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

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whythehellnot)
    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)
    What if the animal initiates sex? There's several species that will (dolphins and some apes will). Plus if you don't hold them down, they are always able to leave if they change their mind.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whythehellnot)
    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)
    Hmm not sure you can exactly compare homosexuality with necrophilia.

    Homosexuality (well in the UK at least) is legal and whilst it may seem "unconventional" to those who advocate that a relationship should only be between a man and a woman and that homosexuality is somewhat "abnormal", homosexuality isn't a choice or a lifestyle factor. For homosexuals it is a very real feeling and to them it feels completely natural as say for me it would be to fall in love with a girl. A homosexual relationship is a consensual one and there is nothing illegal about it.

    Necrophilia however in the eyes of the law is illegal and virtually any sane person free will agree that is repulsive and deeply immoral. Firstly the individual hasn't given consent so performing such an act on a corpse is no worse than rap. Secondly you'd have to question the sanity and wellbeing of the necrophile; to derive pleasure from performing an act on a dead human being personally sickens me to the core. I really cannot fathom how anybody coul gain pleasure from having intercourse with a dead body. This especially true if like me you consider yourself religios be it deeply or casually religious. I couldn't live with myself if I performed such an act.

    It really does baffle me how anybody could do something like that.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Malcolm-X)
    Hmm not sure you can exactly compare homosexuality with necrophilia.

    Homosexuality (well in the UK at least) is legal and whilst it may seem "unconventional" to those who advocate that a relationship should only be between a man and a woman and that homosexuality is somewhat "abnormal", homosexuality isn't a choice or a lifestyle factor. For homosexuals it is a very real feeling and to them it feels completely natural as say for me it would be to fall in love with a girl. A homosexual relationship is a consensual one and there is nothing illegal about it.

    Necrophilia however in the eyes of the law is illegal and virtually any sane person free will agree that is repulsive and deeply immoral. Firstly the individual hasn't given consent so performing such an act on a corpse is no worse than rap. Secondly you'd have to question the sanity and wellbeing of the necrophile; to derive pleasure from performing an act on a dead human being personally sickens me to the core. I really cannot fathom how anybody coul gain pleasure from having intercourse with a dead body. This especially true if like me you consider yourself religios be it deeply or casually religious. I couldn't live with myself if I performed such an act.

    It really does baffle me how anybody could do something like that.

    Is the law correct though? Modern day laws are just an expression of modern day thinking. We're no closer to the heart of the issue simply by pointing out its illegality. Laws change.

    Homosexuality hasn't always been as accepted as it is today; is there room for improvement regarding necrophiliacs. I understand that homosexual relationships are deep meaningful ones equal to that of any other relationship. Should the sexual attraction between a man and a man be seen as any more moral than the sexual attraction between a man and a dead man?

    There is no 'person' with which to give consent. Consent is for the living to ensure that no ones rights are breached, but the dead do not have the same rights as that of the living. - here you might argue that they do have SOME rights, for instance others have argued that this idea is akin to organ donation. I would argue that once someone is dead, if their organs are useful then medical science should have the right to them in order to save other lives. At the heart of both of these issues is 'the respect for the dead' but this axiom shouldn't be used a concrete starting point from which to build an argument or position, it seems to me that this idea is irrational and can sometimes lead to injustice.

    I don't see why there has to be something wrong with a necrophile, this is exactly the sort of view that was held against homosexuals way back when. It seems fairer to say that it is just another variation, one that may or may not be to other people's taste. From this foundation of disgust, it's easy to see how it developed into a taboo, especially with the catalyst of religion poking its nose in. The point here is, disgust shouldn't be enough to regard something immoral. Person X may find homosexual acts to be utterly repulsive, that doesn't mean they're justified in saying it's immoral. Can you really, truly understand how someone who is not of the same sexual orientation to you gains pleasure from sexual acts? I'd wager not. At least, if you can for one variation of a sexual orientation, why not another?

