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

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by christine18)
    Last time I'm going through this, as I'm turning in.

    1. Your logic is flawed. If person A is going to have sexual intercourse with person B, person A has the ability to ask person B for a STI or STD test. Necrophilia involves a dead person. Someone who is alive CAN ask the deceased to do a test... though they will be disappointed when they receive no answer back.
    If the person refuses to have an STI/D test, then the other person has to make the decision whether or not to have sex and how much protection to use. This is the case for a necrophiliac.

    (Original post by christine18)
    2. I'm not saying that, laws all over the world are. It comes down to protection of citizens. If an elderly lady is delusional, it is unfair to put them at risk of being taken advantage of.
    Surely you wouldn't want someone with say, untreated epilepsy driving?
    Now don't say that I'm discriminating against people with epilepsy.
    I agree with this. If there are any known psychological reasons that would mean that a person is unable to make that decision, they should not be allowed to.

    (Original post by christine18)
    BUT, if you're trying to say that "only the mentally capable can give consent" (another sense to your phrase), then as I had already stated in another post, the dead are mentally/physically unable to make decisions for themselves. Seeing as, you know, THEY'RE DEAD.
    A corpse doesn't matter. The prior owner does.

    (Original post by christine18)
    4. I don't care if you disagree. It has little to do with respect, and all to do with precedent. When it comes to the law, precedent matters. All rulings matter, as future cases can appeal in regards to precedent.
    I believe a person has a right over their own body even after death..

    (Original post by christine18)
    5. Should society accept the "consent" idea, the necrophiliac must go to great lengths to prove that the statement was not coerced from the deceased (when they were alive), they were mentally stable, and did in fact give their consent.
    People give their consent to donate organs. That is managed okay - the same could be used for necrophiliacs.

    (Original post by christine18)
    And quite frankly, I doubt that someone would go to such great lengths seeing as they can just go to a ****-for-hire and pay them a few quid to play-dead.
    Who knows. I guess that just isn't the same for a necrophiliac.

    (Original post by christine18)
    6. Oh gee, then appeal it worldwide. That's THE most childish argument that you have provided, by far. Following that logic, should one think that adults should be able to have sexual intercourse with children, and that the law isn't necessarily right, they should go ahead and have sex with the child regardless?
    You've completely misunderstood me. Each thing should be judged rightly or wrongly by itself. Necrophilia should be judged by itself - it has nothing to do with paedophilia, and the fear of the latter should not close conversation on the former.

    (Original post by christine18)
    7. No, it is by no means the same thing. OK'ing necrophilia opens the doors to things like pedophilia-postmortem, rape and such.

    What does allowing gay marriage open doors to? Dogs of the same sex getting married? because marriage between three men and a dog is completely apart from gay marriage, seeing as that calls both bestiality and polygamy into question.
    Exactly. But users of the slippery-slope argument worry that any movement away from traditional marriage will go against laws that prevent a whole host of other things.

    ---

    (Original post by christine18)
    Now. I have no more time for these circular arguments, seeing as you'll just revert to inherently flawed arguments that [I suppose] seem witty in your mind, such as: "The slippery slope argument is a slippery slope in itself."
    It's truth, not wit. Using a slippery slope argument opens the doors to accepting all the other slippery slope arguments, as they use the same logic. Before you know it, you're against all sorts of things.

    (Original post by christine18)
    And obviously childish notions such as: "Just because something is law doesn't mean the law is right". Well, obviously, Einstein. Go throw a tantrum.
    Though the former may be true, that doesn't validate it as an argument. It's baseless.
    I wasn't making an argument. I was opposing the idea that "law = right". That's all.

    (Original post by christine18)
    People make laws for people. If humans are still evolving and maturing (as a race) then the laws will obviously be subjective to the lawmakers in question and to their electoral body - which are [surprise, surprise] are made of alive people.

    Also... Laws are voted for by democratically elected leaders. Should you have a problem with the ones in place, do something about it by either dealing directly with MPs or through NGOs.
    Okay..

    It seems you have misunderstood quite a number I said...


