Is it wrong to ....

[FoxwoodsFiend]

[ 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.

[snowden719]

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.

[BigDukeSix]

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

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

[PairTheBoard]

[ 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

[Georgia Avenue]

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.

[usmhot]

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.

[ 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?

[usmhot]

[ 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.

[FoxwoodsFiend]

[ 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.

[quinn]

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.