    If you consider the close relationship between how necrophilia is rejected based on disgust with that of homosexuality hundreds of years ago in religious countries and how disgust isn't a good enough reason to deem something immoral, can you find it in your heart (but more importantly your mind) to wave on your village necrophile?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lightburns)
    What if the animal initiates sex? There's several species that will (dolphins and some apes will). Plus if you don't hold them down, they are always able to leave if they change their mind.
    Sure why not, it's all good. That just helps towards making sexual orientation of people to be that bit more diverse.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Malcolm-X)
    Hmm not sure you can exactly compare homosexuality with necrophilia.

    Homosexuality (well in the UK at least) is legal and whilst it may seem "unconventional" to those who advocate that a relationship should only be between a man and a woman and that homosexuality is somewhat "abnormal", homosexuality isn't a choice or a lifestyle factor. For homosexuals it is a very real feeling and to them it feels completely natural as say for me it would be to fall in love with a girl. A homosexual relationship is a consensual one and there is nothing illegal about it.

    Necrophilia however in the eyes of the law is illegal and virtually any sane person free will agree that is repulsive and deeply immoral. Firstly the individual hasn't given consent so performing such an act on a corpse is no worse than rap. Secondly you'd have to question the sanity and wellbeing of the necrophile; to derive pleasure from performing an act on a dead human being personally sickens me to the core. I really cannot fathom how anybody coul gain pleasure from having intercourse with a dead body. This especially true if like me you consider yourself religios be it deeply or casually religious. I couldn't live with myself if I performed such an act.

    It really does baffle me how anybody could do something like that.
    A few points:

    1] Yes, homosexuality is legal while necrophilia is not. But surely legality isn't relevant, when we're questioning the morality of the acts. Usually, we decide whether or not something is moral, and then decide whether or not it should be legal after that. We don't say "It's illegal, therefore it's immoral".

    2] You say that for homosexuals to like members of their own gender is a "very real feeling" and it feels perfectly natural etc. Firstly - how do you know this, when you are not a homosexual? And secondly, how do you know that a necrophiliac doesn't feel exactly the same way about corpses? Maybe they're just as attracted to corpses as you are to women?

    3] In the case of necrophilia, you say that "the individual hasn't given consent". But what if they've given their consent before death, the same way they give consent for something like organ donation? Just because a person is dead doesn't necessarily mean they cannot consent - they may have already done so while they were still alive.

    4] You say that necrophilia is repulsive, and it sickens you to the core etc. but surely these are all subjective arguments? It sickens me to the core that some people eat snails and frog legs, but surely that doesn't make it immoral. I get the same disgusted feeling about necrophilia too, but I admit that my revulsion is an emotional response rather than a rational one.

    5] You question the sanity of those who wish to engage in necrophilia. I agree that it is highly unusual and that most of us would be repulsed by it. But why does this make them "insane"? How are they any different to other people who engage in deviant sexual activity? Sanity is once again subjective - a person who isn't used to homosexuality might call gay people "insane" as well.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    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.
    You see u can get philosophical here on what is morality, what defines what is moral or what isnt, but the fact of the matter is that i can say without any hesitancy that necrophilia is immoral and you cannot say that i am wrong based on my opinion on the definition of morality. As you said certain moral principles are somewhat fixed like inflicting pain on innocent people, having sex with someones dead mother i believe may inflict some pain, other values like respecting the dead, having sex with a dead guy may seam disrespectful
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    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"?
    What makes something moral, is whether or not it conforms to the accepted standards of the current age one lives in, and based on that yes it is immoral
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OB2)
    You see u can get philosophical here on what is morality, what defines what is moral or what isnt, but the fact of the matter is that i can say without any hesitancy that necrophilia is immoral and you cannot say that i am wrong based on my opinion on the definition of morality. As you said certain moral principles are somewhat fixed like inflicting pain on innocent people, having sex with someones dead mother i believe may inflict some pain, other values like respecting the dead, having sex with a dead guy may seam disrespectful
    I think you're correct here - you can say without any hesitancy that necrophilia is immoral and I would not be able to say that you are wrong IF you define morality in such a circular way (i.e. necrophilia is immoral because immorality involves necrophilia). I would also agree that some of the factors that you mention are morally relevant. These aren't where my objections lie.

