Second Necrophilia Post

[David Sklansky]

First I would like to say that those who claim that I am making these posts to cull a decision down to pure math are dead wrong. My goal is to cull down to one subject at a time. Thats why the examples are not true to life. Because almost all true to life decisons involve more than one principle and thus the reason for disagreements are hard to pin down. A question like "is it better to let one person die than to let two people have a 60% chance of dying" is not clearcut to me at all. But it forces people to think carefully about the precepts that supposedly guide them.

Getting back to my earlier question of whether it is acceptable to sell your dead body for future necrophilia use, I have three things to say.

1. First notice that there was a lot of disagreement on this issue even among religious people. Keep that in mind when we get to number three.

2. In the first post I forgot to ask those who say it is wrong whether they also think it should be ILLEGAL. So I'm asking that now.

3. Two posters, 000 and Peter 666 (hmmm strange coincidence), best described the principles that would argue against this sale even if the money was used to save lives.

000 said (among other things):

"Some things cheapen society and the human condition, and are not worth any price."

Peter 666 said (among other things):

"No greater good justifies a wrong action"

Thus my necrophilia question elicited two people to cite a very important idea that is far more encompassing than the particular subject matter at hand. So now the question becomes, are they right and if so, under what circumstances?

(Also don't forget to weigh in on whether necrophilia contracts should be illegal.)

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]

000 said (among other things):

"Some things cheapen society and the human condition, and are not worth any price."

Peter 666 said (among other things):

"No greater good justifies a wrong action"

Thus my necrophilia question elicited two people to cite a very important idea that is far more encompassing than the particular subject matter at hand. So now the question becomes, are they right and if so, under what circumstances?

(Also don't forget to weigh in on whether necrophilia contracts should be illegal.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes 'remains' contracts should be illegal.

David, it seems you are using ÖÖ0 & Peter666's comments as a prelude to a future discussion about Utilitarianism, correct?

[ QUOTE ]

000 said (among other things):
"Some things cheapen society and the human condition, and are not worth any price."
Peter 666 said (among other things):
"No greater good justifies a wrong action"
(Also don't forget to weigh in on whether necrophilia contracts should be illegal.)

[/ QUOTE ]

"No greater good justifies a wrong action" - this is getting into a hole military arguement, do you think fighting/killing or assasinating for the greater good of "the people" makes sense for lack of a better word. in my opionion most acts do justify a small wrong for the greater good. However when it comes to terrorism which is where i think this conversation will end up based on that qoute that is a greater evil not a greater good so that qoute doesnt pertain to terrorism. but you could argue a greater evil or good is in the eyes of the beholder when it comes to terrorism - so im not sure where im going with that.

"Some things cheapen society and the human condition, and are not worth any price." - i beleive that this qoute is true and some things aren't worth any price one can get however most if not all people if the price is high enough (provided they dont beleive in the afterlife) will sell there reamins for a hefty sum.

and finally yes i think the contracts should be illegal however i cannot honestly think of a good and logical arguement aside from it being morally disgusting which obv will not hold up anywher. It its not hurting anyone and it isnt rape if u have a contract nor can you argue about his dignity because he sold it to you

[David Sklansky]

"David, it seems you are using ÖÖ0 & Peter666's comments as a prelude to a future discussion about Utilitarianism, correct?"

Nope. Don't even know what utilitarianism precisely is. My only goal on this website is to get members to think straight about all subjects, even those that are emotionally charged.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
My only goal on this website is to get members to think straight about all subjects, even those that are emotionally charged.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great goal.

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
"Some things cheapen society and the human condition, and are not worth any price."

[/ QUOTE ]
This seems definitely correct to me.

This is one statement that could be impossible to disprove but perhaps quite easy to prove, all we have to do is come up with one thing that fits its precepts perfectly. I have a nomination.

1[ QUOTE ]
For many years, neuropsychiatrists performed prefontal lobotomies on certain schizophrenic patients who were in agony as a result of fixed delusions. [...] With this operation, surgeons rendered dysfunctional the most developed or human part of the brain. [...] In my career I have seen several patients with prefrontal lobotomies who reported to me that the operation was the best thing that ever happened in their lives because it had relieved them of years of excruciating misery. But the price they paid was a loss of part of their humanity; these patients demonstrated a loss of fine judgment. The operation had taken away their agony but it left them with a distinctly limited self-awareness and restricted their range of emotional responses.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would propose that the act of performing this operation on oneself (or equivalently choosing to allow someone to perform it on you) while understanding its consequences is something that fits OOO's quote to the letter. This phenomenon also helped me come to a good working test of what is "wrong" or unethical or immoral, at least for now.

