Necrophillia is not immoral Watch

Troubled_Student
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#81
Report 7 years ago
#81
(Original post by Stefan1991)
I switched off right after that...



You know that came off sounding more ****ed up.
Not really I'd rather know they are rotting in the ground, like all dead people do, rather than getting touched up by a weirdo.
0
reply
Picnic1
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#82
Report 7 years ago
#82
Stefan1991, how would you like it if someone murdered someone very close to you , served a few years in prison and then got out and did what you said to the person that they murdered?

What kind of person are you to not be bothered by at least the second part of that prospect?
0
reply
imperial maniac
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#83
Report 7 years ago
#83
I'm just waiting for Magnum Opus to turn up and banhammer me.

*sigh*

Anyway, once everyone has quite finished insulting me/accusing me of being a troll, maybe I can use this thread to have a sensible discussion, since mine keep getting locked :facepalm:.


I don't personally think that necrophilia should be a taboo, if people consent to having their body used by a necrophile, then why should that be illegal? It makes no logical sense, it is simply an infringement on personal freedom to do what you want to with your body after you are dead.

As long as the previous owner of the body consented to the act, I can't see any moral argument against necrophilia, as the argument "URHHH IT'S DISGUSTING." is circular and doesn't really stand up.
0
reply
Unbiased Opinion
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#84
Report 7 years ago
#84
(Original post by Stefan1991)
Proof of this?
Soul is a whole other debate, but it's disrespecful to the once-living person... this can be seen as the soul, or it can be seen as personhood, or their memory. They all mean the same thing.

But necrophilia isn't sex, it's masturbation. Rape is putting through a traumatic horrific violent experience, violating their body without their consent and leaving them with psychological trauma for years to come.

I think it's damn right offensive that you are somehow comparing that to necrophilia which if happened in secret nobody would even ever know about.
Out of interest, if a rapist raped someone then wiped the victim's memory and didn't transfer any STD's or hurt them in any way, would you say that was morally right?
0
reply
Pindar
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#85
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#85
(Original post by Picnic1)
Really? Do you not think that this 'issue' might not have been debated several centuries ago?
I meant on this forum, I don't think it's been debated for a while.

(Original post by Picnic1)
Look, if you put your reasoning to a topic that isn't completely disgusting and disrespectful then you may do well in taking arguments to an extreme. But I don't respect you for choosing such a topic. It just makes me wonder whether you thought 'what is the most taboo thing that I can think of and how can I excuse it?'
No, it's a topic to which a majority of people have come to irrational conclusions upon, which can be easily debunked and proved wrong in a paragraph. I'm doing everyone a favour by demonstrating how illogical the beliefs people in our society hold.

(Original post by Picnic1)
And.. do YOU or anyone else you know want to do this?

It IS immoral. A dead body used to be a living person. And, dead, it remains a biological entity.
Are nail clippings a biological entity that requires consent? What about cut hair? A banana skin? Should those women who are turned on by food and can't afford sex toys require consent from zucchinis, bananas and cucumbers because they are biological entities? Don't make me laugh :lol:

(Original post by Picnic1)
It remains PRIVATE property that may happen to be buried on public land.
I guess you believe rotting micro-organisms should be prosecuted for stealing?
To whom does a corpse belong to then?

(Original post by Picnic1)
It remains a meaningful thing to those living who were related or acquainted with the deceased. Just because something can't choose to consent or not consent to something doesn't mean that it's OK. Someone in a coma wouldn't be able to either.

What kind of person would want to? A dehumanised rapist basically.
How exactly is it "rape"? Do you even know the meaning of the word.

Comparing it to rape is downright offensive to rape victims who actually suffer real trauma, whereas a corpse suffers none.
0
reply
imperial maniac
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#86
Report 7 years ago
#86
(Original post by Picnic1)
Stefan1991, how would you like it if someone murdered someone very close to you , served a few years in prison and then got out and did what you said to the person that they murdered?

What kind of person are you to not be bothered by at least the second part of that prospect?
That isn't the same scenario as the OP is discussing, murder is obviously wrong, and the person who is being murdered has obviously not consented to being used by the necrophile.

We are talking about necrophilia where the previous owner of the body has consented to the use of his/her body by a necrophile. They are two entirely different situations.
0
reply
Unbiased Opinion
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#87
Report 7 years ago
#87
(Original post by imperial maniac)
As long as the previous owner of the body consented to the act, I can't see any moral argument against necrophilia, as the argument "URHHH IT'S DISGUSTING." is circular and doesn't really stand up.
-> family and societal views on necrophilia... ethics has to take into consideration the wider populace. We do not exist simply as individuals.
-> risk of infection from sex with dead body.
-> dead person has no chance to withdraw consent... what if they changed their mind just before death but didn't have the chance to say?
0
reply
Pindar
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#88
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#88
(Original post by Bandicoot)
there are certain actions we hold accountable to moral absolutes and we shouldn't treat people as means to an end. That, I don't think, people have qualms with.
I have qualms with that. First of all, everyone treats people as means to an end. That is normal, and there's nothing wrong in that.