    (Original post by christine18)
    Wrong. What the "alive" person did prior to is utterly irrelevant. Because as stated above, the consent [given during their lifetime] becomes void upon death.

    A dildo is rubber. Generally.
    The corpse is not a living, conscious being. It is an object. It has no rights of its own. Either, the prior owner has rights over it and the corpse should be respected, or it is just an object and anyone can lay claim over it.

    Night
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I find it amusing that there's a srs discussion about f***ing a corpse. Only on TSR.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by christine18)
    Weak argument. One would imagine that the OP (should they be a necrophiliac) wouldn't mind having sex with a necrophiliac once dead.
    She wanted reasons why it's tabooed... And did you understand my post? How can you have sex whilst DEAD? I basically said the reason it's tabooed is that someone who has just died would not have wanted their body to be violated in such a way, so it is akin to rape.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    What you're saying is true, there is nothing 'wrong' about it in a rational sense.

    However, the wonderful human invention of Taboo will get in the way of rational conversation about such a subject with most people. To them it is 'Wrong!' without justification. I suppose, most will come up with the sanctity of life, the body being a person etc, but it doesn't change the fact they decide it's wrong and then look for reason.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Shouldn't you technically ask consent from the next of kin?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OB2)
    it depends if the son gave consent
    Let's assume that the son did give consent. But what if the dead person, before they died, also gave consent to have necrophilic acts performed on them?
    Both situations are consented for, and both result in hurting their family members' feelings.

    Are you saying that if consent is given, it becomes moral (even if the family members' feelings are hurt)?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Just thought I'd make a post to address some of the main points made on this thread:

    1] "A dead person can't consent".
    Surely they can consent before death, the same way they consent for organ donation or giving their body up for scientific research? Why shouldn't their consent before death be considered valid?

    2] "It will hurt the feelings of family members".
    Maybe it will, but does this make it immoral? It would probably hurt my family members' feelings if I was in a relationship with someone who wasn't Asian. Does that make it immoral? Surely the wishes of the person involved in the sexual activity takes precedence over the feelings of their family.
    (Also, what if the person doesn't have any family members?)

    3] "It's ****ing disgusting".
    Not long ago, people would have said the same about homosexual or interracial relationships too. Eating snails and frogs legs is pretty disgusting in my opinion. Does that make it immoral?


    Also, for those that believe that necrophilia is wrong, answer this honestly:
    Did you decide that it is wrong first and then start looking for reasons? Or did you look for reasons first, and then decide it was wrong based on those reasons?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    From a utilitarian perspective, it probably isn't immoral, since the person is dead and therefore does not have preferences and cannot feel pain. You get pleasure and feel happy and, assuming that relatives don't find out, then nobody is hurt. From a virtue ethicist perspective, I don't see how such activity contributes towards the Good Life, and I doubt a virtuous person would need or want to engage in that sort of activity. From a deontological perspective (and this is the one which interests me), it depends whether people would consent, behind a veil of ignorance (this is Rawls' 'Justice as Fairness' deontology), to laws which allow them to have sex with dead people but also bear the risk that their dead body may be entered. I don't think there's much consensus, so therein lies its difficulty - it's a hard case, unlike with organ donation where most people would accept that it's probably irrational to care about your organs after death and the preference to have an organ (should you need it whilst ill in hospital) is a far weightier preference. With necrophilia, other concepts, such as dignity, get tossed into the debate. But anyway, the answer which interests you will depend on a lot of your foundational moral axioms.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Let's assume that the son did give consent. But what if the dead person, before they died, also gave consent to have necrophilic acts performed on them?
    Both situations are consented for, and both result in hurting their family members' feelings.