--------------------
1 The Road Less Traveled and Beyond, M. Scott Peck, page 66

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
"No greater good justifies a wrong action"

[/ QUOTE ]

If there exists one act which "is not worth any price," then we could say that "any act which cheapens society and the human condition" defines a wrong act. And then this statement would be true by some form of circular logic, but that doesn't really accomplish anything now does it?

Do all things that are wrong "cheapen society and the human condition"? According to my personal definition of what is wrong, yes. And according to my definition of wrong, no wrong act is worth any price. This is because if there were a dominatingly less wrong act which exists for a given act, the given act is wrong--this is one working function of my definition of wrong but not the definition itself. I have now hit a rut because based on this function, because it simply means that "if the greater good could be more well-served by a different course of action, this action is wrong". Therefore it would be silly to believe that a wrong action could be justified by a greater good using my definition.

Hm, I will reply again after more contemplation.

[SheetWise]

This is the "ends" and "means" conundrum.

If it's because the "end" is not the ultimate end -- then OK. If the "end" is the "means", there's wiggle room. If the "ends" don't justify the "means" -- then what in the hell would?

[ QUOTE ]
"No greater good justifies a wrong action"

[/ QUOTE ]

Hell, I'd have been dead by twelve.

Should necrophilia contracts be illegal? Of course not. There's no victim here. No one has been able to come up with a good argument against necrophilia, including myself and I made the original post. It may be disgusting, but to say it's morally disgusting is invalid. Even if the money were used towards an immoral act, that would not make necrophilia, in itself, morally wrong. Donating blood to receive money to buy drugs does not make donating blood wrong. The immoral act stems from the pursuit of money. Now I would have a problem with people selling loved ones corpses in a necrophilia contract, but even in this case it's hard to find the 'wrong'. Again there's no victim here, the loved one is gone and has no further use of the body. I really am curious to see if anyone can find a valid argument against necrophilia.

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
Now I would have a problem with people selling loved ones corpses in a necrophilia contract, but even in this case it's hard to find the 'wrong'.

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't you think a living person has the right to control over what happens to her body once she is dead? To say that her husband has the right to simply sell the rights to her corpse and pocket the money is akin to saying he could sell her into slavery or that he actually owns her.

I don't think it's very hard to find the wrong here.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't you think a living person has the right to control over what happens to her body once she is dead?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all. Any assets owned by a person is given up once that person is dead. A dead person can't have rights. Now a person may make suggestions prior to his or her death, but even then they don't have to be honored. I don't know if you remember when the baseball legend Ted Williams passed away, his wishes were to have his body cremated then scattered over the Florida Keys. His son, in lue of cremation, had his body frozen. Though I believe there was some dispute over some documents which stated William's desire.

Anyway, even if you're suggesting that a person does have control over their dead body, then that only validates a necrophilia contract. Even if a loved one specificly states that they do not want their body used for sexual acts, EVEN then I have a problem saying that it's wrong to go against their wishes.

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
Any assets owned by a person is given up once that person is dead.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was referring to the sale of her dead body while she is still alive (thus "a living person").

And what you are talking about about Ted Williams is a legal issue rather than a moral one.

I was talking about the sale of a corpse after death. If we're talking prior then I agree with you.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
Should necrophilia contracts be illegal? Of course not. There's no victim here. No one has been able to come up with a good argument against necrophilia, including myself and I made the original post.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll "throw my hat in the ring":

Consent

Corpses can't give their consent, therefore necrophilia is rape, and rape is illegal.

No sexual situations exist today where the ongoing assurance of sex is guaranteed. Slavery was abolished.

Your wife isn't a concubine, if tonight she says no and you proceed to force yourself upon her, that's rape, even if she said "yes" for the last 1000 nights.

Contract

Even if the necrophile could produce a document signed by the deceased saying they give their body to the necrophile, how can people prove the contract isn't fake or made under duress?

Crime

The practice of selling cadavers to private individuals would not doubt bring up a plethora of issues relating to crime.

