I was surfing the web when I came across this article. Here's a clear and verifiable case of a person who sees nothing wrong with necrophilia (i.e the practice being Intimate withe dead people). I do not agree nor subscribe to the practice but then the question arises (especially given the arguments made in support of the morality of same-sex practices): Is necrophilia immoral ? My objective here is to see if convincing arguments can be offered in the affirmative or otherwise (which I suppose unlikely). To that extent I'll question people on both sides of the argument, even those who take a neutral stance. This is to see whether morality or not of a intimate practice can be indeed reasonably justified or whether these are determined by zeitgeists (i.e the mood of the times).

Once again my question: Why is necrophilia immoral ?

Anyone who thinks Necrophilia should be accepted needs to be locked up in an asylum !!

This is the article, folks !

THE UNREPENTANT NECROPHILE:

An Interview with Karen Greenlee

By Jim Morton

   Karen Greenlee is a necrophiliac. Five years ago she made national headlines when she drove off in a hearse and wasn't heard from for two days. Instead of delivering the body to the cemetery she decided to spend some time alone with the corpse. Eventually, the police found her in the next county, overdosed on codeine Tylenol. She was charged with illegally driving a hearse and interfering with the burial (there is no law in California against necrophilia). In the casket with the body Karen left a four-and-a-half page letter confessing to amorous episodes with between twenty to forty dead men. The letter was filled with remorse over her sexual desires: "Why do I do it? Why? Why? Fear of love, relationships. No romance ever hurt like this , It's the pits. I'm a morgue rat. This is my rathole, perhaps my grave."

   The letter proved to be her downfall. For stealing the body and the hearse, she got eleven days in jail, a $255 fine, and was placed on two years probation with medical treatment recommended. Meanwhile, the mother of the dead man sued, claiming the incident scarred her psyche. She asked for $1 million, but settled for $117, 000 in general and punitive damages.

   The press had a field day, the lawyers got rich, and Karen lost her career and source of sexual satisfaction. Karen is now more comfortable with her sexuality. "When I wrote that letter I was still listening to society. Everyone said necrophilia was wrong, so I must be doing something wrong. But the more people tried to convince me I was crazy, the more sure of my desires I became."

   The following interview was held in Karen's apartment, a small studio filled with books, necrophilic drawings and satanic adornments.

Back during the trial, from what I read in the newspapers, it seemed like you got very little support.

No, none whatsoever. The newspapers were the worst. To this day I hate reporters. One of them even compared me to Richard Trenton Chase, "The Vampire Killer!" What support there was was like family obligations. One of my brothers refused to have anything to do with me. He said, "I just want to remember her as she was." He came up to me later and apologized, but he still isn't comfortable around me. My other brother was more supportive, but even he had to ask, "How'd you do it?"

Before the trial I had a boyfriend who found out abut it. He got mad and slapped me around. He said I wasn't even a woman and I could go Bleep my dead bodies. I was surprised. He knew! Apparently a lot of people knew and I don't know how they knew.

With guys, they always felt I went for the bodies because I was hard up, and if I went to bed with them then that would change me and they would be the one who would give me such satisfaction I wouldn't need those old corpses anymore. I've run into that a lot. Sometimes I had guys come on to me for just that reason.

The question I am most often asked is, "How does she do it?"

Yes, that's the question! People ask questions like that-- even people who seem pretty cool, seem to have open minds-- then when you tell them, they say, "That's very interesting," then don't want to have much to do with me. I don't mind telling people how I do it. It doesn't matter to me, but anyone adept sexually shouldn't have to ask. People have this misconception that there has to be penetration for sexual gratification, which is bull! The most sensitive part of a woman is the front area anyway and that is what needs to be stimulated.

Besides, there are different aspects of sexual expression: touchy-feely, 69, even holding hands. That body is just lying there, but it has what it takes to make me happy. The cold, the aura of death, the smell of death, the funereal surroundings, it all contributes.

The smell of death?

Sure, I find the odor of death very erotic. There are death odors and there are death odors. Now you get your body that's been floating in the bay for two weeks, or a burn victim, that doesn't attract me much, but a freshly embalmed corpse is something else.

There is also this attraction to blood. When you're on top of a body it tends to purge blood out of its mouth, while you're making passionate love , You'd have to be there, I guess.

Of course, with all the AIDS going around ,

That's the reason I haven't tried anything lately. I'm sure I'd have found a way to get into one of those funeral homes by now, but the group I find attractive-- young men in their twenties-- are the ones who are dying of AIDS.

Did you usually attend the funerals of your corpse-lovers?

Yeah. It was convenient working in the funeral homes. I'd get to drive out to the cemetery with the family. I'd get to mourn right along with the family at the loss of that loved one. Except I was groaning in a little different tone! People can't really tell if you're grief stricken or passion-stricken. I've had members of the families put their arms around me and say, "We're so glad you could come!" Then you have to spin this big old yarn, "Yeah, I knew him in school, " If the guy didn't have a girlfriend in life they think you were , "Oh, she's the one!"

You weren't in Sacramento at the time of the trial, were you?

No, I was working in a funeral home in another city and going to school at the same time. It's weird, but the day I got a telegram about the trial telling me to get in touch with my attorney, I went in to the funeral home and was fired for things I had done at that funeral home. Somebody, I guess, got wise of me. I know I wasn't seen, but I think somebody just figured it out. Of course, they didn't know about Sacramento yet. They found out later! The same day, within five hours of each other, two totally different things caught up with me.

I worked in that funeral home for almost a year. That's where I did a lot of my extracurricular activities. I had keys so I'd slip back in after hours and spend all night there. A guy lived at the funeral home in an apartment downstairs. He drank so he usually passed out. He had a .357 magnum under his pillow.

The guy that court case was about--

John Mercure?

Yeah. I understand he was moved out of the cemetery after the trial.

That happened at the time I was breaking into this funeral homes. There was a side room, one of those arrangement areas, where they always have their case folders out. I read there was an exhumation order for John Mercure. Then I read something in the paper about it. His mother wanted the body exhumed, said she wouldn't bury her cat there. On the day he was suppose to be exhumed I snuck out into a field across from where he was buried. I sat out in the field and watched them dig up the body and give him to this other mortician. They shipped him back to Michigan.

When did you first become aware of your necrophilia?

It's something I've been attracted to all my life. I used to hold funeral services for my pets when they died. Had a little pet graveyard. I lived in a small town and the fireman's barbecue was next door to the funeral home. To go to the bathroom you had to use the facilities in the funeral home. I'd find any excuse I could to go to the bathroom, then I'd take side trips and wander around the mortuary.

It didn't scare you like the other kids?

No, I loved it! I was real curious. I'd wander around the halls,

Do you miss working in funeral homes?

Yes, terribly! Even if I wasn't a necrophile, I like mortuary work. I enjoy embalming and everything. Except for obese people. The bodies I hated working on most were Obese people. 'Specially if they'd been autopsied. Their guts would slide out on the floor and shit , and all this melty fat. Yeeeech!

You said something previously about "The Vampire Killer," Richard Trenton Chase. He was from Sacramento, wasn't he?

