Necrophillia is not immoral Watch

imperial maniac
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#101
Report 7 years ago
#101
(Original post by Baula)
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:
Which was then locked... I'm loving the pictures depicting trolls by opus btw, he must have quite a collection stored on the old hard drive.

How is someone consenting to have their body used by a necrophile after death in any way prostitution?
0
reply
Arekkusu
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#102
Report 7 years ago
#102
(Original post by Stefan1991)
Proof of this?
Insofar as the relatives believe he has a soul; hence why I put "and/or his memory" to please atheists; the thrust of the argument is people's beliefs about the dead person, not any sort of actual reality.

(Original post by Stefan1991)
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.
Again, we have this conceit that people retain rights over their property even after their death (and the body is the most intrinsic of all property, because it's completely inseparable from the person's cognition).

That's why we have wills that say, "I give all my money to so-and-so, and I want my body buried in the graveyard of the local church, facing my hometown, blah blah." Equally, you could legitimately offer yourself up to necrophiles, cannibals or medical dissection, but the point is that you make the choices about your own body.

True, if it were in secret it is a victimless crime; in fact, if anything it would probably wrack the necrophile with guilt. But the guarantee of the will does have an important social function: it helps the dying individual feel at ease with their death, feeling a sense of control over it.

To go back on one's word when the other person cannot know - is this immoral? If your brother went travelling to the other side of the world, would it be immoral to **** his girlfriend? He'd never find out - but of course it would.
0
reply
Baula
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#103
Report 7 years ago
#103
(Original post by imperial maniac)
Which was then locked... I'm loving the pictures depicting trolls by opus btw, he must have quite a collection stored on the old hard drive.

How is someone consenting to have their body used by a necrophile after death in any way prostitution?
You proposed that money should be exchanged . . .
0
reply
Chooba
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#104
Report 7 years ago
#104
unclean
0
reply
imperial maniac
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#105
Report 7 years ago
#105
(Original post by Baula)
You proposed that money should be exchanged . . .
Erm...No I didn't.
0
reply
Unbiased Opinion
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#106
Report 7 years ago
#106
(Original post by Stefan1991)
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...
It would hit the news, there would be major debate, death (arguably the most taboo thing in society) would become the subject of many uncomfortable conversations, people would start fearing for their relatives and their dead bodies (whether justified or not), children would probably hear things they shouldn't/don't want to.

As for effort, your suggestion in your OP of a brothel for dead bodies, essentially, would require a hell of a lot of regulation for very few people. Another point: poor families could end up prostituting their dead relatives... this would a coerced- i.e. invalid- choice.


It makes no difference to the person it once belonged to, they do not exist anymore.
You can look at a dead body is two ways: the now-dead body (which is the aspect you seem to focusing on) or the once-living person. The once-living person's desires are carried on through want fulfillment (see my previous post) and indeed this perspective is employed through the Human Tissue Act and through wills. Fact of the matter is people do care what happens to their body after they die, and we have to, at the very least, respect the living person's desire.
Even the now-dead body deserves respect because of the emotional attachment placed on dead bodies by relatives... even by strangers. Look at the Alder Hay organ scandal, and they were just organs, not actual whole bodies.
0
reply
Unbiased Opinion
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#107
Report 7 years ago
#107
(Original post by imperial maniac)
Erm...No I didn't.
"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. "

Quote from your OP.
0
reply
Pindar
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#108
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#108
(Original post by Unbiased Opinion)
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.
A+B) Let me explain it like this. Let's say every day before 12 o clock a mad clown brutally rapes, tortures then kills you. He then resurrects you with no memory of the event in perfect health, and you go on to have a nice day. The next day he does it again, and repeat.

Since you have no memory of the event, you wouldn't even notice it ever happening and there would be no difference to your life to how it is now. In fact, it could be happening to you right now. Do you honestly care about something happening that you have no idea about and doesn't affect you?

