lot of things you can do that are wrong that nobody may know about, it's still wrong. Also they could find out.

Reply 62

mevidek

16

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:

erm the idea is sick. You don't see animals shagging dead corpses do we?

Reply 63

big-boss-91

12

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:

its wrong!!
how would you feel if you just found out that someone shoved something up your dead uncle arse for pleasure?

Reply 64

tazarooni89

20

Original post by mevidek

erm the idea is sick. You don't see animals shagging dead corpses do we?

Yes we do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necrophilia#Animals
But anyway, what's your point? Everything is sick/immoral unless we see animals doing it first? :confused:

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 65

mevidek

16

nah, I mean it's really sick. Who gets turned on by rotting corpses?

Edit: oh yeah necrophilia is the attraction to dead corpses. The act of necrophilia will give some (sick) people pleasure. As far as scientists know, only dolphins have sex for pleasure, apart from humans. So this means that the praying mantis and toads as well as the case of a dead bird, the contenders were doing it to reproduce.

Or maybe the bird was really a serial killer?

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 66

wacky9873

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:

If people found out, especially family, they would be very hurt, so yes it is immoral to hurt their feelings. And just because the person is dead does not mean you can do whatever you want with them, the point is it is their body and they have the right to say what happens to it after they die.

I hope you're not serious OP

Reply 67

IchiCC

12

What if the corpse in question had no living friends or relatives, and gave consent for the use of their body before dying?

Reply 68

gildartz

14

That's just sick to be honest.

Reply 69

OB2

i think just asking the question is immoral

Reply 70

whythehellnot

OP

Original post by OB2

i think just asking the question is immoral

based on what? you're not thinking about it deeply enough, you're letting that ever present 'YUCK' factor cloud what you think is moral. Yet 'Yuck' factor isn't really enough to convince me that it's immoral.

Take away the friends and family, or say they never find out. I'm asking the question is there something inherently immoral with necrophilia like it could strongly be argued for in the case of 'the murder of an innocent' for instance.

Reply 71

whythehellnot

OP

Original post by wacky9873

If people found out, especially family, they would be very hurt, so yes it is immoral to hurt their feelings. And just because the person is dead does not mean you can do whatever you want with them, the point is it is their body and they have the right to say what happens to it after they die.

I hope you're not serious OP

Say there were no living relatives, it was just a dead body with no friends family or anyone to care about them (unlikely, but plausible) would it still be wrong then, even in knowing that sex with that hunk of meat shall bring nothing but happiness.

Reply 72

tazarooni89

20

Original post by wacky9873

If people found out, especially family, they would be very hurt, so yes it is immoral to hurt their feelings.

What if someone said that it would hurt their feelings a great deal if they found out their son was gay? Does that make it immoral to be in a homosexual relationship with his son?

Reply 73

tazarooni89

20

I think maybe it's worth pointing that the OP didn't ask "Is necrophilia sick", he asked "Is necrophilia immoral". The distinction between the two seems fairly clear.

Reply 74

Bslforever

15

Original post by milkytea

Consent? There is nothing to consent about, it's dead body ffs.

Thing is, no-one sees it that way. Hospital autopsies require consent. Organ donation requires consent. Use for medical science requires consent. Exhumation for whatever reason requires consent.

If it were "just a dead body" then there would be so much less paperwork.

Reply 75

Unbiased Opinion

9

The wants of people are fulfilled after they are dead... look at wills. People take an interest in what happens to their bodies/families/possessions after death not as the now-dead person but as the once-living person.

Consent falls into two categories: want fulfilment and want satisfaction. Want satisfaction is when someone thinks their desire as been satisfied, but it hasn't necessarily been. Want satisfaction is when a person's (living or dead) desire has been fulfilled, irrespective of whether or not they know it. If you've wronged someone without them knowing, you've still wronged them. For example, if you steal something from someone without them realising, you've still stolen something.

Reply 76

Unbiased Opinion

9

Also, people are oversimplifying utilitarianism a bit. For one thing, there's a few different types.

If you look at Bentham's version (act utilitarianism) and the hedonic calculus (how Bentham measured pleasure), it could be argued as wrong:

http://www.moralphilosophy.info/hedoniccalculus.html

It's a very short term pleasure and is probably linked in and maybe increases violence which doesn't benefit society at all. Also, if people found out about it, it would prob disturb and disrupt people, especially the loved ones and... well, that wouldn't be the greatest good for the greatest number. Plus it can't be sanitary, so in the long-term it could backfire on the person having the sex.

And John Stuart Mill differentiated between higher and lower pleasures... lower pleasures being pleasures of the body e.g. sex and sex with a dead body has got to be even "lower" than alive, consensual sex. And he was an advocate of rule utilitarianism where he believed that rules should exist for common good and protection. Seeing as necrophilia is against the law, I doubt he would advocate it.

Reply 77

OB2

Original post by whythehellnot

based on what? you're not thinking about it deeply enough, you're letting that ever present 'YUCK' factor cloud what you think is moral. Yet 'Yuck' factor isn't really enough to convince me that it's immoral.

Take away the friends and family, or say they never find out. I'm asking the question is there something inherently immoral with necrophilia like it could strongly be argued for in the case of 'the murder of an innocent' for instance.

you see i believe alot of our moral values we are born with and need not to be taught them and as you said urself when hearing something like this u immediately reject the notion, hence its immoralitiy, also u i think u sed the person is ded so obtaining consent is not applicable, wat about someone who is hospitalised but brain ded, wud u?

Reply 78

christiansaredicks

I think it should be encouraged.

Reply 79

OB2

Original post by tazarooni89

What if someone said that it would hurt their feelings a great deal if they found out their son was gay? Does that make it immoral to be in a homosexual relationship with his son?

it depends if the son gave consent :wink:

Is necrophilia immoral?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you