In some situations where a wealthy person has a will and is about to cut someone out of it based on their current behaviour, that person who is about to be 'cut-off' has motive to kill the wealthy person before they can make the change, to make them have an 'accident' and therefore get the profit they believe is entitled to them. (an episode of Curb your Enthusiasm caputres this nicely)

If a "necro-contract" was in place, both parties are aware of it, however if one was to renege (usually the "future violated") then the necrophile would have motive to kill the person, also "by accident" to ensure they have their way with them. (or they could just kill the "future violated" if they are horny and can't wait for natural causes)

Also the issue of autopsy must be mentioned.

If a necrophile has a necro-contract with a person and that person dies and the law demands an autopsy, what effect does that have on the contract which has already been fulfilled by one party?

Does the government refund the sum of money to the necrophile or is it lost?

I highly doubt the government would refund the money as necro-contracts if available would be in the thousands, if not millions concerning celebrities, and if governments had to refund to the 'promisee' (ie- necrophile) if they take the body for autopsy then this would create 'death scams' wherby people would induce other people into signing necro-contracts, taking the money for themselves, killing the person and the necrophile recieves a refund from the government.

¿Es suficiente?

[einbert]

Don't the arguments in your post deal solely with the practicality problems of necrophilia as it relates to legislation and law enforcement, rather than the actual morality of it?

Ok... several things here.

[ QUOTE ]
Your wife isn't a concubine, if tonight she says no and you proceed to force yourself upon her, that's rape, even if she said "yes" for the last 1000 nights.

[/ QUOTE ]

The law says you cannot rape your wife.

[ QUOTE ]
No sexual situations exist today where the ongoing assurance of sex is guaranteed. Slavery was abolished.

[/ QUOTE ]

Prostitution is legalized in Nevada and sex is guaranteed if money is accepted. It's a legal transaction.



[ QUOTE ]
The practice of selling cadavers to private individuals would not doubt bring up a plethora of issues relating to crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

Slippery slope. This is an invalid argument. Anyone who has taken a logic course will recognize this fallacy.

[ QUOTE ]
Corpses can't give their consent, therefore necrophilia is rape, and rape is illegal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Corpses can't give consent, but the person can before he is a corpse. And if you're saying a corpse can't give consent then a corpse can't be raped either.

[ QUOTE ]
Don't the arguments in your post deal solely with the practicality problems of necrophilia as it relates to legislation and law enforcement, rather than the actual morality of it?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I believe both Sklansky and I are talking about the morality of necrophilia, though I can't speak for him. Morality and legislation are two differnt issues.

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't the arguments in your post deal solely with the practicality problems of necrophilia as it relates to legislation and law enforcement, rather than the actual morality of it?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I believe both Sklansky and I are talking about the morality of necrophilia, though I can't speak for him. Morality and legislation are two differnt issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, my post was meant to be addressed to sexdrugs money.

I see you're new to twoplustwo. Welcome. One of my favorite features of the interface of this forum is the Re: line directly beneath the subject title of every post. It allows you to see which poster the post is addressed specifically towards. It's really quite nice, and I frequently wish it were a feature when I'm using other online forums.

Thanks for the welcome. I am really enjoying the discussions that are being had at this board. It's a great break from the mindless flaming that I've seen elsewhere. Issues such as philosophy are meant to be disagreed on, and this seems to be a wonderful place to respectfully disgree. I look forward to reading and writing many future posts.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]


The law says you cannot rape your wife.


[/ QUOTE ]

From the Wife, Spouse, Marital Abuse Information Page by the Wellesley Centers for Women.

[ QUOTE ]

Today it is a crime in all 50 states (and federal lands) for a husband to rape his wife.

[/ QUOTE ]

Source (http://www.wcwonline.org/partnerviolence/mrape.html)

[ QUOTE ]

Prostitution is legalized in Nevada and sex is guaranteed if money is accepted. It's a legal transaction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes but after accepting the money the prostitute does not lose her right to say no, and can change her mind give the customer a refund.

A corpse cannot.

[ QUOTE ]

Slippery slope. This is an invalid argument. Anyone who has taken a logic course will recognize this fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain, and use the issue of autopsy and the law in your reply.

[ QUOTE ]

Corpses can't give consent, but the person can before he is a corpse.

[/ QUOTE ]

he? ("not that there is anything wrong with that!" - Seinfeld) /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Yes, but you ignore the issue of contract and whether that consent was given under duress, or not given at all (forged consent).

The only evidence one could have is a psychological evaluation and video-taped self confession of having a sound mind when they enter into the contract, but even then one always has the right to say no when it comes to sex and change their mind.