Yeah, the second funeral home I worked for-- I wasn't working there at the time-- got the bodies of Chase's victims, a man and a woman and their child, so I hear the gory details of what the bodies looked like. They were really butchered. They were disemboweled with shit stuffed in their mouths. Chase started by killing animals and drinking their blood and when he wasn't satisfied with that he graduated to people. He killed this couple, then kidnapped their child, killed it and later threw it in a trash can. The mortician who embalmed the bodies said he hardly ever got queasy about anything, but he got sick when he saw those bodies!

What's the weirdest case you ever encountered.

Hmmm , There was one kid who fell out of a car while his mother was making a turn and she managed to run over his head. Another kid choked to death on a cigarette wrapper. One guy committed suicide by shooting himself in the head with a pellet rifle. He had to shoot himself several times and it took him a while to die, but he finally succeeded. There was another guy I worked on. He was a transvestite who somehow strangled himself with his nylons. I don't think it was intentional, I think he was trying to achieve heightened orgasm through strangulation and he ended up hanging himself. He wouldn't be the first to make that mistake.

How about the most unusual funeral?

One time this bunch of religious fanatics held a funeral for one of their members. They didn't want her embalmed, they just wanted her dressed and in the casket. We usually didn't do that, but we decided to be nice and put her up in the stateroom. We were standing outside of that stateroom and we heard someone saying, "Rise in the name of Jesus!" They were preying and slapping the body. They were talking in tongues. That was weird!

There seems to be a strong camaraderie between morticians. Almost like a secret society.

Very much so. Morticians are very tight with each other because most people won't have anything to do with them. I used to find if I went to a party I'd always be introduced like, "This is Karen and she's a mortician." But they don't say, "Here's Karen-- she's a secretary," or "she's a veterinary assistant." A lot of people are under the misconception that morticians are very straight, very somber. If they ever went back into the prep room and heard all the jokes that are cracked it would blow that theory right out the window.

Did any of those morticians ever testify for or against you at the trial?

One funeral director testified on behalf of funeral practices. He was asked how often necrophilia occurs. He said, "It's almost unheard of in this profession."

That's a major lie!

Yes, definitely , necrophilia is more prevalent than most people imagine. Funeral homes just don't report it. There was one place that I broke into, and I know that they knew something was wrong. They actually caught me in the act and let me get away.

At another place I was working, this guy came up to me and said, "Someone's been messin' with the body. It looks like they were trying to Bleep the body!" I said, "Oh my goodness! Really?" I think they figured it out later. I know they know now.

One mortician I worked with used to like to a trocar [a large hollow needle used to suction fluids from corpses] and push it up inside any male cadaver's dick. He'd say, "Oh look, the corpse has got a boner." This guy was really weird. He looked like Larry of the Three Stooges. I think he had some necrophilic tendencies. He'd get real upset if there weren't any female bodies to work on. He'd start pacing. I caught him one time in the prep room. He said he was just taking a pee in the hopper at the end of the table. He was just pulling up his pants when I walked in. I said, "I won't tell if you don't."

You say you were once caught in the act of necrophilia once?

Yeah. I had tried to kill myself and was living in a halfway house a couple of blocks up from this funeral home. I decided to go to the mausoleum and try and kill myself again. The mausoleum had a door connecting it to the mortuary. I was sitting in there, real depressed, when, just for the hell of it, I decided to try running my driver's license along the edge of the door and click! the door popped open. I couldn't believe it, so I tried it again and the door popped open again! I went into the prep room and there happened to be a body in there. I had me some fun, did my thing and forgot all about killing myself. I told the folks at the halfway house that I stayed the night with friends. I went in there several times. Sometimes there were absolutely no bodies, so I turned around and snuck back out. I usually went in the back door.

About a week later I snuck back into the funeral home. I was on the prep table having a good old time, when all of a sudden I felt like there was somebody nearby. Next thing, I heard people walking down the hallway. I quietly jumped off the table and threw the sheet back over the body. My clothes were in quite a state of disarray, and I had blood on me and everything else-- it had been an autopsy case. There was a casket with the lid open in the side casket-room, so I ran and hid behind it. The casket was on a church-truck so they couldn't see me, but they could see my legs. It was a man and a woman. There were standing there saying, "Who are you? What are you doing here?" One of them said to the other, "you go get the gun and call the cops and I'll stay down here." I knew I only had one chance then, so I busted out and ran. I knew the layout of the place, so I just ran down the hall and out of the place and out of the cemetery.

At the time I still had a friend who worked at the funeral home. He said, "Somebody broke into the funeral home. They know it was you." They put in an alarm after that. I think they called the police, but there were never any charges. I'm sure they didn't want the publicity.

That was the last time I got very close, except for I've broken into a few tombs.

Have you seen any changes in people's attitudes towards necrophilia?

Yeah, when I came out here I noticed it. It's almost a fad! They're not really necrophiles, but pseudo-necrophiles. Like a death cult! But there are probably a lot of people who would do it if they had the opportunity.

Perhaps there is this vast network of necrophiles, who, for lack of a forum, will never know of each other's existence.

Well, there's Leilah [Wendell's] group [American Association of Necrophilic Research and Enlightenment]. They try and get some information out about it.

It must be frustrating when people say, "we have to cure you," or "you've got to be more like us."

I[b]t is. For a while I found myself thinking, "Yeah, this isn't normal. Why can't I be like other people. Why doesn't the same pair of shoes fit me just right?" I went through all that personal hell and finally I accepted myself and realized that's just me. that's my nature and I might as well enjoy it. I'm miserable when I try to be something I'm not. And too, a lot of these people who are putting me down have hang-ups worse than I have, or they do things that might be considered questionable by their peers. I had a gay friend who, when he found out I was a necrophile, said, "You can go to hell for that." After 1979, when I was put on probation, part of the probation requirement was that I seek therapy. I had a really nice social worker. She was cool. Very nonjudgmental. The more I talked to these people, the more I realized necrophilia makes sense for me. The reason I was having a problem with it was because I couldn't accept myself. I was still trying to live my life by other peoples standards. To accept it was peace. These people who are always trying to change me only helped me get myself more in touch with my feelings.[/b] I used to go from the therapist's office to the funeral home. It didn't work, folks!

The bolded statement should be hauntingly familiar to anyone who has understudied or worked with same-sex rights groups and/or arguments made by same-sex supporters. Nevertheless, the wider implications of the statement for morality can't be ignored.

frosbel:

Anyone who thinks Necrophilia should be accepted needs to be locked up in an asylum !!

Why ? Will you maintain that your statement applies to to gay$ ? Have you read the article ?

Note that from the article Karen clearly states that she derives pleasure from the act. The fact that she would even seek to be attach herself to funerals to do such should effectively seal the case. Note the bolded statements below:

The smell of death?

S[b]ure, I find the odor of death very erotic.[/b] There are death odors and there are death odors. Now you get your body that's been floating in the bay for two weeks, or a burn victim, that doesn't attract me much, but a freshly embalmed corpse is something else.

There is also this attraction to blood. When you're on top of a body it tends to purge blood out of its mouth, while you're making passionate love , You'd have to be there, I guess.

These statements made by her make it evident that Karen derives pleasure from making love to dead bodies.

