Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mm_Minty)
    This is so appropriate to your screen name :rofl:
    haha that is is.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    putrid sex object is OPs favorite video on the internet..


    'Just when you though you had seen everything the internet had to offer.
    "The story of a lost, lonely girl, wandering through the halls of an old decrepit house. In her feverish delirium she finds ecstasy."
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    erm the idea is sick. You don't see animals shagging dead corpses do we?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    its wrong!!
    how would you feel if you just found out that someone shoved something up your dead uncle arse for pleasure?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    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?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    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
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What if the corpse in question had no living friends or relatives, and gave consent for the use of their body before dying?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    That's just sick to be honest.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i think just asking the question is immoral
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.