    (Original post by OB2)
    What makes something moral, is whether or not it conforms to the accepted standards of the current age one lives in, and based on that yes it is immoral
    I disagree with that conception of morality, because it leads to the conclusion that homosexuality and female employment were once immoral, but I believe that they were never immoral, per se (under my conception of morality).
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OB2)
    What makes something moral, is whether or not it conforms to the accepted standards of the current age one lives in, and based on that yes it is immoral
    Don't you think it generally works the other way round? That society accepts certain actions because they are moral. Not that they are moral because society accepts them.
    Not long ago, racism and forced slavery were considered perfectly acceptable in American society. Does that mean it was moral?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Netsky)
    Does a bear take a dump in the woods?
    This Bear likes to think it takes a dump in the toilet, but I guess it's down to perception.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Do not worry OP you are new here. As for David Mitchell and donating your corpse to necrophilia.

    Well guys if you like greys instead of pinkies and enjoy decomposing vagina .... Good luck to you
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    A few points:

    1] Yes, homosexuality is legal while necrophilia is not. But surely legality isn't relevant, when we're questioning the morality of the acts. Usually, we decide whether or not something is moral, and then decide whether or not it should be legal after that. We don't say "It's illegal, therefore it's immoral".

    2] You say that for homosexuals to like members of their own gender is a "very real feeling" and it feels perfectly natural etc. Firstly - how do you know this, when you are not a homosexual? And secondly, how do you know that a necrophiliac doesn't feel exactly the same way about corpses? Maybe they're just as attracted to corpses as you are to women?

    3] In the case of necrophilia, you say that "the individual hasn't given consent". But what if they've given their consent before death, the same way they give consent for something like organ donation? Just because a person is dead doesn't necessarily mean they cannot consent - they may have already done so while they were still alive.

    4] You say that necrophilia is repulsive, and it sickens you to the core etc. but surely these are all subjective arguments? It sickens me to the core that some people eat snails and frog legs, but surely that doesn't make it immoral. I get the same disgusted feeling about necrophilia too, but I admit that my revulsion is an emotional response rather than a rational one.

    5] You question the sanity of those who wish to engage in necrophilia. I agree that it is highly unusual and that most of us would be repulsed by it. But why does this make them "insane"? How are they any different to other people who engage in deviant sexual activity? Sanity is once again subjective - a person who isn't used to homosexuality might call gay people "insane" as well.
    1- absolutely, surely u decide whether or not something is immoral and then decide whether it should be made illegal as im sure was done by the government in the case of necriphillia when they banned it

    2- Firstly u dont know whether or not this person is homosexual and even so all thats required to invalidate this point is a homosexual to testify. Secondly statistics show that primary motive for the act of necrophilia is the desire for an unresisting and unrejecting partner rather than being attracted to the dead

    3- As i have previously mentioned consent isnt the be all end all of what makes something moral as in the case of having sex with your mother with her consent does that make it moral?

    4- whether u find something repulsive is not evidence and cannot make something be classed as immoral, however u may use it to somewhat back and emphasize your point

    5- You cannot class someone when who has engaged in necrophilia as insane however statistics do show that the majority do have psychological deficiencies which ultimately lead to this act
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Don't you think it generally works the other way round? That society accepts certain actions because they are moral. Not that they are moral because society accepts them.
    Not long ago, racism and forced slavery were considered perfectly acceptable in American society. Does that mean it was moral?
    The moral system covers a very large area values, many of which are fixed and peoples opinion on whether or not they are right or wrong has changed little over the centuries, however certain moral values do change as in the case of homosexuality which used to be deemed as wrong and immoral however this perception has changed now and is classed as perfectly acceptable. You see, something now that you see as perfectly moral and acceptable maybe in 5000 yrs time will be comletely immoral and detestable. However should you do this act now we would class it as moral. You see what is moral or not changes through time as something that is moral is something that one deems is right and what people deem as being right. When it comes to slavery if the people at the time believed what they are doing is right and acceptble then for them at that time it was moraly acceptable to do so
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OB2)
    1- absolutely, surely u decide whether or not something is immoral and then decide whether it should be made illegal as im sure was done by the government in the case of necriphillia when they banned it
    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.