My my, that is one disturbed woman.

Anyways, an action/behavior is immoral to the extent a/the society defines. What is scandalous in one part of the world is perfectly normal in another. The part you highlighted is eerily similar to the argument used to argue in favor of homosexuality. If anything, it shows us the problem of accepting otherwise suspect behavior solely on the basis of "its make me feel good" & "its who I am, I can't change it".

Very interesting.

Before i make any comments let me place a disclaimer: my belief is that bodies of the deceased should be treated with respect and dignity and no presumptions should be made regarding the effect of actions taken on such bodies: in other words we should not presume that since sich persons are dead, acting on their corpses would be harmless. I believe that we should not make such a presumption because we simply have insufficient knowledge regarding the phenomenon of death and its effects on consciousness as to be able to arrive at a concrete or certain position in that regard.

Having said that: let us assume, only for the sake of principled debate (in order to set out the boundaries of morality lucidly) - let us assume - that the dead body - is what it appears to be - a completely lifeless vessel that has no effect whatsoever on either the soul that inhabited it, or its evironment.

If this assumption were to hold true - would it be immoral to engage in such as is described in the OP? Would it be any more immoral than carrying out similar acts against equally lifeless pillows or cushions?

I ask this question in light of the understanding of morality which comes from the point of view of doing nothing to harm any other person. Does the act described in the OP harm any other person?

If something harms no other person, can it be said to be immoral?

JeSoul:

Anyways, an action/behavior is immoral to the extent a/the society defines.

I am not certain that I agree there. Societies have been known to sanction as good many obviously reprehensible things whilsts condemning as evil many perfectly innocuous things.

Long time though. How's life coming along.

JeSoul:

My my, that is one disturbed woman.

I'll prefer the word queer. She seems normal but her $exual practices are differing from the 'normal ones'.

JeSoul:
Anyways, an action/behavior is immoral to the extent a/the society defines.

Careful ! Suppose necrophiliacs come out of hiding (I'm sure there are more of them) and become advocates of the acceptance of their practice in a manner similar to that of gays, and we find Christians supporting that, what would be your reaction ? I'll tell you mine: Unfazed, because I have long decided there's no limit to the actions humans are theoretically capable of deeming good. However, I won't and don't support it.

JeSoul:
What is scandalous in one part of the world is perfectly normal in another.

I'll prefer you say normal. If it was perfectly normal, it wouldn't be scandalous in some other parts.

JeSoul:
The part you highlighted is eerily similar to the argument used to argue in favor of homosexuality.

Yes ! And I'm most curious as to the answers of people like claremont, harakiri, mazaje, thehomer et al. I'll especially pick on claremont who once argued that love doesn't exist.

JeSoul:
If anything, it shows us the problem of accepting otherwise suspect behavior solely on the basis of "its make me feel good" & "its who I am, I can't change it".

Exactly !

Deep Sight:

Very interesting.

Yes it is. This will be a good medium to explore how deists (as yourself), atheists and theists perceive morality.

Deep Sight:
Before i make any comments let me place a disclaimer: my belief is that bodies of the deceased should be treated with respect and dignity and no presumptions should be made regarding the effect of actions taken on such bodies

I agree with the bolded. But the thing is you are clearly making a presumption (QED)

Deep Sight:
: in other words we should not presume that since sich persons are dead, acting on their corpses would be harmless.

It is harmless since dead corpses do not, can not and have not the characteristics of life - MRNIGERD. Critically, they can't feel harm since their brains are incapable of perceiving or responding to pain. My explanation does leave gap for allowing that inflicting pain on brain-dead people who are alive is wrong and harmful.

Deep Sight:
I believe that we should not make such a presumption because we simply have insufficient knowledge regarding the phenomenon of death and its effects on consciousness as to be able to arrive at a concrete or certain position in that regard.

I believe in consciousness but I'm not sure some people here do. To the extent, we have insufficient knowledge there will be room for presumptions [/b]such as the one you have just made. Note that the grounds for adjudging the knowledge sufficient or not isn't stated.

Deep Sight:
Having said that: let us [b]assume, only for the sake of principled debate (in order to set out the boundaries of morality lucidly) - let us assume - that the dead body - is what it appears to be - a completely lifeless vessel that has no effect whatsoever on either the soul that inhabited it, or its evironment.

Okay.

Deep Sight:
If this assumption were to hold true - would it be immoral to engage in such as is described in the OP?

It wouldn't, especially when one considers your next question.

Deep Sight:
Would it be any more immoral than carrying out similar acts against equally lifeless pillows or cushions?

There's a difference. Lifeless pillows and cushions are chemical by-products of non-living things. But let's say I was using a lifeless animal-fur cushion, some animal-right activists think it immoral.

Deep Sight:
I ask this question in light of the understanding of morality which comes from the point of view of doing nothing to harm any other person. Does the act described in the OP harm any other person?

It doesn't. It does however impinge on cultural norms as to the sanctity of a corpse. I'll share a thought though: It is very likely that a materialistic society (especially that proposed by the Sam Harris, Peter Singer and their ilk) could degenerate into one in which necrophilia is adjudged to be moral.

Deep Sight:
If something harms no other person, can it be said to be immoral?

Etiquettes are an aspect of humanity in which morality is not based on whether something is harmful or not e.g I use a glass instead of a tea-cup to drink tea: Why is that immoral (or as they say, improper) ?

Deep Sight:
Before i make any comments let me place a disclaimer: my belief is that bodies of the deceased should be treated with respect and dignity

I couldn't share this belief more.

Having said that: let us assume, only for the sake of principled debate (in order to set out the boundaries of morality lucidly) - let us assume - that the dead body - is what it appears to be - a completely lifeless vessel that has no effect whatsoever on either the soul that inhabited it, or its evironment.

If this assumption were to hold true - would it be immoral to engage in such as is described in the OP? Would it be any more immoral than carrying out similar acts against equally lifeless pillows or cushions?
I ask this question in light of the understanding of morality which comes from the point of view of doing nothing to harm any other person. Does the act described in the OP harm any other person?
If something harms no other person, can it be said to be immoral?

The act certainly does not physically harm anyone else, but does an act have to be physically hurtful in nature in order to be 'harmful'? our courts make room for those as well.

JeSoul:

I couldn't share this belief more.

Same here. Let's see if there is you-know-them disagree and their reasons why.

JeSoul:

The act certainly does not physically harm anyone else, but does an act have to be physically hurtful in nature in order to be 'harmful'? our courts make room for those as well.

Certainly, the act needn't be physically harmful inorder to qualify as harm. I certainly did not have physical harm in mind.

But the question is this - if we are to presume that there is no form of harm whatsoever done - would that then make such an act morally acceptable? This is something to think on regarding our definition of morality.

JeSoul:
Anyways, an action/behavior is immoral to the extent a/the society defines.

Deep Sight:

I am not certain that I agree there. Societies have been known to sanction as good many obviously reprehensible things whilsts condemning as evil many perfectly innocuous things.

Uyi Iredia:
Careful ! Suppose necrophiliacs come out of hiding (I'm sure there more of them) and become advocate the acceptance of their practice in a manner similar to that of gays, and we find Christians supporting that, what would be your reaction ?

