Is necrophilia immoral?

its is immoral

unless stated by the deceased that after deatn that they give thier consent to sex it is even more wrong

saying that they cannot give consent because they are dead is like taking thier peosessions as they have died and wont be using them anymore

and its just sick really

Well if there is not family member to inherit the possessions, someone has to take their items once they've died so I wouldn't suggest that the analogy is a sound one. In both instances, the greater good has been achieved, lord knows leaving possessions (that could be useful to someone else) on their person isn't the 'right' thing to do because it just results in more harm. Leaving the dead to 'Rest in Peace' is all well and good, but when it's to the detriment of the living, I think we should draw a line. Personally I think organ donation should be compulsory, but superstition and religion (either directly or indirectly) have moulded our believes to make this possibility one for the distant future.

Do you believe that dead people know what's being done to their bodies?
When a dead person is getting eaten by worms, does that count as "resting in peace"?

by saying there is nothing wrong if know one knows that is much the same as saying that if you had all of your money stolen and you didn't know about it that it is not wrong or that giving some one rohipnol then having sex with them is ok as they would not know

if there is no one to collect the belongings then they go to the government so that anology is a good one. again what you say is the same as saying "that parked car has no one to drive it ill have to drive it now"

even if they are dead without consent it is still rape.

the greater good has not been achieved as you have still stolen the "possesions"

yes if a leaving a body alone will cause a detrimental effect it should be disturbed (ie to discover information that would prevent a crime). but you not getting to have sex is not a valid reason as it is not nessesary of that body for you to have sex.

compulsory organ donnation is an argument to be had which has valid causes to come into effect but sociatey is not a cause to be ignored

if you are bringing god into the question then you are rapeing god by having sex with the body as it has gone back to god

The relatives would be mortified if they found out. Then it wouldn't be morally justified from a utilitarian standpoint.

Fun fact: 60% of all necrophiliacs work with dead bodies for a living.

Well then apparently the government has banned necrophilia because they believe it to be immoral. But the point of this thread is to ask "Is it really immoral?" We're questioning whether or not society has made a mistake in outlawing it, basing the legality of it upon their emotions rather than rationality.

We already know that the government and society have outlawed necrophilia, and most people believe that it is immoral. What the thread is looking for is a rational argument as to why it should be considered so.



I do know that the person was not homosexual from reading his post. He said something like "a homosexual falling in love with a man is just as natural as me falling in love with a girl".

A homosexual testifying is not enough. My question was "How do you know the necrophile doesn't feel exactly the same attraction to corpses that a straight man feels towards a woman, or a gay man feels towards a man etc."
Testimony from a homosexual has got nothing to do with it. He is still only one person. He has no way of accurately comparing his sexual attraction to people against someone else's sexual attraction to people.

You mention statistics - do you have a link to these statistics you speak of?
In any case, even if you're right, that necrophilia is most of the time due to desire for an unresisting partner, it doesn't negate the possibility that a person could genuinely feel the same attraction for a corpse that I would for a woman.



I didn't say consent is the be all and end all of it. Of course sex can often be immoral, even with consent.

My point is that "a dead person can't consent" is a bad argument to say that necrophilia is immoral, because a dead person can consent (before they die).
I'm not trying to argue that necrophilia is moral here. I'm just trying to filter out all the bad arguments on this thread.



Really? It seems completely irrelevant to me. There are plenty of things that I find repulsive which would normally be considered perfectly moral. And there are plenty of things that I do not find repulsive which would normally be considered immoral.

"Morality" and "Repulsion" don't really seem to have much to do with each other in my view.



Why do we call them psychological deficiencies rather than simply psychological differences?

They may well be psychologically different to us. But to call them "deficient" implies that they are different in a bad way. Once again, this is subjective. Why should we consider their difference to be a bad thing?

(And you mention statistics again - could you provide some please?)

That's an interesting definition of morality. You say that something is "moral" if it is considered acceptable by society. But then, by saying that "necrophilia is immoral", all you've really told us is that society considers it unacceptable - which we all knew anyway.

It still doesn't answer the main question of why society considers it unacceptable. Is it purely because of "disgust" and other emotional reasons? Or is there actually some rationale behind it?

The question is ‘Is necrophilia immoral?’ and like i have said in previous certain moral values don’t change like inflicting pain on innocent people as im sure having sex with someones dead mother may do so, respecting the dead is another and having sex withsomee who has just died isn’t all that respectful these are just a few reasons
You said ’Firstly - how do you know this, when you are not a homosexual?’ which i thought was a weak response thats why i replied by saying what if the guy was gay and then what , thats all really
Secondly you said "How do you know the necrophile doesn't feel exactly the same attraction to corpses that a straight man feels towards a woman, or a gay man feels towards a man etc." Like i said the primary motive of people who commit necrophilia is NOT because there attracted to dead people (Rosman and Resnick (1989)) as would be the case for homo and hetro sexual and this distinguishes it from the rest. As for what u said what if a small minority are genuinely attracted to dead people does that make it moral? What if a small minority of heterosexuals are genuinly attracted to little children does that all of a sudden become moral?
When it comes to disgust i already said mate it cannot be classed as evidence so that should sum that up.
‘Why do we call them psychological deficiencies rather than simply psychological differences?’ This is because they are infact deficiencies. Deficiency implies that they are not as good to put it bluntly and low self esteem, inferiority complex (Rosman and Resnick (1989)) certainly aren’t beneficial and have all been associated with necrophilia, so yes they are differences in a bad way

I have answered this previously but the reason why it is immoral and is classed as such because just to name a few reasons, firstly it one moral code that hasnt changed over the centuries is, it is immoral to inflict pain on innocent people, having sex with some1's dead mum is likely to inflict pain, respecting the dead is another moral value that has gone on for centuries, again having sex with some1 who just died isnt entirely respectful, i mean these are things which you cant really argue. These are just some reasons why it is immoral