C) Why does want fulfilment matter? Why should peoples wants HAVE to be fulfilled when they are both unaware of it and it doesn't affect them?

I think it is incredibly selfish to continue wanting demands on a world you don't even belong to, when you don't even exist any longer. Dead people do not exist anymore and are therefore their wishes are irrelevant.


D) Prove to me this "social contract". I haven't yet read nor signed one. A contract can only exist if agreed to by both parties. I don't remember agreeing to anything.
0
reply
Baula
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#109
Report 7 years ago
#109
(Original post by imperial maniac)
Erm...No I didn't.
(Original post by imperial maniac)
Necrophilliacs could pay money to the deceased's family for the pleasure.
Then you go on to say the families get financial security
0
reply
imperial maniac
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#110
Report 7 years ago
#110
(Original post by Unbiased Opinion)
"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. "

Quote from your OP.
Oh fair enough, I should learn to read, it's one in the morning and I'm writing about necrophilia.

Anyway I suppose it is pretty much necrophilliac prostitution, but since the body is donated by the owner, I don't think that there is a problem.

Even if the person has consented so that their family will have a bit more money, as they are desperate, isn't that in some ways a good thing? The body isn't being wasted, the necrophilliac gets what they want and the family get some money to help them.
0
reply
imperial maniac
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#111
Report 7 years ago
#111
(Original post by Baula)
Then you go on to say the families get financial security
That was stefan's post, but it doesn't matter anyway since I agree with him.

I'm going to bed now, byeeee.
0
reply
Baula
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#112
Report 7 years ago
#112
(Original post by imperial maniac)
That was stefan's post, but it doesn't matter anyway since I agree with him.

I'm going to bed now, byeeee.
ahhh oops sorry I didn't bother checking to see if you were the OP D'oh
Never the less, point still stands that the OP mentioned money so it's a bit controversial in that sense aswell.

Goodnight anyways
0
reply
Pindar
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#113
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#113
(Original post by Arekkusu)
Insofar as the relatives believe he has a soul; hence why I put "and/or his memory" to please atheists; the thrust of the argument is people's beliefs about the dead person, not any sort of actual reality.
:rofl:

Even if conceivable the dead person DOES have a soul (:lol:) why again should they have any say about what happens to their corpse?

(Original post by Arekkusu)
Again, we have this conceit that people retain rights over their property even after their death (and the body is the most intrinsic of all property, because it's completely inseparable from the person's cognition).
Did you actually just contradict what you just said about a soul?

:lol:

(Original post by Arekkusu)
That's why we have wills that say, "I give all my money to so-and-so, and I want my body buried in the graveyard of the local church, facing my hometown, blah blah." Equally, you could legitimately offer yourself up to necrophiles, cannibals or medical dissection, but the point is that you make the choices about your own body.
The body does not belong to you anymore, you don't exist. How can something which does not exist own property?

(Original post by Arekkusu)
True, if it were in secret it is a victimless crime; in fact, if anything it would probably wrack the necrophile with guilt. But the guarantee of the will does have an important social function: it helps the dying individual feel at ease with their death, feeling a sense of control over it.
Wills are so families can hoard all their wealth together and prolong the survival of their genes. It also gives incentives for people to work all their lives knowing their money is being kept to their family, helping the capitalist system. But it's not exactly like the heirs of inheritances really deserve it.

(Original post by Arekkusu)
To go back on one's word when the other person cannot know - is this immoral? If your brother went travelling to the other side of the world, would it be immoral to **** his girlfriend? He'd never find out - but of course it would.
No it wouldn't.
0
reply
lackjan
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#114
Report 7 years ago
#114
think i just vommed a little...
0
reply
Unbiased Opinion
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#115
Report 7 years ago
#115
(Original post by Stefan1991)
A+B) Let me explain it like this. Let's say every day before 12 o clock a mad clown brutally rapes, tortures then kills you. He then resurrects you with no memory of the event in perfect health, and you go on to have a nice day. The next day he does it again, and repeat.

