437
Philosophy has peaked. Checkmate atheists (sh.itjust.works)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
156 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 14 points 3 months ago (19 children)

Morally wrong? No.

Is it not? I'm not religious, but I still find it morally wrong to have sex with something that didn't consent to it.

Whether the animal is alive or dead, it isn't able to consent. And since the animal cannot consent, it is therefore rape, making it morally wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 3 months ago (9 children)

    I cannot fucking believe I'm going to participate here...

    ... but when you're talking to someone about organ donation, you'd typically say something like "You can't take them with you. That isn't you anymore. You're dead. It's just meat now."

    ... and that's as much as I'm going to say because gross

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 3 months ago (8 children)

    But this is actually why we decide whether or not we participate in postmortem organ donation while we're alive - we make the conscious decision ahead of time. Which is still then consistent with the consent argument

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (7 children)

    So then if I consent to someone fucking my corpse after I'm gone, it becomes morally OK for them to do it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    With regard to the corpse, maybe.

    There's possibly a virtue ethics argument against the person doing it? Like, it's a little weird that they want to, right?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Weird from a cultural perspective where any sort of non-medical interference with a corpse is frowned upon, so we're trained from a very young age to find any of that stuff icky/morbid. Other cultures may not have that same aversion.

    Kinda in the same vein as we in North America have a very conservative opinion on being naked in public where other cultures couldn't care less.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    I'm already a moral relativist.

    What I'm asking is if a person who wants to and does have sex with corpses, knowing that this is socially profane and must be kept secret, is this a trustable person?

    Also, respect for the dead often involves rituals that are non-medical. I think disease obviously played a part in how these rituals were formed, but I don't think that disease is the primary reason people care.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    A dildo also isn't able to consent. A carrot isn't able to consent and is more alive than the roadkill (since it can still reproduce). Ability to consent is something we require from conscious beings, but we generally don't require it from objects, and corpses blur the line.

    I definitely get the "ick" feeling from necrophilia, so my knee-jerk reaction is to consider it immoral, but it isn't actually that easy to come up with a consistent justification for that condemnation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    A dildo also isn't able to consent. A carrot isn't able to consent and is more alive than the roadkill (since it can still reproduce).

    A dildo was never alive, and a carrot is not a sentient creature.

    Ability to consent is something we require from conscious beings, but we generally don't require it from objects, and corpses blur the line.

    Why does a corpse blur the line? Or is this DnD logic and a corpse is just an object? A corpse should be treated like the person it was, so it still needs consent otherwise you're still raping it.

    but it isn't actually that easy to come up with a consistent justification for that condemnation.

    It absolutely is: a sentient (not even sapient, but sentient) being's bodily autonomy is inviolable without their consent.

    Extending your logic to make my point, if a corpse is blurring the line, what about brain dead coma patients, especially ones that are infertile? Are they ok to rape? They're alive and can't reproduce, so what's the difference, right?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    A corpse is not a sentient creature. Former sentience is not the same as sentience.

    A corpse should be treated like the person it was, so it still needs consent otherwise you're still raping it.

    That's your opinion, and it's completely valid, but what's your justification for why someone else should agree?

    Extending your logic to make my point, if a corpse is blurring the line, what about brain dead coma patients, especially ones that are infertile? Are they ok to rape? They're alive and can't reproduce, so what's the difference, right?

    Well, they're alive, for one. Corpses by definition are not. And what we think of as "brain-dead" is the long-term and potentially permanent loss of consciousness and therefore sapience, but sentience is a bit harder to disprove.

    Your standard seems to be "current or former sentient beings," which is consistent, but you haven't given a justification for the "or former" part. Current sentient beings experience suffering, so that's a pretty good reason, but corpses don't.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago* (2 children)

    but I still find it morally wrong to have sex with something that didn’t consent to it.

    That makes it immoral in your framework. But you can simply construct one that doesn't require consent, then it wouldn't be wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Sure, but I can also construct a moral framework in which it's ok for me to murder anyone I don't like because my not-mental-illness-sky-daddy said so.

    Moral relativism is bullshit and can be used to justify anything.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

    What if it's a plant instead? It once was alive, and is incapable of consent. Is it morally wrong to make a dildo out of wood? What about bone?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •