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

Is necrophilia immoral? Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Rather disturbing, yes.

    Immoral....it's hard to find grounds for saying that it's immoral.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by siwelmail)
    Both of you. Do you want to be shagged when you're dead? no you ****ing sick *******s leave the dead IN PEACE

    REST IN PEACE?

    oh no. LETS **** THEM UP THE ASS
    Read the post you quoted please?

    "That doesn't mean it isn't a vile act that should be condemned because frankly it is disturbing.."

    Just because something is disrespectful, disturbing and shocking doesn't necessarily mean that it's immoral. For example pulling a moonie in public could be all three of those things, but it isn't really immoral. Necrophilia is obviously reprehensible and we should endeavour to stop people doing it. It's not immoral, though, imo.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Take it from me man, it's not worth it...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    its is immoral

    unless stated by the deceased that after deatn that they give thier consent to sex it is even more wrong

    saying that they cannot give consent because they are dead is like taking thier peosessions as they have died and wont be using them anymore

    and its just sick really
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dan3va)
    its is immoral

    unless stated by the deceased that after deatn that they give thier consent to sex it is even more wrong

    saying that they cannot give consent because they are dead is like taking thier peosessions as they have died and wont be using them anymore

    and its just sick really
    Well if there is not family member to inherit the possessions, someone has to take their items once they've died so I wouldn't suggest that the analogy is a sound one. In both instances, the greater good has been achieved, lord knows leaving possessions (that could be useful to someone else) on their person isn't the 'right' thing to do because it just results in more harm. Leaving the dead to 'Rest in Peace' is all well and good, but when it's to the detriment of the living, I think we should draw a line. Personally I think organ donation should be compulsory, but superstition and religion (either directly or indirectly) have moulded our believes to make this possibility one for the distant future.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    It's not immoral.


    When compared to munting. If you want to know what munting is then... I'm not sure if you can Google it cause I heard from one of my friends. It's pretty disgusting.

    Edit: Urban Dictionary is your friend.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whythehellnot)
    Well if there is not family member to inherit the possessions, someone has to take their items once they've died so I wouldn't suggest that the analogy is a sound one. In both instances, the greater good has been achieved, lord knows leaving possessions (that could be useful to someone else) on their person isn't the 'right' thing to do because it just results in more harm. Leaving the dead to 'Rest in Peace' is all well and good, but when it's to the detriment of the living, I think we should draw a line. Personally I think organ donation should be compulsory, but superstition and religion (either directly or indirectly) have moulded our believes to make this possibility one for the distant future.
    if there is no one to collect the belongings then they go to the government so that anology is a good one. again what you say is the same as saying "that parked car has no one to drive it ill have to drive it now"

    even if they are dead without consent it is still rape.

    the greater good has not been achieved as you have still stolen the "possesions"

    yes if a leaving a body alone will cause a detrimental effect it should be disturbed (ie to discover information that would prevent a crime). but you not getting to have sex is not a valid reason as it is not nessesary of that body for you to have sex.

    compulsory organ donnation is an argument to be had which has valid causes to come into effect but sociatey is not a cause to be ignored

    if you are bringing god into the question then you are rapeing god by having sex with the body as it has gone back to god
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Well... it's hardly going to be consensual now is it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The relatives would be mortified if they found out. Then it wouldn't be morally justified from a utilitarian standpoint.

    Fun fact: 60% of all necrophiliacs work with dead bodies for a living.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Do you believe that dead people know what's being done to their bodies?
    When a dead person is getting eaten by worms, does that count as "resting in peace"?

    by saying there is nothing wrong if know one knows that is much the same as saying that if you had all of your money stolen and you didn't know about it that it is not wrong or that giving some one rohipnol then having sex with them is ok as they would not know

    the term resting in peace (as i believe it) is that you are now (spiritually) at one with the world and that your decompostion is you fully becoming one with the world
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dan3va)
    by saying there is nothing wrong if know one knows that is much the same as saying that if you had all of your money stolen and you didn't know about it that it is not wrong or that giving some one rohipnol then having sex with them is ok as they would not know
    Could you explain then, in your own words, exactly what is wrong with both of those things?
    Does the same argument still remain valid in the case of necrophilia?