 I should re-phrase: an action/behavior is immoral to the extent a/the society defines accepts - and I'm approaching this moreso from a societal view than a personal one. What is immoral for me is certainly not determined by the opinions of >51% of my society. And DS, your second sentence, I don't disagree with.

Long time though. How's life coming along.

Life is coming along just wonderfully, we thank God for undeserved mercies. And I hope yours has been beyond expectations .

Deep Sight:

Certainly, the act needn't be physically harmful inorder to qualify as harm. I certainly did not have physical harm in mind.

But the question is this - if we are to presume that there is no form of harm whatsoever done - would that then make such an act morally acceptable? This is something to think on regarding our definition of morality.

My (tentative) conclusion is this there are absolute morals (be good, love e.t.c) which almost all humans subscribe but that this however doesn't preclude humanity one from venturing into total decadence while holding such decadence to be good or bad (e.g Hitler, this case and the curious case of Ted Bundy). Ted Bundy was a necrophiliac and serial killer who admitted that what he did was wrong but he couldn't help himself. I empathize with Ted to some extent.

Deep Sight:

Certainly, the act needn't be physically harmful inorder to qualify as harm. I certainly did not have physical harm in mind.

But the question is this - if we are to presume that there is no form of harm whatsoever done - would that then make such an act morally acceptable? This is something to think on regarding our definition of morality.

Exactly right I think. If a necro does it in the middle of the amazon jungle on corpse of which no one cares or remembers, it doesn't affect anyone, or any society but the necro him/herself - but he/she still has God to answer to - a God whom I hope we agree whose measuring stick does change or adjust according to human leanings. One of the foremost bullet-points used in the argument for homosexuality is that they are not 'harming' or 'hurting' anyone else so therefore its okay. Certain actions 'hurt' the collective sensitivity of a society, sometimes enough for the society to institure laws against it - part of what I meant by societies determining what is/is not moral for themselves.

Uyi Iredia:

My (tentative) conclusion is this there are absolute morals (be good, love e.t.c) which almost all humans subscribe but that this however doesn't preclude humanity one from venturing into total decadence while holding such decadence to be good or bad (e.g Hitler, this case and the curious case of Ted Bundy). Ted Bundy was a necrophiliac and serial killer who admitted that what he did was wrong but he couldn't help himself. I empathize with Ted to some extent.

Nicely put in this paragraph, though I would adjust that to say "a good portion of humans subscribe" rather than "almost all humans subscribe".

 That's a major lie!

Yes, definitely , necrophilia is more prevalent than most people imagine. Funeral homes just don't report it. There was one place that I broke into, and I know that they knew something was wrong. They actually caught me in the act and let me get away.

At another place I was working, this guy came up to me and said, "Someone's been messin' with the body. It looks like they were trying to Bleep the body!" I said, "Oh my goodness! Really?" I think they figured it out later. I know they know now.

One mortician I worked with used to like to a trocar [a large hollow needle used to suction fluids from corpses] and push it up inside any male cadaver's dick. He'd say, "Oh look, the corpse has got a boner." This guy was really weird. He looked like Larry of the Three Stooges. I think he had some necrophilic tendencies. He'd get real upset if there weren't any female bodies to work on. He'd start pacing. I caught him one time in the prep room. He said he was just taking a pee in the hopper at the end of the table. He was just pulling up his pants when I walked in. I said, "I won't tell if you don't."

The bolded statement suggests that necrophiliacs are less rare than thought and prefer to be as close with dead bodies by working in funeral homes.

@ JeSoul

How about the most unusual funeral?

One time this bunch of religious fanatics held a funeral for one of their members. They didn't want her embalmed, they just wanted her dressed and in the casket. We usually didn't do that, but we decided to be nice and put her up in the stateroom. We were standing outside of that stateroom and we heard someone saying, "Rise in the name of Jesus!" They were preying and slapping the body. They were talking in tongues. That was weird!

Do you agree with what the Christians did here ? Personally, I don't since Jesus way of going about faith healing wasn't that way. Would you say they were applying faith ?

JeSoul:

Exactly right I think. If a necro does it in the middle of the amazon jungle on corpse of which no one cares or remembers, it doesn't affect anyone, or any society but the necro him/herself - but he/she still has God to answer to - a God whom I hope we agree whose measuring stick does change or adjust according to human leanings.

Agreed.

JeSoul:
One of the foremost bullet-points used in the argument for homosexuality is that they are not 'harming' or 'hurting' anyone else so therefore its okay.

Yes.

JeSoul:
Certain actions 'hurt' the collective sensitivity of a society, sometimes enough for the society to institure laws against it - part of what I meant by societies determining what is/is not moral for themselves.

In fact, I am tired of just agreeing. It makes it seem like group-think. I need you-know-them to pose objections right now. I won't be available till tomorrow evening or the day after that to discuss this issue.

JeSoul:
Nicely put in this paragraph, though I would adjust that to say "a good portion of humans subscribe" rather than "almost all humans subscribe".

J'adoube.

When it comes to gay issues i'm very tolerant but necrophilia, man ,thats disgusting and immoral in a deviant way. Isnt there a difference between the living and the dead when it comes to sexual matters?

I repeat anyone who even imagines this concept to be acceptable needs urgent help.

There are limits to madness and I think this one just goes way overboard.

Not worth consideration.

A dead body ?

What !!!!

Lord have mercy .

diluminati:

When it comes to gay issues i'm very tolerant but necrophilia, man ,t[b]hats disgusting and immoral in a deviant way[/b]. Isnt there a difference between the living and the dead when it comes to intimate matters?

Obviously, Karen doesn't agree with you. Now I'll assume Karen's stance. Why DO YOU find it disgusting and deviant, especially since you are tolerant as regards gay issues ?

I can think of several reasons why the practice of copulating with the dead is wrong, distasteful and immoral. As I am pressed for time, I’ll sketch out a brief response and as the discussion progresses I may seize the opportunity to elaborate on my point of view or to entertain objections to my point of view.

1)A s.exual act is generally considered immoral or wrong if it nonconsensual. Proper s.exual intercourse involves people who properly understand the ramifications of the proposed s.exual intercourse and voluntarily give consent without compulsion, force or threats to achieve the s.exual act. This is why it is moral to frown on r.ape, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, objectum sexuality, s.exual assault or sex slavery, or other extreme forms of s.exual deviancy. There is a nonconsensual element to these paraphilia; if I were to talk frankly, people who find themselves captive to these sexually deviant behaviors ought to seek help for this situation. As such, it is completely muddleheaded to begin to equivocate on what is clearly immoral, unsound and abnormal because persons who are captive to these paraphilia feel like their actions should be excused or understood. A corpse clearly has no way to consent to s.exual advances or entreaties and as such sex with deceased persons is clearly wrong.

2)Every individual is endowed by inalienable personal or individual rights which include the right to self-ownership. This means that it is immoral for someone to treat others as if they were chattel or property. Every individual has the right to own his person, his body, his labor and the fruit of his labor—therefore for someone to seek to possess these things or to borrow them for a season, one must necessarily secure the consent of the people who originally own them. Necrophilia entails the abuse of the body of a previously living person—it is a criminal act against the property of a once-living person and that in my mind is clearly immoral and wrong.