[ QUOTE ]

And if you're saying a corpse can't give consent then a corpse can't be raped either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Definition of Rape:

[ QUOTE ]

rape n.
The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you sleep, you can't give consent. So if a person sneaks into your house and engages in anal sex with you while you are asleep is that rape?

no consent = no sex. (memorize this before you go on your next date, please!) /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Cheers,
SDM

[John Ho]

If someone wants to have sex with a dead body - and the dead person has previously given his/her permission - what's the problem? It's weird but so is eating pizza twice in one day and I did that a few days ago.

Assuming there was consent prior to death there is no victim here thus we can group this activity in with drugs, sodomy, other unusual sexual acts, and watching of Highlander reruns as activities that I don't want to experience but shouldn't be made illegal.

Touche on the marital law. I'm glad to be wrong there.

I wasn't clear enough with the issue of consent. I know that just because consent isn't giving does not mean that it isn't rape. But you can't force sex upon a dead person either. Is it even sex to begin with? That's another question.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but you ignore the issue of contract and whether that consent was given under duress, or not given at all (forged consent).

The only evidence one could have is a psychological evaluation and video-taped self confession of having a sound mind when they enter into the contract, but even then one always has the right to say no when it comes to sex and change their mind.


[/ QUOTE ]

Now we're just getting silly. So many big decisions are made that it would be rediciulous to have somone there to verifly that the decision is not being made under duress. If someone really wanted to have sex with a corpse it seems that there's easier ways to accomplish the task rather than to premeditate a process in which a person is coaxed to sign a contract. And there's no mind to change once the person is dead... come on... now we're just reaching at thin air. They keyword is contract, they are meant to be permanent.

Slippery slope (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html)

[ QUOTE ]
The practice of selling cadavers to private individuals would not doubt bring up a plethora of issues relating to crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

What type of issues relating to crime. The agrument is that we shouldn't allow necrophilia because a dominoe effect of crime will occur when 1) it does not argue against necrophilia itself and 2) falsly assumes that undersireable issues will result. <sigh> It's late and I'm having a hard time explaing the fallacy.

[John Ho]

Sorry but none of these arguments are on point.

Similar contracts regarding dead bodies are made all the time with cemetaries, maosoleums, etc. You or your loved ones often make a decision regarding what to do with your body while you're still alive and they are carried out when you die.

The important issue, I believe, Sklansky is raising is whether people can step outside their normal parameters of what is right or wrong. For example, everyone on this forum probably supports the right of an adult to gamble or at least play poker. But if 99% of society found poker playing to be disgusting should it then be made illegal? We don't force anyone else to participate in our activity and we're fully aware of the risks we entail.

So the issue isn't whether society at large does or doesn't like a certain activity.

The issue is whether society at large should be interfering with what a competent adult does or chooses to have done with his own body/mind/whatever on private property (assuming all involved are consenting adults). I say the government needs to butt out.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
Touche on the marital law. I'm glad to be wrong there.

I wasn't clear enough with the issue of consent. I know that just because consent isn't giving does not mean that it isn't rape. But you can't force sex upon a dead person either. Is it even sex to begin with? That's another question.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've given the definition of rape, how about molestation?

[ QUOTE ]

molestation

n 1: the act of subjecting someone to unwanted or improper sexual advances or activity (especially women or children)

[/ QUOTE ](emphasis added)

Also what about the issue of Beastiality? It is a crime in most places, why? Because an animal can't consent and it's deemed to be improper. (we are ignoring the latter for the time being in this subject)

[ QUOTE ]

Now we're just getting silly. So many big decisions are made that it would be rediciulous to have somone there to verifly that the decision is not being made under duress. If someone really wanted to have sex with a corpse it seems that there's easier ways to accomplish the task rather than to premeditate a process in which a person is coaxed to sign a contract. And there's no mind to change once the person is dead... come on... now we're just reaching at thin air. They keyword is contract, they are meant to be permanent.

Slippery slope (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html)

[/ QUOTE ]

Wills are frequently contested after the deceased has passed, the result is usually a long court case.

In regards to Necrophillia, the body is decomposing from the moment the heart stops, time is of the essensce, will the body be frozen while the court case drags out?

You have to remember in this argument we are assuming it is not illegal, which means it is legal, and all the baggage that comes with that.

