Second Necrophilia Post

[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

[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 ) 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.