3)Beyond the evident moral reprehensibility of necrophilia lie immediate and pressing health concerns which would immediately highlight the odiousness of such a practice. There is a serious case to be made that the bodies of dead persons should be treated with respect and properly and immediately disposed. This is because corpses rapidly become reservoirs of deadly pathogens which could potentially cause an epidemic of frightening proportions if due care is not taken to clean up and dispose of the dead bodies in their final resting places where they can rapidly decompose without posing a threat to living populations. It is clearly immoral and wrong to engage in acts which endanger or potentially jeopardizes the immediate health and well-being of your fellow humans.

Uyi Iredia:

@ JeSoul

How about the most unusual funeral?

One time this bunch of religious fanatics held a funeral for one of their members. They didn't want her embalmed, they just wanted her dressed and in the casket. We usually didn't do that, but we decided to be nice and put her up in the stateroom. We were standing outside of that stateroom and we heard someone saying, "Rise in the name of Jesus!" They were preying and slapping the body. They were talking in tongues. That was weird!

Do you agree with what the Christians did here ? Personally, I don't since Jesus way of going about faith healing wasn't that way. Would you say they were applying faith ?

Jesus once spat in the mud and then rubbed it on a blind man's eye and he was healed. While there is biblical precedence for otherwise strange behavior done in the name faith, I honestly believe scepticism should be the default reaction of every christian to the vast majority of those claiming to be "exercising their faith". And its easy to tell if they were pardon my french, BS-ing the whole time - what was the result? did she rise from the dead? Genuine faith grounded by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit will always produce a result - not just whip up an emotional frenzy and then die off.

Uyi Iredia:

In fact, I am tired of just agreeing. It makes it seem like group-think. I need you-know-them to pose objections right now. I won't be available till tomorrow evening or the day after that to discuss this issue.

Lol. Don't worry. They never fail to show for a good tussle

Nice input from Godfather.

1Godfather:

I can think of several reasons why the practice of copulating with the dead is wrong, distasteful and immoral. As I am pressed for time, I’ll sketch out a brief response and as the discussion progresses I may seize the opportunity to elaborate on my point of view or to entertain objections to my point of view.

1)A s.exual act is generally considered immoral or wrong if it nonconsensual. Proper s.exual intercourse involves people who properly understand the ramifications of the proposed s.exual intercourse and voluntarily give consent without compulsion, force or threats to achieve the s.exual act. This is why it is moral to frown on r.ape, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, objectum sexuality, s.exual assault or sex slavery, or other extreme forms of s.exual deviancy. There is a nonconsensual element to these paraphilia; if I were to talk frankly, people who find themselves captive to these sexually deviant behaviors ought to seek help for this situation. As such, it is completely muddleheaded to begin to equivocate on what is clearly immoral, unsound and abnormal because persons who are captive to these paraphilia feel like their actions should be excused or understood. A corpse clearly has no way to consent to s.exual advances or entreaties and as such sex with deceased persons is clearly wrong.

2)Every individual is endowed by inalienable personal or individual rights which include the right to self-ownership. This means that it is immoral for someone to treat others as if they were chattel or property. Every individual has the right to own his person, his body, his labor and the fruit of his labor—therefore for someone to seek to possess these things or to borrow them for a season, one must necessarily secure the consent of the people who originally own them. Necrophilia entails the abuse of the body of a previously living person—it is a criminal act against the property of a once-living person and that in my mind is clearly immoral and wrong.

Nice arguments. I'm afraid they might be quickly countered by this - what if a person before they pass away gave full and unrestricted access to a necro? much like people donate their bodies for medical research and end up as cadavars, with pieces of their body displayed in jars. That is an otherwise reprehensible action that has been permitted by the owner of the body.

JeSoul:

Nice arguments. I'm afraid they might be quickly countered by this - what if a person before they pass away gave full and unrestricted access to a necro? much like people donate their bodies for medical research and end up as cadavars, with pieces of their body displayed in jars. That is an otherwise reprehensible action that has been permitted by the owner of the body.

Nice input as usual from Jesoul but I anticipated this response. As it turns out, this seems to be the most popular sort of objection given by advocates of necrophilia. However, there are other things to consider generally as well. First of all, it goes without saying that a majority of people find this attraction to and c.opulation with corpses to be indicative of some abnormality or some mental or psychological impairment. A good number of people also consider it deviant behavior. That normal and healthy people find such practices as necrophilia morally offensive and reprehensible is, as I am sure you are aware of, without regard for the feelings or persuasions of necrophiliacs themselves.

Just think about it—if the rightness or appropriateness of actions depends on universal assent, then we run the risk of never deciding that anything is moral. This is because no matter how perverse, immoral, or abnormal any action might be, you can always find people who have no problems with it and might even consider such acts or practices a morally neutral or morally permissible act. The argument here therefore is that actions which are clearly morally offensive to the generality of decent and mentally or psychologically-balanced individuals are not to be tolerated or permitted on the basis of the whims of people with a morally-deficient barometer. Therefore, I would contend that normal people will never consent to have their bodies sexually violated by necrophiliacs upon their death. The fact that some morally and psychologically deficient person somewhere may as a matter of fact give such permission does precious little to invalidate the argument.

To buttress the argument, would you say that cannibalism (defined as the conscious eating of human remains by another human being) is a permissible or a morally indifferent act if someone demonstrates that he secured the consent of the human whose remains he now consumes? In other words, would the cannibal be justified and thus be held as morally inculpable if he produces a note stating that the human being he was found eating volunteered to be killed and cannibalistically devoured? I would hope that your answer would be an unequivocal NO. Morally and psychologically-balanced individuals will never consent to be ritualistically killed and cannibalistically devoured. As a matter of fact, balanced individuals would not even consent to have their bodies consciously devoured by cannibals even if they were to have died from an accident or an illness, and there was a means of giving them a proper burial. Therefore, the fact that some people with a morally-deficient barometer might give such consent does precious little to invalidate the argument.

Secondly, on a different level, desecrating the bodies of the dead offends the living relatives of the dead who have suffered the loss of a loved one. This argument basically tries to communicate the idea that upon the death of a person, the family or the cherished guardian or the relatives of the dead assume secondary ownership of the dead physical body. Thus a necrophiliac would be guilty of a property violation if he were to sexually violate the bodies of a deceased loved one since such well-meaning individuals would clearly not want such for their dead loved one.

In the end, unless the laws of a place specifically forbids things like necrophilia or cannibalism, it is possible to imagine that some people will not only excuse such practices by not attaching a moral dimension to them, but might actually engage in such things themselves.

My take on this issue will be from a spiritual perspective. Thus people who do not believe in God or in after-life will probably find my views meaningless. Our physical body is a gift that God gave us, an instrument that will enable the spirit to experience in the physical world. Thus, the argument that our bodies are our bodies and we can do with it whatever we so choose is wrong. Of course we can use it in whatever way we choose but we are irrevocably bound to the consequences of the abuse. A man who takes a loan from the bank can do whatever he wishes but if he misuses the loan and thus cannot pay back the loan and the interests, he cannot prevent the bank from taken ownership of his possessions. This is of course is a crude analogy but it faintly reflect the fact that God "loaned" us our physical bodies and it is our sacred duty to keep it pure. The use of our bodies or that of our fellow men in such a way that contradicts the purpose for which the designer (God) made it is immoral. Necrophilia is immoral because such aberration does not just harm the departing soul but also harms the perpetrator of the act as I will explain below.