Also regarding 'contracts are mean't to be permanent', I've done a bit of contract law and contracts are mean't to be 'legally binding' but breaking them is legal, just like it is legal for the party of a broken contract to sue for damages (monetary) or specific performance (judge orders other party to carry out their obligation - imagine that in regards to necrophilia!) /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ QUOTE ]

What type of issues relating to crime. The agrument is that we shouldn't allow necrophilia because a dominoe effect of crime will occur when 1) it does not argue against necrophilia itself and 2) falsly assumes that undersireable issues will result. <sigh> It's late and I'm having a hard time explaing the fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) You are treating necrophilia in a vacuum.

Everything in life is relative, EVERYTHING.

Nothing means anything without relation.

Murder means nothing. Breathing means nothing. Pedophilia means nothing. Charity means nothing. (In Sociology it is said that signs mean nothing but by what we give them.)

All actions have reactions and it is usually these reactions that are relevant to a code - civil, religious, moral etc.

These codes are constructs, the first definition of law is:

[ QUOTE ]

1. A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority.

[/ QUOTE ](from Dictionary.com)

You can't even talk about morality in a vacuum because morality only means what you and I give it, without us giving it meaning it means nothing, it means the same as this: hdjghfdjkhfdsdfhjf or this: .....

2) Undesirable issues WILL arise. (nothing false about it)

Remember morality? It's what we give it right?

Most people ascribe dignity to the death and percieve sex with corpses as immoral (ie- 'the opposite of the meaning we have given to morality' - in short 'wrong' - another meaning) and would not want to think that their beloved grandma signed a contract for her corpse to be subject to sexual activity in the hands of a necrophile and would use the legal system to prevent it.

To say this wouldn't happen would be incredibly naive. (no offence)

One does not need any legal background or knowledge of contracts/wills to arrive at this, one just needs to understand what 'attributes' humans give to the terms 'morality' and 'family' and 'law'.

Cheers,
SDM

[David Sklansky]

"Also what about the issue of Beastiality? It is a crime in most places, why? Because an animal can't consent and it's deemed to be improper."

I don't think it has anything to do with the fact that an animal can't consent.

[Peter666]

I've read two arguments, one citing military strategy and the other street survival to argue against the principle that "no greater good justifies a wrong action."

I will maintain that the above principle is set in stone and to be applied to all situations.

But the above scenarios argue that "little wrongs" are ok. I argue that what they presented are not "wrongs." Assasinating a tyrant is not an evil action. Neither is shanking someone in a streetfight when your life in on the line.

The principles are black and white. Circumstances are grey, and must be deconstructed based on the many individual actions that make up a circumstance. We judge these individual actions based on principles and apply them to the whole to see whether something is right or wrong.

So if your child is starving and you need some bread NOW, it is ok to break into the nearest bakery on the weekend when it is closed if there is no other means to quickly get some bread. It may look like stealing, and stealing is always wrong, but this action is not the true definition of stealing.

[David Sklansky]

"So if your child is starving and you need some bread NOW, it is ok to break into the nearest bakery on the weekend when it is closed if there is no other means to quickly get some bread. It may look like stealing, and stealing is always wrong, but this action is not the true definition of stealing."

What about if your child needs an antibiotic to keep his bronchitis from progressing to a more dangerous but still probably not life threatening pneumonia?

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
David Sklansky --
<font color="white"> .
</font>Thats why the examples are not true to life. Because almost all true to life decisons involve more than one principle and thus the reason for disagreements are hard to pin down.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Necrophilia for Hire" does not look like a One Principle situation to me. Unless it might be the "Ick" principle.

PairTheBoard

[Transference]

[ QUOTE ]
What about if your child needs an antibiotic to keep his bronchitis from progressing to a more dangerous but still probably not life threatening pneumonia?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a classic psychological dilema used to ascertain level of moral reasoning. I want to say the relevant psychologist is Kohlberg. It's worth a look as its actually rather interesting to see how neatly many responders (or specific responses) fall into a category of moral development. The importance is not in the answer itself, but the reasoning used to arrive at that answer.

[sexdrugsmoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What about if your child needs an antibiotic to keep his bronchitis from progressing to a more dangerous but still probably not life threatening pneumonia?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a classic psychological dilema used to ascertain level of moral reasoning. I want to say the relevant psychologist is Kohlberg. It's worth a look as its actually rather interesting to see how neatly many responders (or specific responses) fall into a category of moral development. The importance is not in the answer itself, but the reasoning used to arrive at that answer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm interested, where do we sign up? /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Transference]

[ QUOTE ]
Some things cheapen society and the human condition, and are not worth any price."