    the term resting in peace (as i believe it) is that you are now (spiritually) at one with the world and that your decompostion is you fully becoming one with the world
    In what way do you think necrophilia prevents this?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dan3va)
    if there is no one to collect the belongings then they go to the government so that anology is a good one. again what you say is the same as saying "that parked car has no one to drive it ill have to drive it now"

    even if they are dead without consent it is still rape.

    the greater good has not been achieved as you have still stolen the "possesions"

    yes if a leaving a body alone will cause a detrimental effect it should be disturbed (ie to discover information that would prevent a crime). but you not getting to have sex is not a valid reason as it is not nessesary of that body for you to have sex.

    compulsory organ donnation is an argument to be had which has valid causes to come into effect but sociatey is not a cause to be ignored

    if you are bringing god into the question then you are rapeing god by having sex with the body as it has gone back to god
    You're presupposing your own position to be correct. 'SOMEONE has to take them' - That includes the government. Besides, if you want to get pedantic, that only states the legal proceedings, not the moral proceedings; the two are NOT interchangeable. No it's not the same as a parked car, it would be reasonable to assume that the vast majority of cars we see out and about it owned by someone. IF it so happens that someone finds an abandoned car where by it would be more miraculous if someone did own the car than not, then I would say that whomever may find such a car would be within their rights both rationally and ethically to take advantage of its resources.

    I'm not interested in the semantics of what rape is or is not considered. Perhaps it shouldn't be considered rape, this definition is born of the very thing I'm questioning here, the general opinion that necrophilia is wrong. Rape of the living compared to rape of the dead have distinctly different effects and moral consequences - it's not enough to say that one is as bad as the other.

    possessions havn't been stolen, for someone to steal something, there has to be an owner, since the previous owner is dead they lose their status of owned items (remember of course there are not obvious people to inherit the items in this scenario) and become merely items. Items that I argue should be utilised in order to achieve the greater good.

    Sex with a piece of meat is seen as wrong, why? Why should it be seen as acceptable to 'disturb' a body only in the necessary cases? Is respect for the dead even an intelligible notion? - I don't think it is. Respect for the memory of the person, then find, but the physical corpse seems like an irrational symbolisation to me born from our inability to separate the body from the mind. Realistically though, no harm will come from having sex with a dead body.


    "Society is not a case to be ignored" - what does that even mean? Because the masses think in a particular way towards the issue, it therefore must hold some weight? Wrong, if 1 person is wrong, or 200 million people are wrong, they're all equally wrong. the main argument seems to be respect for the dead is something we should aspire to, but respect for the dead at the expense of the living is irrational, especially when it comes to organ donation. It's this sort of idea that results in MORE dead people for us to respect which is a tragedy of 'society'.

    I'm not bringing god into the question, the notion of raping an 'omnipotent' being is absolutely ridiculous. The notion of God itself isn't much better anyway.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HannieTheConqueror)
    The relatives would be mortified if they found out. Then it wouldn't be morally justified from a utilitarian standpoint.

    Fun fact: 60% of all necrophiliacs work with dead bodies for a living.
    They would only be mortified upon the discovery because they already think that it's wrong and it has a certain amount of 'YUK' factor about it. Is this really enough to justify the view that necrophilia is immoral?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Erm... how exactly did you obtain the body?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    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.



    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.



    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.



    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.