    2- Firstly u dont know whether or not this person is homosexual and even so all thats required to invalidate this point is a homosexual to testify. Secondly statistics show that primary motive for the act of necrophilia is the desire for an unresisting and unrejecting partner rather than being attracted to the dead
    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.

    3- As i have previously mentioned consent isnt the be all end all of what makes something moral as in the case of having sex with your mother with her consent does that make it moral?
    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.

    4- whether u find something repulsive is not evidence and cannot make something be classed as immoral, however u may use it to somewhat back and emphasize your point
    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.

    5- You cannot class someone when who has engaged in necrophilia as insane however statistics do show that the majority do have psychological deficiencies which ultimately lead to this act
    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?)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OB2)
    The moral system covers a very large area values, many of which are fixed and peoples opinion on whether or not they are right or wrong has changed little over the centuries, however certain moral values do change as in the case of homosexuality which used to be deemed as wrong and immoral however this perception has changed now and is classed as perfectly acceptable. You see, something now that you see as perfectly moral and acceptable maybe in 5000 yrs time will be comletely immoral and detestable. However should you do this act now we would class it as moral. You see what is moral or not changes through time as something that is moral is something that one deems is right and what people deem as being right. When it comes to slavery if the people at the time believed what they are doing is right and acceptble then for them at that time it was moraly acceptable to do so
    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?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    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.
    What about just plain old Nozickianism?. Not banning capitalist acts between consenting adults. We assume the default position to be that no one is permitted to **** other people unless these people consented to being ****ed. Since the person is dead, we can't have ex-post consent. We're stuck with ex-ante consent which, imo, is better than nothing. So when you're writing your will you can say that you wouldn't want your body to be touched in certain ways after you're gone. Problem solved?

    I realise there's a problem in recognising who has a right over X once X is dead. I assume however that even behind the Rawlsian veil, most people would opt for the Nozickian option especially if they are to remain consistent with regards to respecting a dead person's wishes. We already think it appropriate that someone who's about to die has the right to decide whether or not she would like to buried or burned or thrown into the ocean (not sure if this last option is legal ). So what would be the argument against the Nozickian position? (deontological argument pls - utilitarianism is dumb)

    The only argument I can think of is that most people wouldn't consent to being treated that way by someone who they probably consider to be a freak (which is what, rightly or wrongly, most people think of necrophiliacs nowadays). However, that doesn't hurt the Nozickian cause. Non-necrophiliacs who are disgusted at what the necrophiliacs are doing will not make their bodies available. But perhaps the necrophiliacs themselves wouldn't mind having other necrophiliacs touching their bodies. They might after all create a "market" for necrophilia. That is, the demand for dead bodies available for sex comes from the necrophiliacs themselves. IF the supply of dead bodies doesn't come from non-necrophiliacs (and it's very likely that it won't), it will, again, come from the necrophiliacs themselves.
    Offline