Peter 666 said (among other things):

"No greater good justifies a wrong action"

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree strongly with both these. To me they both stink of naivety.

I haven’t seen anyone actually make a coherent case of why necrophilia is morally wrong. I'll make an attempt to enumerate what might be the most popular reasons.

While a corpse is generally seen as devoid of spiritual significance, it has powerful symbolic significance. While remains are no longer human, they are a powerful reminder of the humanity that once existed.

Interestingly, there are some notable degradations to cadavers that are deemed appropriate by society.
- Autopsies.
- Cremation.
- Scientific Inquiry/education (most people would squirm knowing the antics of many students in cadaver labs)
- Body Farms (corpses are left to rot in various natural states for research on decomposition).

The common link, with the exception of cremation, would be some greater purpose is served that benefits society.

The more likely argument for criminalizing necrophilia is sexual perversion. That is to say that it is so revolting to a great majority of people that it carries a legal penalty. This is actually very similar to laws forbidding sodomy, the difference being a heightened sense of disgust due to the symbolic value of a corpse.

From a legal standpoint there a very few sexual perversion laws that do not require a victim. It is my understanding, that a victim in the legal sense refers only to a living human being. Animals, such as in bestiality cases, or cruelty cases are not victims and do not have the rights of a victim. Animal cruelty laws do not require an actual victim, rather the act is illegal because society finds it reprehensible.

A final justification might be for perpetrators own good. Necrophila is clearly a symptom of a psychologically disturbed mind. This act might serve as a link to the commissions of crimes against the living through the devaluation of the human body.

Do I think such a contract should be legal? I’ll offer a hesitant no. Generally I am strongly against laws that are done for abstractions such as the good of the offender or societies standards. However, in this case I doubt that a person who is psychologically sound could perform such an act and I agree that this could reinforce a potentially dangerous psychological disturbance. I would however prefer that perpetrators are treated rather than imprisoned. Finally, while I agree that people should have the right to burn the flag, or deface crosses, I accept that abusing human remains for pleasure is something that society has the right to regulate.

Personally I could care less what anyone does with my corpse, but if society wants to say certain things aren’t ok in that area, I’ll accept their right to not permit them.

[Transference]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm interested, where do we sign up?

[/ QUOTE ]

linky (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Kohlberg's-stages-of-moral-development)

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
A final justification might be for perpetrators own good. Necrophila is clearly a symptom of a psychologically disturbed mind. This act might serve as a link to the commissions of crimes against the living through the devaluation of the human body.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Very similiar to animal torture/cruelty. It's not the focus on the noun, animal or corpse, but the focus on the verb, torture or ?sodomize.

[lehighguy]

Does the circumstances of how the situation came to be matter in the bread example?

If he can't afford food because he spent his paycheck on lottery tickets does it effect the rightness/wrongness of stealing?

Let's take a more benign example. When I was in high school I worked a part time job with a friend going to community college. Real nice guy. However, not so good at planning his future. He is still working the same shitty store clerk job from back then. He dropped out of college, knocked up some girl, and now they are trying to raise the kid. If despite his best efforts he is unable to provide for them is stealing justified? Is there a social cost to telling people that if they let themselves get into that situation they can steal thier way out? Does it not make people more inclined to screw around and do what they want to do?

There there are the costs of the act itself. Will bakers, knowing they can at any time be robbed, remain in poor neighboorhoods? What happens when the baker moves out and people can't get jobs there anymore. Will others find themselves unable to provide for thier children?

[Peter666]

"What about if your child needs an antibiotic to keep his bronchitis from progressing to a more dangerous but still probably not life threatening pneumonia?"

This is a more complicated scenario, but still capable of deconstructing into individual acts. There is probably no moral fault in stealing the antibiotics, as the child's health is of paramount importance. However, because we live in a society, there are consequences that must be rectified. So while taking the antibiotics was acceptable for that moment, the parent is obligated to pay back the company as soon as possible and pay for any damages to the property. This way, the child is helped, and no anarchical precedent is set.

Another example to illustrate the principle is speeding tickets. If a highway sign is posted at 65 mph, it is not morally wrong to exceed this limit when done in a non reckless manner. However, if you are caught by the police, you are morally obligated to pay the fine on the ticket because you choose to participate in a society by using roads which are not exclusively your own. Of course, you can fight this in court and not have to pay anything in the end by using the society's means to rectify the situation.