    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?)
    The question is ‘Is necrophilia immoral?’ and like i have said in previous certain moral values don’t change like inflicting pain on innocent people as im sure having sex with someones dead mother may do so, respecting the dead is another and having sex withsomee who has just died isn’t all that respectful these are just a few reasons
    You said ’Firstly - how do you know this, when you are not a homosexual?’ which i thought was a weak response thats why i replied by saying what if the guy was gay and then what , thats all really
    Secondly you said "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." Like i said the primary motive of people who commit necrophilia is NOT because there attracted to dead people (Rosman and Resnick (1989)) as would be the case for homo and hetro sexual and this distinguishes it from the rest. As for what u said what if a small minority are genuinely attracted to dead people does that make it moral? What if a small minority of heterosexuals are genuinly attracted to little children does that all of a sudden become moral?
    When it comes to disgust i already said mate it cannot be classed as evidence so that should sum that up.
    ‘Why do we call them psychological deficiencies rather than simply psychological differences?’ This is because they are infact deficiencies. Deficiency implies that they are not as good to put it bluntly and low self esteem, inferiority complex (Rosman and Resnick (1989)) certainly aren’t beneficial and have all been associated with necrophilia, so yes they are differences in a bad way
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    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?
    I have answered this previously but the reason why it is immoral and is classed as such because just to name a few reasons, firstly it one moral code that hasnt changed over the centuries is, it is immoral to inflict pain on innocent people, having sex with some1's dead mum is likely to inflict pain, respecting the dead is another moral value that has gone on for centuries, again having sex with some1 who just died isnt entirely respectful, i mean these are things which you cant really argue. These are just some reasons why it is immoral
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OB2)
    The question is ‘Is necrophilia immoral?’ and like i have said in previous certain moral values don’t change like inflicting pain on innocent people as im sure having sex with someones dead mother may do so, respecting the dead is another and having sex withsomee who has just died isn’t all that respectful these are just a few reasons
    You said ’Firstly - how do you know this, when you are not a homosexual?’ which i thought was a weak response thats why i replied by saying what if the guy was gay and then what , thats all really
    Secondly you said "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." Like i said the primary motive of people who commit necrophilia is NOT because there attracted to dead people (Rosman and Resnick (1989)) as would be the case for homo and hetro sexual and this distinguishes it from the rest. As for what u said what if a small minority are genuinely attracted to dead people does that make it moral? What if a small minority of heterosexuals are genuinly attracted to little children does that all of a sudden become moral?
    When it comes to disgust i already said mate it cannot be classed as evidence so that should sum that up.
    ‘Why do we call them psychological deficiencies rather than simply psychological differences?’ This is because they are infact deficiencies. Deficiency implies that they are not as good to put it bluntly and low self esteem, inferiority complex (Rosman and Resnick (1989)) certainly aren’t beneficial and have all been associated with necrophilia, so yes they are differences in a bad way
    It's a good response. The first academic response that I can remember that's in favour of necrophilia being immoral, or at least I assume it was heading in that direction. The problem is I don't see how the relationship between socially deficient elements to a persons mental health leads to necrophilia being immoral. I would say that someone with only one hand is deficient because they are disadvantaged, something isn't as it should be etc. Yet having this one handed man wave a flag that has a picture of someone spitting on an old lady isn't immoral. At the absolute most it's disrespectful, but it's not clear to me that respect equal moral or that disrespect is equal to immoral.

    Care to elaborate?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OB2)
    I have answered this previously but the reason why it is immoral and is classed as such because just to name a few reasons, firstly it one moral code that hasnt changed over the centuries is, it is immoral to inflict pain on innocent people, having sex with some1's dead mum is likely to inflict pain, respecting the dead is another moral value that has gone on for centuries, again having sex with some1 who just died isnt entirely respectful, i mean these are things which you cant really argue. These are just some reasons why it is immoral
    Christianity and other major religions to date might be able to shed some light on that. Religion has had a huge impact on what we consider to be moral today. Ritualistic behaviour towards the dead is definitely something that can be accredited to religion, though perhaps religion isn't its source, it can at least explain its wide range and general acceptability. It's not enough to say however, just because a major religion says something is immoral that this is actually the case. When it comes to the case of necrophilia, there is a certain element about it that disgusts us, which is an understandable natural survival instinct. Religion has served to justify this natural reaction to dead things and surrounded it with dogma. My point is, general acceptance of a particular moral value over a prolonged period of time doesn't necessarily make something concrete when faced with criticism. I would say that denying condoms to African countries is completely immoral and an insult to the value of life that the catholic church claims to be protecting.

    You mentioned the idea of someone having sex with a dead mum which is likely to inflict pain. This doesn't help the situation, the only reason said person will feel pain is because they've been born into a society which teaches necrophilia as immoral and wrong. This feeling of pain is a reaction to them feeling violated BECAUSE of this initial teaching. Also, if something elicits an emotional response that does not infer that something is immoral anyway.

    what about a scenario whereby a dead person is found and they definitely have no family or friends or anyone that cares about them. The necrophiliac is able to get the body to a secure place where there is no chance of someone walking in on him. Would necrophilia still be wrong in this instance? No one is getting hurt and there is no one to have their feelings hurt because their are no friends or family. The point of this question is to establish whether or not you think necrophilia is intrinsically wrong. If it is wrong, why is it wrong?

    Again, disrespect is not the same as immoral. I could call the Queen Lizzy which would be considered disrespectful, doesn't make it immoral.
 
 
 
  • 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.