(Original post by Bandicoot)
That is not a good illustration. Even if my wife was alive, I wouldn't care about the trimmings of her nails or hair. Bits of her that were going to come off naturally when she was alive aren't going to have the same impact as someone having sex with her corpse, I'll tell you that. It would worry me if someone said that they were on the same level of ethical worth.
Your wife doesn't need her corpse anymore, much like she won't need cut hair or nail trimmings. They are of the same ethical worth in my opinion.

(Original post by Bandicoot)
This line of argument is relying too hard on rationality, which ironically enough is exactly what is wrong with Kantian deontology. By saying "once someone is dead they cease to be human", you immediately deny any intuitions that go with the notion that we have respect for the dead. Yes, it is a rational way of thinking, but it isn't by any means how most would want to think. Rational behaviour is not immediately the most justified behaviour (and your axe murderer example seems to illustrate that perfectly).
Why must one respect the dead? I don't get that, sounds like some outdated relic of our more primitive past, akin to ancestor worship.

If you didn't have much respect for them when they were alive, why does it make a difference when they're dead.?

Any I've highlighted the word intuition. This is the problem. Intuitions can be irrational, wrong and prejudiced. If most people don't want to think rationally, then we must push them in the right direction.

You cannot reference the axe murderer example and call that an example of rationality :lol:, that is irrationality of the worst kind.

How exactly is an 'act' immoral? The only reason why rationally things should be immoral is because they cause harmful consequences, an act can have different consequences, so NO act is inherently immoral. Therefore lying is not immoral if the consequence is you save an innocent life, that is why it's irrational. Any utilitarian can see that.

(Original post by Bandicoot)
You said "the purpose of a dead corpse to a necrophiliac". When I mentioned the dildo's purpose, I am talking about the reason it was created, so when speaking of the person/corpse, we are talking about the purpose for their creation (which as I established, has yet to be determined). In essense, you've pick-and-mixed purposes.
The purpose it was created? There is no inherent purpose to ANYTHING, the only purpose is one we ascribe to it.

(Original post by Bandicoot)
But the key aspect of using reasoning to make moral conclusions is that it is unemotional, and when we do this, we often arrive at conclusions that are perfectly rational but either amoral or immoral.
Any examples? I think rationality is the ONLY way to determine what morality should be.
0
reply
imperial maniac
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#89
Report 7 years ago
#89
(Original post by Unbiased Opinion)
-> family and societal views on necrophilia... ethics has to take into consideration the wider populace. We do not exist simply as individuals.

Isn't individual freedom more important? And I don't understand how someone consenting to having their body being used by a necrophile would effect the wider populace.

-> risk of infection from sex with dead body.

That's a personal risk taken by the necrophile, I take risks every day when crossing the road, doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to cross the road by myself.

-> dead person has no chance to withdraw consent... what if they changed their mind just before death but didn't have the chance to say?

If consent is in writing, similar to a will, then it's kind of irrelevant if they change their mind, if someone suddenly decides to give their fortune to a charity rather than their son, but never gets round to changing the will before they die, or telling anyone about it, then it can't be helped.
...
0
reply
Pareesasa
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#90
Report 7 years ago
#90
wowza! this deffo has striked up a debate. but none the less i think you have to be mentally ill to want to have sex with a dead person. its just.. how can i put it.. WRONG
0
reply
imperial maniac
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#91
Report 7 years ago
#91
(Original post by Pareesasa)
wowza! this deffo has striked up a debate. but none the less i think you have to be mentally ill to want to have sex with a dead person. its just.. how can i put it.. WRONG
Some people are necrophiles though, and isn't what they said about homosexuals (ie; they're mentally ill).

Saying it's wrong because it's wrong is about as circular an argument as you can get
0
reply
Pindar
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#92
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#92
(Original post by Unbiased Opinion)
Out of interest, if a rapist raped someone then wiped the victim's memory and didn't transfer any STD's or hurt them in any way, would you say that was morally right?
Yes, it's not immoral.
0
reply
Pindar
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#93
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#93
(Original post by Picnic1)
Stefan1991, how would you like it if someone murdered someone very close to you , served a few years in prison and then got out and did what you said to the person that they murdered?

What kind of person are you to not be bothered by at least the second part of that prospect?
Are you actually suggesting I should be more bothered by the second part than the first? :lolwut:
0
reply
Pareesasa
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#94
Report 7 years ago
#94
(Original post by imperial maniac)
Some people are necrophiles though, and isn't what they said about homosexuals (ie; they're mentally ill).