To have a faint understanding of the harm that is being caused, we have to briefly look at the process of death. Telescoped into the physical body is a body which is finer than the physical body. This finer body which is made of medium gross matter is called the astral body. The soul (a spirit with other bodies apart from the physical and astral bodies) is connected or telescoped into the physical body via the astral body. In other words, the astral body is the link between the soul and the physical body. An elastic ethereal bridge called the silver cord directly connects the soul to the astral body. When a person is clinically dead, the soul is still connected with the physical body via the astral body. In a spiritual sense, a person is really dead when the silver chord have finally been severed.Until the silver chord snaps, it is possible to raise the dead by one who God have given the power to do so. Depending on the maturity of the soul, the silver chord can remain attached to the physical body via the astral intermediate from days to weeks. As long as the silver chord have not been finally severed, what happens to the physical body is transmitted via the astral/silver chord to the soul. Where the silver chord is not severed, the soul can still experience what happens to the physical body including its very disintegration.

Now necrophilia expressed through action or thoughts results in densification of the astral body and thickness of the silver chord that literally traps the soul to its physical body making severance of the soul difficult and extremely painful (especially when the departing soul is ignorant of the ways to free itself from the physical body). This sacrilege is even worse than a physical r.ape.Thus a necrophilia does not just commit an act of r.ape on the body of the dead but also forces the departing soul to consciously experience or witness such depravity. But it does not even stop here, the emanations from this depraved human being also poison the non-material environment surrounding the departing soul. When a departing soul non-physical environment is polluted with human propensities and depravity, spiritual help from servants of God is also hindered and the ability of the departing soul to even receive the help is also diminished. It is difficult to find an earthly analogy that can faintly reflect the torment a departing soul is forced to experience due to the wanton depravity of the necrophilia. The lustful and depraved desires of the necrophilia takes on form, attracts similar forms forms and through amalgamation, necrophilia power centers are formed. From these power centers, the emanations not only intensifies the depravity in the necrophilia but also infects others both in this physical world and beyond this physical world. If the departing soul is not inwardly pure, the effects of necrophilia can also convert him into an earthbound soul such that when the sliver chord finally snaps, the soul is now attracted to places and events where necrophilia is practiced either in thoughts or deeds. There are other possibilities that can create an earthbound soul, for instance the victim may refuse to forgive the perpetrator and follows him about both in this life and in the beyond.

Thus, necrophilia is immoral because it harms the physical and soul bodies of both the perpetrator as well as the victim. The consequence is that the spiritual development of the perpetrator as well as the victim is damaged and it may take years or even centuries for this damage to be rectified. In some cases, it may never be rectified but becomes a downward spiral to spiritual death. Best Wishes.

1Godfather:

I can think of several reasons why the practice of copulating with the dead is wrong, distasteful and immoral.

I am fairly certain that almost everyone who contributes on this subject will agree that such a practice is eminently distasteful. However my understanding of the intention in the OP is to test the moral compass by which we arrive at our decisions in terms of what may be considered moral or immoral. It is a test of moral criterion  - and not necessarily a test of the propriety of necrophilia itself.

It is critial that this point sits firmly in the mind of those who comment on this thread.

1)A s.exual act is generally considered immoral or wrong if it nonconsensual. Proper s.exual intercourse involves people who properly understand the ramifications of the proposed s.exual intercourse and voluntarily give consent without compulsion, force or threats to achieve the s.exual act. This is why it is moral to frown on r.ape, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, objectum sexuality, s.exual assault or sex slavery, or other extreme forms of s.exual deviancy. There is a nonconsensual element to these paraphilia; if I were to talk frankly, people who find themselves captive to these sexually deviant behaviors ought to seek help for this situation. As such, it is completely muddleheaded to begin to equivocate on what is clearly immoral, unsound and abnormal because persons who are captive to these paraphilia feel like their actions should be excused or understood. A corpse clearly has no way to consent to s.exual advances or entreaties and as such sex with deceased persons is clearly wrong.

In light of the comment I made above - to wit - the fact that this thread should be considered a test of the moral compass - and not just a test of necrophilia alone - let me say that the argument you make above in terms of the requirement for consent must necessarily fail on account that a dead body is not a human being. It therefore ab initio falls outside of the realm of contemplation of such a thing as consent: the very nature of which clearly refers to beings capable of granting or denying consent. A dead body is presumed non-living and as such the question of consent does not arise. 

2)Every individual is endowed by inalienable personal or individual rights which include the right to self-ownership.

A dead body is not an individual.

This means that it is immoral for someone to treat others as if they were chattel or property. Every individual has the right to own his person, his body, his labor and the fruit of his labor—therefore for someone to seek to possess these things or to borrow them for a season, one must necessarily secure the consent of the people who originally own them.

A good case has already been raised to counter this: what happens in the case of a person who wills his corpse to another for sundry purposes - such as science - say for example, research on necrophilic practices?

This will immediately draw the rug from beneath the feet of this argument of yours - because this argument rests on ownership! Now even in terms of legal ownership - the corpse passes perhaps as the property of the next-of-kin or such other person as may have been designated perhaps in a will for instance. What if such a person as legal owner were to grant permission? Better still - what if such a person as legal owner were to be the necrophile himself?

I do not make this argument frivolously or simply to counter you. I make it to show you that the morality of the act cannot rest on ownership as you have argued. Because if it did, then there are indeed legitimate ways around the problem of ownership, as you can very evidently see.

3)Beyond the evident moral reprehensibility of necrophilia lie immediate and pressing health concerns which would immediately highlight the odiousness of such a practice.

That something is unhealthy may or may not necessarily imply that it is also immoral. There are a great many unhealthy things that we all do everyday and I am certain that the fact of such acts being unhealthy alone will not necessarily suffice to brand them immoral. Do you think it is immoral for an obese person to eat a very heavily laden ham burger? Is it immoral to drive a petrol-powered motor car on account of the fact that all such motor cars contribute to global pollution?

Beyond this, the implicit suggestion in the argument of health is that if a perfectly harmless method could be devised to practice necrophilic acts - a method which had no possible health implications - then perhaps some of the immorality of the act would then be discharged?

There is a serious case to be made that the bodies of dead persons should be treated with respect and properly and immediately disposed.

Of course you are correct on this - and every poster on this thread including myself has expressed this exact sentiment. So please do not misconstrue that which I put across to you. What i seek to show you is that the morality or immorality of the act described in the OP does not rest on any of the factors that you advanced.

We thus need to think on the question: what makes an act immoral?

Or better still - what precisely makes any given se.xual act immoral?

@ M_Nwankwo - please see my post to 1Godfather above. My comment below is going to be in that context. This discussion is about the moral compass - what makes an act wrong - and therefore not necessarily about the act itself.