    Are you saying that if consent is given, it becomes moral (even if the family members' feelings are hurt)?
    no i was only joking however i believe consent isnt the big issue, say for example a father has sex with his daughter with her consent does that make it morale or a brother with his sister or with his mother? you see consent doesnt alter the fact that its wrong and immoral!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Well, tbf, I wouldn't want some uggo who can't get a live girl to let himself loose on me :erm:. Yes, it's immoral. And seriously messed up.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    They're not alive, they're just a pile of decomposing organic matter. I don't think it's immoral, but given te description of the bodies I just gave, I'd be surprised if someone could bring themselves to do it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OB2)
    no i was only joking however i believe consent isnt the big issue, say for example a father has sex with his daughter with her consent does that make it morale or a brother with his sister or with his mother? you see consent doesnt alter the fact that its wrong and immoral!
    On what ground would that be wrong though? If it's wrong because the daughter is too young, then it's because she's not mature enough to properly consent (i.e. make a contract in full knowledge of the consequences), otherwise what would be wrong about it? If it's because it's incest, then why is that wrong? I think a modern-day rationale on why incest is 'wrong' would include the idea that it carries the risk of an undesirable pregnancy (i.e. the foetus is less likely to be a healthy foetus), or possibly, unconvincingly imo, that it could break down the family unit. That sort of rationale doesn't really apply for necrophilia. Is there any other reason for why you declare these cases to be 'wrong'? I can't accept the statement that "incest is wrong" as a foundational moral statement. "Inflicting pain is wrong" (etc.) seems more intuitive to me. There may be factors other than consent which make things wrong, but its potential to evoke disgust is not one of them (since there are many counter-examples which show that what I disgust - people eating Marmite - may not be deemed "immoral").
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    On what ground would that be wrong though? If it's wrong because the daughter is too young, then it's because she's not mature enough to properly consent (i.e. make a contract in full knowledge of the consequences), otherwise what would be wrong about it? If it's because it's incest, then why is that wrong? I think a modern-day rationale on why incest is 'wrong' would include the idea that it carries the risk of an undesirable pregnancy (i.e. the foetus is less likely to be a healthy foetus), or possibly, unconvincingly imo, that it could break down the family unit. That sort of rationale doesn't really apply for necrophilia. Is there any other reason for why you declare these cases to be 'wrong'? I can't accept the statement that "incest is wrong" as a foundational moral statement. "Inflicting pain is wrong" (etc.) seems more intuitive to me. There may be factors other than consent which make things wrong, but its potential to evoke disgust is not one of them (since there are many counter-examples which show that what I disgust - people eating Marmite - may not be deemed "immoral").
    lfirstly lol at marmite, but you see i think there is one thing you are missing out, which is the meaning of the word moral, moral is a dynamic word as opposed to black for example or red, what we would call red now would still be classed as red 10000 years or ago or 10000 years in the future, however what is moral, can change according to the whether it conforms to the accepted standards of the current age one lives in and based on that yes it is immoral. However if u say is it dangerous, is it harmful or is it even gonna affect any1, here yes u can argue. That doesnt go to say that maybe in 10000 years time having sex with your mother would conform to the accepted standards of that time and so therefor for them at that time it would be a moral thing to do
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Malcolm-X)
    Well firstly there is the issue of consent as somebody mentioned. A dead person can't give consent (obviously) so to carry out a sexual act on the body could be perceived as immoral or possibly as an assault on the deceased.

    Secondly ask yourself this; God forbid it was a member of your family, how would you feel if somebody performed a sex act on the dead body of one of your loved ones?

    It's immoral, disrespectul and rather morbid and frankly anybody considering practising such an idea should seek psychiatric help immediately. It just isn't normal.
    Good first post here I can respect your position but I aim to look at this from an objective standpoint. so this is my response:

    'assault on the diseased' makes seems to beg the question that it's inherently wrong. Just because something is against the law doesn't make it immoral in the sense that I'm thinking.

    The only reason I think it might be bad should it to happen to my family is because I, like you, am a child of modern society and so will hold many of the natural and sometimes irrational beliefs of the age. Upon further inspection, I don't think there is anything wrong with it, or at least, it's difficult to place the finger on what exactly it is that makes us think that necrophilia is in fact wrong.

    Disrespect is not tantamount to immorality, I can address the Queen in an inappropriate manner and this would likely be considered as disrespectful, yet not immoral.

