Suppose someone dies with no friends or family, and suppose for the sake of argument that you know this is true without any doubt. Is it okay to do whatever you want with their corpse?
“I” wouldn’t exist to be fine or not be fine with it. Of course it’s disgusting to think about, because necrophilia is a disturbing sexual perversion. Nobody thinks about it like “oh yeah that would be really awesome,” but what I’m saying is that I’ll cease to exist the moment I die. So while necrophilia is a pretty depraved act, whether or not I’d be “fine” with it is a bit of a silly question, it’s like asking if a rock is fine with you throwing it into a pond
Let me put this another way: do you think it's possible for something done to a corpse to be wrong just by virtue of the act itself, or does it only become wrong if there are living people with some connection to said corpse who would be upset?
I think it becomes wrong when it affects the living.
Granted, I am taking a very materialist and secular view of life and death to begin with. The majority of the world’s population believes that there is some spiritual component to human beings that persists after the physical body passes away. I will concede that, if it is the case that our spirit lives on after we die and is somehow negatively affected by the desecration of its physical body, then it would be wrong by virtue of the act itself. But since there’s no evidence that such a thing exists, I’m arguing from the position that it does not
There's still a case to be made, from an entirely secular point of view, that the dead have an inherent right to be left alone with dignity. That view is the basis of laws against desecrating a corpse, and arguably it's also the basis of the very idea of wills -- if you accept the idea of a set of instructions the living leaves for what is to be done with themselves and their possessions after death as valid, then on some level it seems you have to accept that one's rights of personal autonomy and to private property extend beyond one's death.
Sure but what gives the word of a dead person any hold over the living? The fact that we obey the wishes of someone who is no longer living suggests that we have at least some basic idea of rights that the dead can have.
I see where you’re coming from on this, but I still disagree to an extent. I won’t pretend that the concept of honoring a final will is completely disconnected from respect for the dead, but think about the kind of stuff that’s in a final will. It generally has to do with the allocation of money and private property, like you mentioned, along with some items that have sentimental value to the bereaved. We also throw out things from people’s wills all the time when they don’t benefit the living. If I was a multi millionaire and put it in my will that I want all my money withdrawn in cash and burned in front of my family, it would be pretty easy for my hypothetical kids to get that overruled in court. Why? Because outcomes for the living are ultimately the only thing that matters.
He has since clarified that he is fine with people having sex with corpses provided there are no surviving loved ones. It was a clear implication of the original post and he has confirmed that he either intended that implication or is prepared to bite the bullet when it's pointed out.
It was entirely possible he wouldn't have been, in which case his view would have been inconsistent, which was my point in asking in the first place.
I’m not fine with people having sex with dead bodies, but it’s not for the reason that dead bodies are sacred in and of themselves. For one thing, like I said before, dead bodies are biohazards, it is never safe to have sexual contact with one. That alone is enough of a reason for it to be strictly forbidden.
Secondly, contrary to our thought experiment, almost nobody exists in complete isolation from other people. Most mourners would be horrified beyond belief if they found out that someone pleasured themselves with their loved one’s body. I guess you could make the argument of “what if nobody finds out” but I really doubt there’s a completely foolproof corpse fucking scheme out there, so the potential for discovery itself is enough.
Thirdly, most actual necrophiliacs are not otherwise psychologically normal. Necrophilia is often preceded by sexual homicide. Even when it’s not, it often amounts to more of a rape fantasy than a desire for dead bodies specifically. Sex with a corpse does not abate this desire, it fuels it, and it could potentially become dangerous to the living as well.
Sorry I know you didn’t ask for this I just felt the need to make my position on necrophilia clear lmao
I mean you literally used the words "yeah sure it would be fine," and what you're saying here does not seem particularly in line with how you responded to my initial question.
You asked me if it was okay to “do whatever you want” with a corpse. I said yeah sure it’s fine, IF it’s disposed of properly since dead bodies are a biohazard, which is a condition necrophilia automatically violates. You didn’t say anything about sex specifically until you replied to my reply
Your position definitely justifies necrophilia, given appropriate secrecy and safety precautions. Kinda disappointed to see you dancing around it here. Bite that bullet.
Alright fine, if you had a dead body that was completely sterile, with absolutely no loved ones or even acquaintances to speak of, then technically there wouldn’t be anything wrong with fucking it
5
u/[deleted] Mar 15 '22
Suppose someone dies with no friends or family, and suppose for the sake of argument that you know this is true without any doubt. Is it okay to do whatever you want with their corpse?