For this reason I wish that you understand that when 1Godfather advances a reason such as "ownership" of the body - I will therefore proceed to satisfy that condition by presenting a scenario that discharges that burden (such as a departing soul making a written wish for X, Y or Z acts to be done with his corpse) - and then I must ask if the act therefore becomes moral by reason of the discharge of that condition - or of all conditions indeed?

Here is what I mean  -

m_nwankwo:

My take on this issue will be from a spiritual perspective. Thus people who do not believe in God or in after-life will probably find my views meaningless. Our physical body is a gift that God gave us, an instrument that will enable the spirit to experience in the physical world. Thus, the argument that our bodies are our bodies and we can do with it whatever we so choose is wrong. Of course we can use it in whatever way we choose but we are irrevocably bound to the consequences of the abuse. A man who takes a loan from the bank can do whatever he wishes but if he misuses the loan and thus cannot pay back the loan and the interests, he cannot prevent the bank from taken ownership of his possessions. This is of course is a crude analogy but it faintly reflect the fact that God "loaned" us our physical bodies and it is our sacred duty to keep it pure. The use of our bodies or that of our fellow men in such a way that contradicts the purpose for which the designer (God) made it is immoral. Necrophilia is immoral because such aberration does not just harm the departing soul but also harms the perpetrator of the act as I will explain below.

To have a faint understanding of the harm that is being caused, we have to briefly look at the process of death. Telescoped into the physical body is a body which is finer than the physical body. This finer body which is made of medium gross matter is called the astral body. The soul (a spirit with other bodies apart from the physical and astral bodies) is connected or telescoped into the physical body via the astral body. In other words, the astral body is the link between the soul and the physical body. An elastic ethereal bridge called the silver cord directly connects the soul to the astral body. When a person is clinically dead, the soul is still connected with the physical body via the astral body. In a spiritual sense, a person is really dead when the silver chord have finally been severed.Until the silver chord snaps, it is possible to raise the dead by one who God have given the power to do so. Depending on the maturity of the soul, the silver chord can remain attached to the physical body via the astral intermediate from days to weeks. As long as the silver chord have not been finally severed, what happens to the physical body is transmitted via the astral/silver chord to the soul. Where the silver chord is not severed, the soul can still experience what happens to the physical body including its very disintegration.

Now necrophilia expressed through action or thoughts results in densification of the astral body and thickness of the silver chord that literally traps the soul to its physical body making severance of the soul difficult and extremely painful (especially when the departing soul is ignorant of the ways to free itself from the physical body). This sacrilege is even worse than a physical r.ape.Thus a necrophilia does not just commit an act of r.ape on the body of the dead but also forces the departing soul to consciously experience or witness such depravity. But it does not even stop here, the emanations from this depraved human being also poison the non-material environment surrounding the departing soul. When a departing soul non-physical environment is polluted with human propensities and depravity, spiritual help from servants of God is also hindered and the ability of the departing soul to even receive the help is also diminished. It is difficult to find an earthly analogy that can faintly reflect the torment a departing soul is forced to experience due to the wanton depravity of the necrophilia. The lustful and depraved desires of the necrophilia takes on form, attracts similar forms forms and through amalgamation, necrophilia power centers are formed. From these power centers, the emanations not only intensifies the depravity in the necrophilia but also infects others both in this physical world and beyond this physical world. If the departing soul is not inwardly pure, the effects of necrophilia can also convert him into an earthbound soul such that when the sliver chord finally snaps, the soul is now attracted to places and events where necrophilia is practiced either in thoughts or deeds. There are other possibilities that can create an earthbound soul, for instance the victim may refuse to forgive the perpetrator and follows him about both in this life and in the beyond.

Thus, necrophilia is immoral because it harms the physical and soul bodies of both the perpetrator as well as the victim. The consequence is that the spiritual development of the perpetrator as well as the victim is damaged and it may take years or even centuries for this damage to be rectified. In some cases, it may never be rectified but becomes a downward spiral to spiritual death. Best Wishes.

The sum of your arguments here rest on one point mainly - the fact that the soul maintains a connection to the body through a chord for a time. Every single scenario you drew up derived from this singular fact.

In the event that the necrophilic acts are performed AFTER that chord has sinced been severed, [u]every single scenario you described would then not arise. [/u]Would necrophilic acts performed in such a situation thus cease to be immoral?

You did however give one first definition of immoral acts in this regard. You said it would amount to using our bodies for purposes not willed by the creator of the body. Although I agree with the spirit behind this statement, it is altogether too broad and vague for the purpose of this discourse. For example, the purpose of our bodies is to house the soul/ spirit during its development in the worlds of matter. Would we say that anything outside such development is thus immoral?

I am not making these arguments frivolously. I am trying to ask or show that these may not necessarily form satisfactory answers as to what exactly makes the acts described in the OP immoral.

That elusive criterion is what this thread seeks, i think.

Hi DeepSight. I reply to your posts as follows:

@ M_Nwankwo - please see my post to 1Godfather above. My comment below is going to be in that context. This discussion is about the moral compass - what makes an act wrong - and therefore not necessarily about the act itself.

For this reason I wish that you understand that when 1Godfather advances a reason such as "ownership" of the body - I will therefore proceed to satisfy that condition by presenting a scenario that discharges that burden (such as a departing soul making a written wish for X, Y or Z acts to be done with his corpse) - and then I must ask if the act therefore becomes moral by reason of the discharge of that condition - or of all conditions indeed?

It is not the departing soul, the necrophiliac or indeed the society that determines what is morally wrong or right. My view is that it is the laws of God that determines if something is morally right or wrong. It is the laws of God that gave us our physical and soul bodies. Why did God give us physical and soul bodies? The purpose is quite simple: it is to enable us to experience in these various planes such that experiences drawn from these non-spiritual planes will be of benefit to the spirit and will finally be a part of the buoyancy that will catapult the spirit back to the kingdom of God. Whatever experiences that drags the spirit down, preventing it temporarily or permanently from going home (kingdom of heaven) is harmful and thus morally wrong. Necrophilia and all other perversions and propensities chains the spirit to the material world, preventing its ascent into the luminous kingdom of God and thus facilitating its spiritual death.

A necrophiliac cannot prevent the consequences of his actions for he is fee to sow the seeds but the consequences of the seeds or the fruits that will arise from the seeds sown is determined by the laws of God. Thus even if he decreed that his body should be used for necrophiliac acts in a written will, the act still remain immoral. Spiritually, he has no power to decree what is intrinsically immoral to become moral. The will by the necrophiliac cannot abrogate the laws of God and thus can not abrogate the immorality. Consider, does banana become straw belies  just because the farmer decreed it to turn to straw belies. The point I am trying to convey is that what is against or for the laws of God remains so irrespective of the wishes or will or opinions of creatures including man. If one get exposed to an infective viral load of HIV-1 either by consent or without consent, one will develop HIV/AIDS. The harm is not dependent on the consent or lack of consent but on the genetic program that is HIV-1. In a similar way harm caused to our physical and soul bodies  by necrophilia is not dependent on our consent or lack of it but on the "program" that is necrophilia. Even if a state or nation makes such acts legal, it does not abrogate the laws of God. 

