Re: Second Necrophilia Post
 

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.

Re: Second Necrophilia Post
 

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

[ 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.

Re: Second Necrophilia Post
 

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.

Re: Second Necrophilia Post
 

[ 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

[/ 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!) [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[ 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

Re: Second Necrophilia Post
 

"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.

Re: Second Necrophilia Post
 

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.

Re: Second Necrophilia Post
 

"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?

Re: Second Necrophilia Post
 

[ 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

Re: Second Necrophilia Post
 

[ 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.

Re: Second Necrophilia Post
 

[ 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? [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]