Since you have no memory of the event, you wouldn't even notice it ever happening and there would be no difference to your life to how it is now. In fact, it could be happening to you right now. Do you honestly care about something happening that you have no idea about and doesn't affect you?
Yes, I care, because being brutally raped and murdered would cause me a hell of a lot of stress and pain. Whether or not I remember it afterwards is irrelevant to how I feel at the time.

C) Why does want fulfilment matter? Why should peoples wants HAVE to be fulfilled when they are both unaware of it and it doesn't affect them?
This is a good question. The first point to make is that it forms a basis of the social contract theory (which while you may feel is not a part of your life, many people do feel like a part of it). The second is that the alternative is scary: you can do anything and everything so long as the person doesn't know... but just because they don't realise, it doesn't mean it hasn't affected them. For example, if someone nicked money from me and I didn't realise, I would still have less money. This analogy can't be carried onto a dead body, but it would be logically inconsistent to say want-fulfillment exists in my outlined scenario but not in the case of someone dying since the term "want-fulfillment" is an absolute one, not a case-specific one.

Legally, want-fulfillment is recognised.

I think it is incredibly selfish to continue wanting demands on a world you don't even belong to, when you don't even exist any longer. Dead people do not exist anymore and are therefore their wishes are irrelevant.
It can't be selfish if the person is dead... it can't be anything when the person is dead. When a person wants something to happen to their body, they make that decision based on their current emotions and sentiments and while they are existing.


D) Prove to me this "social contract". I haven't yet read nor signed one. A contract can only exist if agreed to by both parties. I don't remember agreeing to anything.
Well, yeah, nowhere in the social contract theory does it say anything about written consent... in medical ethics, consent can be implied, and such is the case in the social contract.
0
reply
Chris_23
Badges: 2
#116
Report 7 years ago
#116
0
reply
Unbiased Opinion
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#117
Report 7 years ago
#117
(Original post by imperial maniac)
Oh fair enough, I should learn to read, it's one in the morning and I'm writing about necrophilia.

Anyway I suppose it is pretty much necrophilliac prostitution, but since the body is donated by the owner, I don't think that there is a problem.

Even if the person has consented so that their family will have a bit more money, as they are desperate, isn't that in some ways a good thing? The body isn't being wasted, the necrophilliac gets what they want and the family get some money to help them.
I also didn't realise you weren't the OP, sorry.

Even if you don't feel this way, the majority of people do (as shown by this thread): the idea of donating the body of a relative to be subject to sex, to be literally an object with no respect to who they were, is horrible. The only way a family would opt for this is if they were desperate for money, in which case they'd be coerced into the decision. Coercion isn't valid in obtaining consent in research ethics and so by logical extension it's not valid for obtaining consent in this case.
0
reply
Pindar
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#118
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#118
(Original post by Unbiased Opinion)
It would hit the news, there would be major debate, death (arguably the most taboo thing in society) would become the subject of many uncomfortable conversations, people would start fearing for their relatives and their dead bodies (whether justified or not), children would probably hear things they shouldn't/don't want to.
But you'd finally be able to have a comeback to.

"I shagged your mum"
"mate, my mum's dead"
"I know"

(Original post by Unbiased Opinion)
As for effort, your suggestion in your OP of a brothel for dead bodies, essentially, would require a hell of a lot of regulation for very few people. Another point: poor families could end up prostituting their dead relatives... this would a coerced- i.e. invalid- choice.
Who is being coerced? How does one "coerce" a corpse?

Anyway, my suggestion is only to designed to decriminalise and legitimise necrophilia, in order for it to become a more normalized behaviour in society.

People would slowly start to realise that what happens to dead corpses doesn't matter, and leave their superstitious ways behind, paving the road for human rationality and complete enlightenment. The next step of our evolutionary journey. The final goal is full legalisation.