And a final scenario relevant to our times is the war in Iraq. The preemptive strike was not unjust because Hussein was a tyrant, or there may have been weapons of "mass destruction," but because the United States chose to participate in the United Nations to try to solve this problem. But instead of adhering to the "rules of the game" as agreed upon by all parties involved, the United States used its own perogative to invade a sovereign nation that did not present an immediate threat. It's like playing a 10 handed Texas Hold'em game and suddenly taking all the chips and saying that everybody is now going to play Seven Card Stud because you suspect one of the participants of cheating.

[Peter666]

I hardly think the principles of 2600 years of progress of Philosophical Moderate Realism, Ethics, Scholasticism and Moral Theology stink of 'naivety'.

This is an excellent post. I suspect you work/have worked in mental health or social services from the content of it and also your name.

However as the utterer of this phrase:

[ QUOTE ]
Some things cheapen society and the human condition, and are not worth any price."

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like further clarification of this:

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree strongly with both these. To me they both stink of naivety.

[/ QUOTE ]

You post sounds like it is written by a hardened realist, and there's nothing wrong with that. However, I maintain that even for a realist, there is merit in the above. Shouldn't some things be completely off limits? Or do you think it's 'anything goes', if you can appear to offer a justification for it?

The trouble I have with such a philosophy is that human beings are majorly flawed when it comes to making fine (and not so fine) moral judgements. You can find a rationale for anything if you choose to, and it has happened many times in the past in both individuals, entire nations, and entire races of people. Because people are so flawed (and the subject matter is so difficult), some principles are enshrined as absolute and held up to the point of breaking, even where no good reason can be easily stated or understood. It's a metagame thing.

Why is this naive?

[RxForMoreCowbell]

[ QUOTE ]
I would like further clarification of this:

However, I maintain that even for a realist, there is merit in the above. Shouldn't some things be completely off limits? Or do you think it's 'anything goes', if you can appear to offer a justification for it?

The trouble I have with such a philosophy is that human beings are majorly flawed when it comes to making fine (and not so fine) moral judgements. You can find a rationale for anything if you choose to, and it has happened many times in the past in both individuals, entire nations, and entire races of people. Because people are so flawed (and the subject matter is so difficult), some principles are enshrined as absolute and held up to the point of breaking, even where no good reason can be easily stated or understood. It's a metagame thing.


[/ QUOTE ]

I thought the entire point of the post by DS was to challenge people to think about where they get their morals from. It sounds like you are promoting the idea that we should hold to morals whether or not there's a rational reason for them. Is that really what you are trying to say?

[Georgia Avenue]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not the focus on the noun, animal or corpse, but the focus on the verb, torture or sodomize.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. This is the only reason of the few that Transference gave that he did not refute, and it seems pretty hard to deny. Performing necrophilia certainly isn't GOOD for you!

Remember in Dante's Inferno how each sinner was trapped in a scenario appropriate to his or her crime? So, for example, those who sinned for passion were swept around Hell’s plain as winds in a tornado for all eternity. John Cole posted an XJ Kennedy poem in this forum recently that contained a similar idea, (A Vision of Heaven and Hell (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=scimathphil&amp;Number=3181284 &amp;Forum=,All_Forums,&amp;Words=&amp;Searchpage=0&amp;Limit=25&amp;M ain=3137772&amp;Search=true&amp;where=&amp;Name=125&amp;daterange= &amp;newerval=&amp;newertype=&amp;olderval=&amp;oldertype=&amp;bodypre v=#Post3181284) ) where each damned person is a slot machine, paying out tears, “Imprinted with an abstract of his case.“ It’s an old idea, that sin has nothing to do with how you affect society or other people, but in fact is a self-punishing action, acting on the sinner’s soul (not necessarily his psyche) negatively, moving him away from the good. It’s sort of like the recently popular concept of Karma.

I am aware of the hard questions this raises and the paradoxes it can create, and I struggle with them daily. But in my mind, other religious people who try to justify their beliefs by appealing to the practical “It’s only wrong if it hurts others” crowd are just doing themselves and their faith a disservice. If you believe in a soul then in my mind you must say, like Epictetus, that a man’s soul is his business, and his only business.

But, again, this doesn’t mean that consensual necrosmooching or any other somewhat nasty thing that doesn’t really hurt people SHOULD be illegal. The only reason something should be illegal is because it is bad for society at large. Besides Sexdrugsmoney’s excellent practical objections, I would like to add that if postmortem contacts were legal, then many people who cared about the deceased would be traumatized by the actions of someone who really doesn’t have the right to his/her body anymore.

