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.