(Original post by Unbiased Opinion)
You can look at a dead body is two ways: the now-dead body (which is the aspect you seem to focusing on) or the once-living person. The once-living person's desires are carried on through want fulfillment (see my previous post) and indeed this perspective is employed through the Human Tissue Act and through wills. Fact of the matter is people do care what happens to their body after they die, and we have to, at the very least, respect the living person's desire.
Even the now-dead body deserves respect because of the emotional attachment placed on dead bodies by relatives... even by strangers. Look at the Alder Hay organ scandal, and they were just organs, not actual whole bodies.
So because people are irrational and primitive, we should keep encouraging them?

I think another hundred years and we'll have grown out of this nonsense, or maybe I'm giving too much credit to evolution.
0
reply
Unbiased Opinion
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#119
Report 7 years ago
#119
(Original post by Stefan1991)
But you'd finally be able to have a comeback to.

"I shagged your mum"
"mate, my mum's dead"
"I know"
Mate, I have better ya ma jokes than that.


Who is being coerced? How does one "coerce" a corpse?

Anyway, my suggestion is only to designed to decriminalise and legitimise necrophilia, in order for it to become a more normalized behaviour in society.

People would slowly start to realise that what happens to dead corpses doesn't matter, and leave their superstitious ways behind, paving the road for human rationality and complete enlightenment. The next step of our evolutionary journey. The final goal is full legalisation.
You don't coerce the corpse, you coerce the person before they die.

This whole debate is about whether or not necrophilia is immoral, and the arguments for it either being immoral, or the arguments against it being legalised, still exist so I think it's pretty bold of you to assert the above.

So because people are irrational and primitive, we should keep encouraging them?
Ethics means nothing if it doesn't take into consideration the emotions of a person.

And I'm having a rational discussion with you on why necrophilia shouldn't be legalised, you presuppose too much to further your agenda (so to speak).

I think another hundred years and we'll have grown out of this nonsense, or maybe I'm giving too much credit to evolution.
You're just using emotive language rather than rational argument now.

Spoiler:
Show
and you misunderstand evolution
0
reply
Pindar
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#120
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#120
(Original post by Unbiased Opinion)
Yes, I care, because being brutally raped and murdered would cause me a hell of a lot of stress and pain. Whether or not I remember it afterwards is irrelevant to how I feel at the time.
It happened to you 5 minutes ago, how do you feel about it?

(Original post by Unbiased Opinion)
This is a good question. The first point to make is that it forms a basis of the social contract theory (which while you may feel is not a part of your life, many people do feel like a part of it). The second is that the alternative is scary: you can do anything and everything so long as the person doesn't know... but just because they don't realise, it doesn't mean it hasn't affected them. For example, if someone nicked money from me and I didn't realise, I would still have less money.
That example is totally different, doesn't apply and you know it. Having your corpse shagged in secret does not affect the family, nor your non-existing self. Whereas you'd be aware someone has stolen from you, and it would affect you.

Even if you go for the showing no respect argument, it's not like it's any worse than flipping two fingers up behind someone's back. Not exactly on the same level as rapists and murderers, is it? And actually, for some reason, a lot of people would say it's much worse.

(Original post by Unbiased Opinion)
Legally, want-fulfillment is recognised.
That's not an argument.

(Original post by Unbiased Opinion)
It can't be selfish if the person is dead... it can't be anything when the person is dead. When a person wants something to happen to their body, they make that decision based on their current emotions and sentiments and while they are existing.
Just because I dictate a list of things on how I want everything to be after I die doesn't mean they have to be fulfilled. Why should dead people have a say over anything? It's not a democracy of the dead.

(Original post by Unbiased Opinion)
Well, yeah, nowhere in the social contract theory does it say anything about written consent... in medical ethics, consent can be implied, and such is the case in the social contract.
Convenient that, a binding contract which by default you have to agree to.

I reject this social contract and spit on it's very concept which is not even physically possible.
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! (502)
37.8%
No - but I will (102)
7.68%
No - I don't want to (91)
6.85%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (633)
47.67%

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