[Transference]

OK, I guess you both deserve a clarification on my sort of unilateral condemnation up there. I think I avoided it because I could'nt come up with a succinct way to do so.

[ QUOTE ]
Some things cheapen society and the human condition, and are not worth any price.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not feel that the human condition or worth of society are absoultes that are alterable in a measurable way by the acts we are willing to tolerate. To be clear I do accept that some things are reprehensible and tragic. Hitler's policies were definitively tragic. To say that they undermined the state of society or the nature of humanity is absurd. People do horrible things things to other people, it is in our nature. In fact, we generally have to restrain ourself from offensive actions. Various acts have been permitted at various times in history that are forbidden now. So called societal standards are simply a function of context, culture, development and awareness. I disagree that they speak to the eseential nature of humanity. I also disagree that human nature should be discussed in terms of currency or measureable value. I don't nessarily disagree with the ideal, but I think the statement itself is parsimonious and misleading.

[ QUOTE ]
"No greater good justifies a wrong action"

[/ QUOTE ]

I find this statement essentially vaccuous due to the extreme vaguness of the terminology. An 'improper' deed may alleviate suffering. There is simply an infinite array of situations to which this argument could be applied and I'm am quite certain that anyone who holds this view could be presented with situations that would force them to reconsider this absolutionist position. Is a wrong action simply one that is immoral or unethical? By whose standards? Why must it justify the action? Often a decision is one of choosing the lesser of two evils. Often we are forced to make a personal sacrifice by doing something that we may well regard as immoral for the well being of others. Does is justify the wrong or absolve us of responsiblity? Probabaly not, but that doesnt mean its not the humane action. Is doing the right thing for the wrong reasons different that doing the wrong thing for the right reasons? I submit that the intention over rides the act. If you sacrifice one to save the lives of many, it is an act of compassion and of rescue, not one of sacrifice.

[Transference]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly. This is the only reason of the few that Transference gave that he did not refute, and it seems pretty hard to deny. Performing necrophilia certainly isn't GOOD for you!

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because I didnt refute it doesnt mean I don't think its refutable. I also think I combined 2 distinct issues a little bit. Theres a difference between restraining an individual for his own good per se, and protecting socities interests. For example, it is illegal to sell a felon a firearm not to prevent the felon from going back to prison, but to prevent others from being harmed.

[Peter666]

The principle is perfect. What is confusing and vacuous is the society that bases its morality on subjective, cultural views rather than objective, logical reasons.

America, a cross between puritanism and liberalism, is such a society.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
In the first post I forgot to ask those who say it is wrong whether they also think it should be ILLEGAL. So I'm asking that now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Necrophilia feels disgusting to me but not evil; much the same as smoking cigarettes but much stronger. I don’t think its important whether its illegal or not, certainly its not something that’s going to bother me one way or the other. Although associated crimes like theft and vandalism should be potentially applicable to necrophiliacs.

[ QUOTE ]
Some things cheapen society and the human condition, and are not worth any price."

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry this completely misses me. Also any statement with “not worth any price” in. is almost always an over generalisation and hence wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
No greater good justifies a wrong action

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt if anyone really believes this, and even those that would claim to almost certainly don’t adhere to their declared belief.

Although of course there are unlimited examples of greater good, wrong actions pairings where most people would not consider the one justifies the other.

Anyone here read “The Ringworld Engineers” by Larry Niven?

[tek]

My thoughts on Necrophelia (and I'm sure David will agree with my premise):

I'm Jewish. My ex-wife is Jewish. My new wife is a Shiksa.

My premise is that having sex with a Jewish woman is similar to what I imagine necrophelia to be like. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

(...Unless they speak during the act, which would be something along the lines of "I hate our wallpaper".) /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[PokerAmateur4]

"No greater good justifies a wrong action"

In the (logically non-existent?) world of right and wrong, murdering an innocent person is wrong. However, there is a greater good to commiting this that would justify it.

I think that you can quantify the result. If killing the one person results in one person dieing, however NOT doing the action would result in 10 people dieing, the wrong action is justified. How can you argue this?

Example:

Anyone who thinks that people being killed it wrong who is given the choice of
a) Killing one person
b) Allowing 100 million persons to be killed as a consequence of not choosing a, is Krazy.