Saying it's wrong because it's wrong is about as circular an argument as you can get
haha, touché matey
0
reply
Unbiased Opinion
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#95
Report 7 years ago
#95
(Original post by imperial maniac)
Isn't individual freedom more important? And I don't understand how someone consenting to having their body being used by a necrophile would effect the wider populace.
Not from a utilitarian perspective, it's not, and ultimately systems in democracies operate from a utilitarian perspective. I guess it depends what kind of ethical model you employ, but legally we are limited in our actions... we can't act in a way that will infringe other people's rights. Also, if you look at judge's statements on court cases they do mention the impact on wider society. In medical ethics, the IFS model is employed (individual, familial, societal), not the I model.

That's a personal risk taken by the necrophile, I take risks every day when crossing the road, doesn't mean I shouldn't be allowed to cross the road by myself.
Higher risk of getting an infection from a dead body than getting hit by a car. 8,000/1 KILLED IN A ROAD ACCIDENT. I'm not sure of the stats of STIs, but they're getting more common and dead bodies pose further risks.

As for crossing the road, the government takes many measures to reduce the risk and there's not really an alternative to road-crossing. Necrophilia, on the other hand, is unnecessary and is not worth the effort and societal impact it would have.

If consent is in writing, similar to a will, then it's kind of irrelevant if they change their mind, if someone suddenly decides to give their fortune to a charity rather than their son, but never gets round to changing the will before they die, or telling anyone about it, then it can't be helped.
You're right, but what happens to someone's money and what happens to someone's body aren't the same thing.
0
reply
Steevee
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#96
Report 7 years ago
#96
I agree OP. If there is pre-mortem consent then I don't see the problem. I mean is it not disrespectful in some way to cut out someone's organs after death if you really think about it? You are essentially mutilating their corpse.

But not to be misunderstood. I agree with organ donation, and think there should be at least open dicussion on fetishes/sexualities such as necrophillia and beastiality.
0
reply
Baula
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#97
Report 7 years ago
#97
(Original post by Stefan1991)
I think it's high time for a sensible and reasoned debate on the issue.

Necrophilia is the act of sexual stimulation with a corpse. An inanimate object.

Some might say a corpse cannot consent. A corpse doesn't NEED to consent, there is no requirement to consent as there is not a living person there to consent! You might as well ask why a dildo doesn't need to consent. There is nothing to consent to, a corpse is an object.

When you are dead, why do you care about your body so much? You have left your body, either to be burned or put in a hole in the ground. It's going to rot away anyway and be slowly eaten by microscopic organisms.

To those who would say necrophillia is somehow disrespectful, how exactly?

If someone actually wants to have sex with you, even when you've died and blue and as stiff as ironing board, how could you take that as anything other than a compliment?

If made legal, people would be able to donate their body, if they so wish, to some sort of Necrophilliac society. Necrophilliacs could pay money to the deceased's family for the pleasure.

Nobody gets harmed, necrophilliacs finally get the right to have sexual satisfaction and the family in mourning and possible financial insecurity benefits. Everyone wins. I can't see how there would be a rational argument against this...

Any thoughts?
What is it with people on TSR these days A thread was already made on this literally today. :facepalm: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1624359

To me it sounds like a sick form of prostitution. Families 'pimping' out their dead relatives to gratify perverts :lolwut:
0
reply
Pn94
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#98
Report 7 years ago
#98
Go play on the M6.
0
reply
Unbiased Opinion
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#99
Report 7 years ago
#99
(Original post by Stefan1991)
Yes, it's not immoral.
Bear with me, but do all of the following mean nothing to you? :

a) What the victim would go through during the rape, even if they didn't remember it afterwards.

b) The fact the rapist had sex with someone without their consent.

c) That getting what you want falls into two categories: want fulfillment and want satisfaction. Want satisfaction requires that the person knows, or thinks, that their want has been satisfied: it doesn't necessarily have had to been. Want fulfillment is the satisfaction of a person's desire irrespective of whether or not they know that. It is want fulfillment that is key to upholding a once-living person's desires and this is key to wills, funerals according to what the person wanted and post-humous tributes, and it's the want to not be raped that is being violated here.

d) Violation of the social contract... a misuse of power.
0
reply
Pindar
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#100
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#100
(Original post by Unbiased Opinion)
As for crossing the road, the government takes many measures to reduce the risk and there's not really an alternative to road-crossing. Necrophilia, on the other hand, is unnecessary and is not worth the effort and societal impact it would have.
Yes, if necrohpillia was legalised tomorrow we'd all be running about naked in the streets, digging up graves and shagging as many as we could. There would be gravefield orgies in every town and society would collapse overnight :rolleyes:

Or maybe a fringe minority wouldn't feel so persecuted...

(Original post by Unbiased Opinion)
You're right, but what happens to someone's money and what happens to someone's body aren't the same thing.
It makes no difference to the person it once belonged to, they do not exist anymore.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (558)
37.83%
No - but I will (115)
7.8%
No - I don't want to (103)
6.98%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (699)
47.39%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise