Is it wrong to ....
 

These posts about morality has reminded me of an interesting debate that occured in a Ethics class of mine. Our Professor asked if it was wrong to have sex with a dead body. Now, the thought of necrophilia is disturbing to most people, but it seems only out of taste. No one in class could come up with a valid argument against necrophilia and I would like to hear your thoughts on whether this act is wrong. I came up with one which I felt was rather weak but it was still the best that came up. So... your thoughts.

Re: Is it wrong to ....
 

thats so sick i dont see how any one could do it

Re: Is it wrong to ....
 

So no one thought it is morally wrong to disturb a dead body. I'm sure the family members of the deceased will disagree. I fail to see how it is not only disgusting but morally wrong for obvious reasons. I think most people would agree that any disturbance of a dead body is morally wrong whether it's a grav robber digging up a grave, or a person having sex with a dead body.

Re: Is it wrong to ....
 

I don't see anything intrinsically wrong with disturbing a dead body. In fact, I don't really understand the notion that saving old cemeteries is somehow the right thing to do.

But, there's a simple reason that sex with a dead body is wrong: there's no chance of procreation. Isn't any sex that is not intended for procreation immoral?

Re: Is it wrong to ....
 

The only question this raises is: Are you still *you* even though you're dead?

As a case in point, scores of people have been clinically dead for some period of time and then been either recussitated or come about by some other means. Assuming it's rape before and after they're "clinically dead," Why would it not be such during their brief period of death? You can see how this logically leads us down the road to the question: When does a person cease to be a person?

I submit, however, we should keep it illegal for a very simple reason. It's just goddamned nasty.

Re: Is it wrong to ....
 

"No one in class could come up with a valid argument against necrophilia..."

Sad indeed. Moral relativism has taken root in a big way. It can prove to be the undoing of western society.

Re: Is it wrong to ....
 

[ QUOTE ]
"No one in class could come up with a valid argument against necrophilia..."

Sad indeed. Moral relativism has taken root in a big way. It can prove to be the undoing of western society.

[/ QUOTE ]

><>

Re: Is it wrong to ....
 

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't any sex that is not intended for procreation immoral?

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's hoping for lots more immorality for me.

chez

Re: Is it wrong to ....
 

I'm gonna say it's not wrong, as long as you know no one else will find out about it

Re: Is it wrong to ....
 

[ QUOTE ]
So... your thoughts.


[/ QUOTE ]

Its not morally wrong and no one will be able to prove otherwise.

Re: Is it wrong to ....
 

Here is the argument that I used. I could not say something like "sex is only for procreation" because that's something stated in the bible and we couldn't use the bible to fall back on. Being a philosophy class we had to come up with a valid argument in which to claim that necrophilia is wrong.

Obviously no harm is done to the person because they are dead. They cannot object to any actions occuring because they are dead. So it's clear that no harm is done to the person. If I came home one day and saw someone keying up my car I would have the right to call the police and have the person arrested. The car is my property. Once somone dies they're body becomes incharge of the family. They own the body, hence they have to set up funeral arrangements and so forth. So if I walked in on someone having sex with my shoe, that is just was wrong as someone having sex with a body that I now own. As silly as this sounds, this was the best argument in class and the professor agreed that it was a valid point. So... if a familyless bum dies in the middle of nowhere... sex is on necrophiliacs.

One last note. You've be surprised how many morticians are closest necrophiliacs. I talked to a director of a forenics school.... it's sad really.

Re: Is it wrong to ....
 

"
One last note. You've be surprised how many morticians are closest necrophiliacs. I talked to a director of a forenics school.... it's sad really. "

Yes, I'm sure that any 'necrophiliac morticians' out there have no problem admitting their actions to other morticians. How would that conversation go, do you think?

Re: Is it wrong to ....
 

[ QUOTE ]
Our Professor asked if it was wrong to have sex with a dead body.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's ok as long as the dead body is a consenting adult.

PairTheBoard

Re: Is it wrong to ....
 

I think you understate the value of the argument you used. When a person dies, their body is, with some limitations, the property of their estate. I think there are probably very few cases of necrophelia where the perp has a right to the body.

Re: Is it wrong to ....
 

[ QUOTE ]
I could not say something like "sex is only for procreation" because that's something stated in the bible and we couldn't use the bible to fall back on.

[/ QUOTE ]
It never says that. Go away.

Re: Is it wrong to ....
 

[ QUOTE ]

Once somone dies they're body becomes incharge of the family. They own the body, hence they have to set up funeral arrangements and so forth. So if I walked in on someone having sex with my shoe, that is just was wrong as someone having sex with a body that I now own. As silly as this sounds, this was the best argument in class and the professor agreed that it was a valid point. So... if a familyless bum dies in the middle of nowhere... sex is on necrophiliacs.

[/ QUOTE ]
This argument is terrible. First of all, you seem to be operating under the premise "[censored] something that is owned by somebody is wrong." If that is the only rule prohibiting necrophilia, then necrophilia would be "morally wrong" but in the most trivial sense possible-it would be as wrong as having sex with somebody's sock. In other words, your argument fails to achieve the level of condemnation that you assume necrophilia deserves (or that I assume you assume, because otherwise you wouldn't be stretching it to find this argument).
Also, even if people do own the corpse, if they're not harmed by the necrophilia then what does it matter that you're having sex with it?
Also, what about having sex with the corpse of somebody whose corpse you "own." Or buying the corpse from somebody to get the right to have sex with it? It seems odd that your ability to say necrophilia is wrong is entirely dependent on whether the proper financial transactions have taken place.
In conclusion, necrophilia is disgusting. But don't conflate "displeasing" and "wrong."

Re: Is it wrong to ....
 

I just read your argument a little more closely. Really don't think you carry that thought through to conclusion very well, but it started off good.

Re: Is it wrong to ....
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's ok as long as the dead body is a consenting adult.

[/ QUOTE ]

So they give prior consent in their Will, and this makes it right?
You surprise me Pair the Board.

Re: Is it wrong to ....
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In conclusion, necrophilia is disgusting. But don't conflate "displeasing" and "wrong."

[/ QUOTE ]

So then what you are saying is that it isn't wrong? If not then please offer your own argument.

Re: Is it wrong to ....
 

[ QUOTE ]
"No one in class could come up with a valid argument against necrophilia..."

Sad indeed. Moral relativism has taken root in a big way. It can prove to be the undoing of western society.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sing with me now: "There's nothing quite like an overreaction...". [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Quick run to your Y2K bunker!

Re: Is it wrong to ....
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In conclusion, necrophilia is disgusting. But don't conflate "displeasing" and "wrong."

[/ QUOTE ]

So then what you are saying is that it isn't wrong? If not then please offer your own argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am a utilitarian. Nobody is harmed by necrophilia in any way. Thus, I do not believe it is wrong.

Also, even if you're not a utilitarian I think that a more rights-based approach towards ethics would have to concede that dead people have no rights, thus there is no rights infringement involved in necrophilia and there is nothing wrong with it.

Re: Is it wrong to ....
 

I think part of the proble is that we are assuming that the sense in which we use wrong is the same in cases of necrophilia and in cases of other seemingly wrong actions, like theft. I think that there is something wrong with it, but it is not the same kind of wrong, and it is based around an idea that it is wrong to treat someone's body in a way that they had not intended for it to be treated after they died. Scanlon writes about the subject in his book "what we owe to each other" and talks specifically about the division of morality, as there are many things that seem wrong yet it's not clear that they neccesarrily are (statutory rape, classifying rape seperately from assault), it's because the sense of wrong is different, and the way in which is wrong can;t neccesarrily be deduced from calculations of harm or appealing to rights analysis.

Re: Is it wrong to ....
 

Come to think of it, some of my ex-girlfriends were kind of cold and clammy.....

Maybe I should of checked for a pulse.....

Re: Is it wrong to ....
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it's ok as long as the dead body is a consenting adult.

[/ QUOTE ]

So they give prior consent in their Will, and this makes it right?
You surprise me Pair the Board.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I say "was"? I think I said "is". Didn't I say "is"? I'm pretty sure I said "is". btw malorum, were you having sex with a dead language when you came up with your name?


PairTheBoard

Re: Is it wrong to ....
 

Another very interesting question that leads to some difficult answers. I bet most people who answered "No, necrophilia isn't wrong..." would never ever consider doing something like that, and if they found out that someone they knew did it they would be disgusted.

That doesn't prove it's wrong, of course, but let me change the question to a more detailed hypothetical situation, just for craps and chuckles.

What would you say if your sister’s fiancée, in a drunker stupor, revealed to you that he once had sex with a beautiful woman’s corpse? My guess is that you would tell your sister to cancel the wedding. Why? It could be just a gut reaction to someone doing something beyond societal norms, but this is a bit different from cross-dressing, right? The act suggests something deeply f**ked up about the guy.

The fact is, it is a natural instinct among humans to regard another’s body as THEIR property. When you violate this, say by dolling them up and taking pictures of them a la Abu Grabe, you are deliberating vandalizing their humanity. Having sex with a corpse I’m pretty sure isn’t done cuz it’s totally sexy, but, just like raping a live person, is done because the rapist needs to dominate and defile another person.

So, in essence, I’m saying that necrophilia is wrong because the intention of the crime is to commit wrong. It doesn’t matter whether anyone was actually hurt by this or not, all that matters is the denigrated state of the corpse-humper’s soul. (Note that this is different from why it should be illegal.) This statement flies in the face of both the relativist “no-one does things they truly know are wrong” crowd as well as the utilitarian viewpoint. But that’s my answer.

Re: Is it wrong to ....
 

Like all of the other answers in this forum, my first reaction to this was one of righteous disgust and an immediate feeling of the self-evidence of it being wrong.

But, then I started to think about it and I can see how difficult it is to put a finger on exactly why it is 'wrong'.

So, here's my thoughts ...

I think, when it comes to sex, the concept of 'mutual consent' is often underestimated and misunderstood.

While we don't find the cliched image of a Victorian woman lying back and 'thinking of England' as bestowing an element of wrongness on her boorish and groping partner, I imagine for most of us it conjures up a feeling of 'coldness' about the situation. Technically, such a wife is 'consenting' but in our hearts we know that she is only doing so under obligation and so we feel it is a less that desirable situation. It leads us to see the husband as somehow animalistic and base, that he forces his sexual needs on an unwilling partner.

It is far more positive and acceptable to see the partner as willing. When the acts' participants are doing it willingly and actively, the act itself becomes acceptable and even admirable. (Aside, even the oft depicted 'rape fantasy' usually ends in the full and lusty participation of the 'victim'.)

So, it seems to me that sex, in particular, is an act that is seen as good and healthy and natural only with the active and positive participation of both parties (or all parties if you like [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] )

In this context necrophilia can not be seen as good and healthy and natural, as it is impossible for one of the parties to participate actively and positively.

This is something that is clearly understood in other cases, like statutory rape. And, I believe, it is also the root of the problems society has about sex between (or involving) people with mental disabilities.

Re: Is it wrong to ....
 

[ QUOTE ]
So, it seems to me that sex, in particular, is an act that is seen as good and healthy and natural only with the active and positive participation of both parties (or all parties if you like [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] )

In this context necrophilia can not be seen as good and healthy and natural, as it is impossible for one of the parties to participate actively and positively.

[/ QUOTE ]What's the difference between a corpse and a blow up doll?

Re: Is it wrong to ....
 

[ QUOTE ]
What's the difference between a corpse and a blow up doll?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing ... but then its not a participant. Using a blow up doll is just a fancy way of masturbating - only one particpant whos clearly participating actively and positively.

Re: Is it wrong to ....
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think part of the proble is that we are assuming that the sense in which we use wrong is the same in cases of necrophilia and in cases of other seemingly wrong actions, like theft. I think that there is something wrong with it, but it is not the same kind of wrong, and it is based around an idea that it is wrong to treat someone's body in a way that they had not intended for it to be treated after they died. Scanlon writes about the subject in his book "what we owe to each other" and talks specifically about the division of morality, as there are many things that seem wrong yet it's not clear that they neccesarrily are (statutory rape, classifying rape seperately from assault), it's because the sense of wrong is different, and the way in which is wrong can;t neccesarrily be deduced from calculations of harm or appealing to rights analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Get off Scanlon's balls.

Re: Is it wrong to ....
 

Yes, it's wrong, because all human beings have God-given dignity, and having sex with someone's corpse is a violation of that person's dignity.

No moral is logically founded without the premise that human life has dignity.

You can't logically believe that human life has value without believing in a benevolent Creator..although you can sense that value instinctively.

Re: Is it wrong to ....
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What's the difference between a corpse and a blow up doll?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing ... but then its not a participant. Using a blow up doll is just a fancy way of masturbating - only one particpant whos clearly participating actively and positively.

[/ QUOTE ]Are you suggesting a corpse is participating?

Re: Is it wrong to ....
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, it's wrong, because all human beings have God-given dignity, and having sex with someone's corpse is a violation of that person's dignity.

[/ QUOTE ]Of which person's: the corpse's or the living human's?

Re: Is it wrong to ....
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, it's wrong, because all human beings have God-given dignity, and having sex with someone's corpse is a violation of that person's dignity.

[/ QUOTE ]Of which person's: the corpse's or the living human's?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking the corpse's. It might work the other way too, though.

Re: Is it wrong to ....
 

Well, I don't think a corpse can have dignity since it is not a sentient being.

Re: Is it wrong to ....
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I don't think a corpse can have dignity since it is not a sentient being.

[/ QUOTE ]

The corpse doesn't have to have dignity for the act to be violating the dignity of the deceased person.

Re: Is it wrong to ....
 

[ QUOTE ]
Using a blow up doll is just a fancy way of masturbating - only one particpant whos clearly participating actively and positively.

[/ QUOTE ]

And, again, how's that different from a corpse???

(I think we're talking just regular corpses, not zombies.)

Re: Is it wrong to ....
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, it's wrong, because all human beings have God-given dignity, and having sex with someone's corpse is a violation of that person's dignity.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a weak argument that is philosophically swiss cheese. If everyone has "God-given" dignity, when does it end? Obviously, you suggest a corpse still has "dignity". What about during an autopsy? Or organ donation? Or when the grave is moved? Or it is cremated? Or it is in a future museum as a skeleton? Or it is a cadaver used for medical teaching? What's the statue of limitations on dignity? "From dust to dust", isn't that the Biblical phrase, so "dust" has dignity, too, even after the soul is supposedly in heaven or hell? Does the soul in heaven get some telegram that its former body is being desecrated on earth? Would it care?

This doesn't make necrophilia right, per se, but you've made no argument that it is wrong.

I think JRoc's argument is legitimate -- it is the abuse of the property of someone's estate. Thus, morally wrong. But that's not why its on the books as a crime, that is more due to Judeo-Christian morality and because such a person is viewed as "digusting". But don't view laws on the books as some evidence of the immorality of an act. Sodomy is a crime in a lot of places, but there has never been a real argument as to why it is immoral between consenting adults. And don't say because its not procreation, because neither is the use of condoms or the traditional "pull-out", handjob, or blowjob, but they are not crimes.

Re: Is it wrong to ....
 

Feel free to laugh. I'm OK with it.

But as I look at specifically American society I see almost every disturbing, degrading, potentially disasterous change having moral relativism at it's core. It took root in the 60s and looks to be in full flower.

Re: Is it wrong to ....
 

[ QUOTE ]
But as I look at specifically American society I see almost every disturbing, degrading, potentially disasterous change having moral relativism at it's root. It took root in the 60s and looks to be in full flower.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, let's go back to the morally clean era of the 1940s and 1950s -- ah the good ole days of segregation, women knew their place, homosexuals stayed in the closet, McCarthyism and ignorant respect for authority, and the dollar was still KING! American culture at its finest.

Re: Is it wrong to ....
 

I'm guessing here but I'd bet your personal view on history is short, less than 20 years. IMHO that invalidates your opinion here.

How's that for reactionary?