    12
    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?
    Just because, well, i was wondering, would you apply this logic to a person in a coma? Would you think that raping a coma patient was moral?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I am completely speechless!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Boobies.)
    Just because, well, i was wondering, would you apply this logic to a person in a coma? Would you think that raping a coma patient was moral?
    It depends on the wishes of the coma patient. For example, to 'murder' a coma patient depends on their wishes - I would say it is moral to kill someone in a coma if they have asked to be killed. Turning of the life support machine happens all the time, and this is not considered murder, because of pre-consent. So previous consent over what you want done to you can be consensual and therefore not rape.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bourgeois)
    What about just plain old Nozickianism?. Not banning capitalist acts between consenting adults. We assume the default position to be that no one is permitted to **** other people unless these people consented to being ****ed. Since the person is dead, we can't have ex-post consent. We're stuck with ex-ante consent which, imo, is better than nothing. So when you're writing your will you can say that you wouldn't want your body to be touched in certain ways after you're gone. Problem solved?
    I don't think that the problem is solved - you're presuming that we can make conditions about how our dead bodies are treated (in a will once we're alive) and assuming that these rights exist and are authoritative and binding once we're dead. I don't think that's an obvious assumption. "Nozickianism" is a form of deontology, and all the problems which I highlighted under that category still apply (albeit for different reasons). This is largely because Libertarian stances are not conclusive in their statements about the range of agents to which we grant moral status. Nozickianism tells us what our rights ought to be, not to whom we grant those rights. Do we grant non-human animals the same rights as humans? Do we grant corpses the same rights? Does the non-aggression axiom only apply to those who are currently living whilst they are currently living? Nozickianism doesn't really provide a methodology for how we answer those questions (unlike the deontological example which I provided).

    I realise there's a problem in recognising who has a right over X once X is dead. I assume however that even behind the Rawlsian veil, most people would opt for the Nozickian option especially if they are to remain consistent with regards to respecting a dead person's wishes. We already think it appropriate that someone who's about to die has the right to decide whether or not she would like to buried or burned or thrown into the ocean (not sure if this last option is legal ). So what would be the argument against the Nozickian position? (deontological argument pls - utilitarianism is dumb)
    And then the problem of vagueness creeps in, because when is a corpse no longer a corpse? If our hands happen to touch a bit of decomposed skin, are we disrespecting anybody's rights? We inevitably have to move a corpse, with or without any information about whether or not the person would have consented to it. So I don't think we can settle straight-away for what you claim to be the Nozickian option.

    A very clear Kantian deontological example would be to universalise the law that we grant people the right to dictate what happens to their corpse - where corpses are unable to be removed from houses because of a right which was claimed whilst the dead person was alive. We get into silly states of affairs. But more persuasively, this is really a question about the scope of our moral duties, and it's hard to imagine that a non-existent creature (a corpse) could have any preference which would outweigh the preference of an existing creature (a patient needing an organ) behind a veil of ignorance, so in Rawlsian deontology it is arguable that corpses do not have rights. I do accept, however, that the force of the argument which says that the desire to not have one's dead body disrespected is a powerful preference, which makes it a hard case (and that would apply for any enlightenment moral philosophy - be it deontology or utilitarianism).

    The only argument I can think of is that most people wouldn't consent to being treated that way after they're gone by someone who they probably consider to be a freak (which is what, rightly or wrongly, most people think of necrophiliacs nowadays). However, that doesn't hurt the Nozickian cause. Non-necrophiliacs who are disgusted at what the necrophiliacs are doing will not make their bodies available. But perhaps the necrophiliacs themselves wouldn't mind having other necrophiliacs touching their bodies. They might after all create a "market" for necrophilia. That is, the demand for dead bodies available for sex comes from the necrophiliacs themselves. IF the supply of dead bodies doesn't come from non-necrophiliacs (and it's very likely that it won't), it will, again, come from the necrophiliacs themselves.
    I agree that generally the preference for individuals to have their dignity remain in tact after death usually outweighs a preference for somebody to rub their willy against decomposed skin. Preferences, generally, are all what morally matter when we examine most moral claims, and I could imagine that people would choose rights which safeguard their bodies from being raped (rather than, say, plundered for organs, or removed from a house).

    You're also confusing Nozickianism with market-systems, and whilst Nozickianism entails market-systems, what you're talking about isn't really Nozickianism. You're just saying that the market is the best way to grant people autonomy and choice over what happens to their body after death. And indeed, people deciding laws under a social contract may choose that system as the fairest. That's not Nozickianism... not until you've proven that the principle within your argument which legitimises necrophilia comes from Nozick's work (or any Libertarian's work) - it doesn't, because self-ownership is never explicitly granted to corpses. However, I do accept the force of your argument here, though I'm guessing it's probably not for the same reasons as you.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    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.