    Is it not enough to suggest that necrophilia is not to your taste just like perhaps homosexuality/heterosexuality/bestiality or any other unstated types of sexual preference. (though of course bestiality is not moral because animals could easily be construed as the victims)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OB2)
    lfirstly lol at marmite, but you see i think there is one thing you are missing out, which is the meaning of the word moral, moral is a dynamic word as opposed to black for example or red, what we would call red now would still be classed as red 10000 years or ago or 10000 years in the future, however what is moral, can change according to the whether it conforms to the accepted standards of the current age one lives in and based on that yes it is immoral. However if u say is it dangerous, is it harmful or is it even gonna affect any1, here yes u can argue. That doesnt go to say that maybe in 10000 years time having sex with your mother would conform to the accepted standards of that time and so therefor for them at that time it would be a moral thing to do
    That's a certain interpretation of morality (you've identified moral relativism), but I don't think that we need or actually want to accept it. I always find the moral relativists in very dangerous waters. If you're asserting that morality is 'dynamic', then what actually is morality? What is so special about the assertion that "rape is wrong" if it doesn't universally apply to everybody at all times? Saying that "rape is wrong" seems meaningless if, in a few years time, it is an incorrect statement WHEN none of the facts have changed (just, supposedly, one's values); that seems unlikely (based on our history), but granted I can't prove that it can't happen - I need only provide a plausible and coherent alternative to your view of morality. You're saying that it is just an opinion which is, somehow, fleetingly correct. You may as well say that it's a 'dominant value' at the time, and calling it morality somewhat obscures what you actually mean by that. You may as well be a moral nihilist - believing that morality does not exist - because if you're a relativist and are saying that "incest is wrong", what do you actually mean? It may not be wrong somewhere else in the world, or in a few years time, so why should I, ought I, consider it to be wrong at all?

    I think it is useful to treat concepts such as 'fairness' concretely - to say that morality, whether or not it is humanely constructed, ought to be something which is authoritative at all times and in all places. When I say that causing pain to innocent people is wrong (and, if you look at most ancient legal systems, religious texts and so forth, all those legal/moral systems carry those same useful moral axioms which are made more explicit in Mill's 'Harm Principle'), I say it categorically, because I would deem it to be unfair, unjust and immoral if I was on the receiving end (i.e. if I was the victim rather than the perpetrator). I think our conception of morality is loosely based on that reflective mechanism (and it is that reflective mechanism within Rawls' philosophy which attracts me to his work). There is more to be said about this but I don't want to go that far off-topic and get involved in a lengthy discussion on these things.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Netsky)
    Does a bear take a dump in the woods?
    • Offline

      1
      The thread presents for debate, a dilemma which has the potential to fascinate.

      And the reason why it fascinates us is that the living have an interest in what happens to their dead bodies!

      I'm providing a link to an article that is relevant and considered in a legalistic sense, which is utlimately related to morality.

      Have a read: http://ojls.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/2/297.short

      *Good points as always, Simon.
      • Thread Starter
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by SpiritedAway)
      Well, tbf, I wouldn't want some uggo who can't get a live girl to let himself loose on me :erm:. Yes, it's immoral. And seriously messed up.
      It's not obvious to me that physical appearance bares any influence on sexual orientation. People used to think homosexuality was messed up, is there no room for the attitude towards necrophilia to change?
      Offline

      2
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by whythehellnot)
      It's not obvious to me that physical appearance bares any influence on sexual orientation. People used to think homosexuality was messed up, is there no room for the attitude towards necrophilia to change?
      I seriously doubt it.
      Offline

      20
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by OB2)
      no i was only joking however i believe consent isnt the big issue, say for example a father has sex with his daughter with her consent does that make it morale or a brother with his sister or with his mother? you see consent doesnt alter the fact that its wrong and immoral!
      Why is it wrong and immoral in the first place? We can set the consent issue aside since you say that it doesn't alter anything. What else is there to make it immoral?

      Or is it immoral "Just because"?
     
     
     
  1. 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.

  2. Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  3. 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.

  4. 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.