The sum of your arguments here rest on one point mainly - the fact that the soul maintains a connection to the body through a chord for a time. Every single scenario you drew up derived from this singular fact.

In the event that the necrophilic acts are performed AFTER that chord has sinced been severed, every single scenario you described would then not arise. Would necrophilic acts performed in such a situation thus cease to be immoral?

You did however give one first definition of immoral acts in this regard. You said it would amount to using our bodies for purposes not willed by the creator of the body. Although I agree with the spirit behind this statement, it is altogether too broad and vague for the purpose of this discourse. For example, the purpose of our bodies is to house the soul/ spirit during its development in the worlds of matter. Would we say that anything outside such development is thus immoral?

I am not making these arguments frivolously. I am trying to ask or show that these may not necessarily form satisfactory answers as to what exactly makes the acts described in the OP immoral.

That elusive criterion is what this thread seeks, i think.

Formation of necrophiliac power centers  and the harmful spiritual pollution that it brings is not dependent on the snapping of the silver chord. Even a person who have not physically engaged in necrophilia but harbors necrophilic thoughts contributes to these power centers and is causing spiritual harm whether or not he is conscious or unconscious of it. As I explained in an earlier paragraph, the use of physical bodies for purposes that chains the bodies to material creation, preventing the ascent of the spirit is immoral for it directly leads to spiritual death except the ignorant soul was able to extricate himself on time. All passions like lust, gluttony, envy, hatred, smoking, etc are wrong because not only do they damage the physical and soul bodies but the chain the soul to matter, narrowing its perception. Since all matter is subject to disintegration, a soul chained to matter assumes the cycle of matter and will be disintegrated with matter with attendant spiritual death. There is nothing more immoral than activities of the body or soul that channels those individuals to spiritual death. I am ware that what I am trying to explain will be nonsense to those that do not believe in God or afterlife and its is for this reason that I stated in my previous post that my perspective is spiritual. All gifts of God including our physical and soul bodies are for our spiritual ascent. That is the purpose for which God gave us these bodies. Any activity that ignores or contradicts this purpose is immoral. As always, stay blessed.

Deep Sight:

I am fairly certain that almost everyone who contributes on this subject will agree that such a practice is eminently distasteful.

Agreed.

Deep Sight:
However my understanding of the intention in the OP is to test the moral compass by which we arrive at our decisions in terms of what may be considered moral or immoral. It is a test of moral criterion  - and not necessarily a test of the propriety of necrophilia itself.

Largely what I hand in mind.

Deep Sight:
It is critial that this point sits firmly in the mind of those who comment on this thread.

I hope it does.

Deep Sight:
I do not make this argument frivolously or simply to counter you. I make it to show you that the morality of the act cannot rest on ownership as you have argued. Because if it did, then there are indeed legitimate ways around the problem of ownership, as you can very evidently see.

Agreed.

Deep Sight:
Beyond this, the implicit suggestion in the argument of health is that if a perfectly harmless method could be devised to practice necrophilic acts - a method which had no possible health implications - then perhaps some of the immorality of the act would then be discharged?

I do not think the health safety precludes the immorality of necrophilia. As I have underlined before, I suspect that the materialistic society implied by the likes of Sam Harris ad Peter Singer would condone this.

Deep Sight:
We thus need to think on the question: what makes an act immoral?

I'll be open to proposals here. I'm also interested in how reason (which atheists advance as a basis of morality)precludes or includes the morality (i.e rightness) of necrophilia.

Deep Sight:
Or better still - what precisely makes any given se.xual act immoral?

Good question.

m_nwankwo:

Whatever experiences that drags the spirit down, preventing it temporarily or permanently from going home (kingdom of heaven) is harmful and thus morally wrong. Necrophilia and all other perversions and propensities chains the spirit to the material world, preventing its ascent into the luminous kingdom of God and thus facilitating its spiritual death.

Fair enough, but with reference to the stated purpose of this thread, such "perversions and propensities that chain the spirit to the material world" include everything from love of physical food to love of (even legitimate heterosexual) se.xual activities. And yet I am not sure that one can say that love of physical food is immoral.

Let us distinguish here - I very carefully picked my words when i said "love of physical food" instead of saying "gluttony". This is because the scenario in this case that will be analogous to gluttony will be someone who cannot get enough of such se.xual acts and as such gorges himself on them. This is different from someone who merely has a great liking for such acts and indulges in them from time to time. I say this because one single necrophilic act is not analogous to gluttony. As such, we should look at it from the point of view you stated - about the purposes of a physical body in God's creation - and not from the point of view that such can tie a spirit to materialistic things. I say this because even love of physical food and love of normal heterose.xual se.x can equally tie a spirit to matter - and yet this does not of itself render such things immoral.

Is it immoral to love normal heterosexual se.x? And yet you do acknowledge that such can tie a spirit to matter can it not.

I hope you see the point I am trying to make. That it is not necessarily the fact that something inclines one to a materialistic thing that will by itself render such a thing or act immoral.

A necrophiliac cannot prevent the consequences of his actions for he is fee to sow the seeds but the consequences of the seeds or the fruits that will arise from the seeds sown is determined by the laws of God. Thus even if he decreed that his body should be used for necrophiliac acts in a written will, the act still remain immoral. Spiritually, he has no power to decree what is intrinsically immoral to become moral. The will by the necrophiliac cannot abrogate the laws of God and thus can not abrogate the immorality. Consider, does banana become straw belies  just because the farmer decreed it to turn to straw belies. The point I am trying to convey is that what is against or for the laws of God remains so irrespective of the wishes or will or opinions of creatures including man. If one get exposed to an infective viral load of HIV-1 either by consent or without consent, one will develop HIV/AIDS. The harm is not dependent on the consent or lack of consent but on the genetic program that is HIV-1. In a similar way harm caused to our physical and soul bodies  by necrophilia is not dependent on our consent or lack of it but on the "program" that is necrophilia. Even if a state or nation makes such acts legal, it does not abrogate the laws of God.  

I am not sure that this goes to the root of the question again, because it merely addresses a law of God that applies to all things in existence - the law of Karma, or attaction of homogenuous species. This does not specifically show why the karma for a necrophilic act will be negative?

Now tell me - what if the purpose for which that person has donated his body is scientific research to help uncover the psycology of necrophiliacs? Will that still be immoral? What if such scientific research involves making his corpse available to such people to use for such acts inorder to study their behavioural patterns and possibly develop psycological treatments? Will that still be immoral? What compass or criterion will govern these instances?

Formation of necrophiliac power centers  and the harmful spiritual pollution that it brings is not dependent on the snapping of the silver chord. Even a person who have not physically engaged in necrophilia but harbors necrophilic thoughts contributes to these power centers and is causing spiritual harm whether or not he is conscious or unconscious of it. As I explained in an earlier paragraph, the use of physical bodies for purposes that chains the bodies to material creation, preventing the ascent of the spirit is immoral for it directly leads to spiritual death except the ignorant soul was able to extricate himself on time. All passions like lust, gluttony, envy, hatred, smoking, etc are wrong because not only do they damage the physical and soul bodies but the chain the soul to matter, narrowing its perception. Since all matter is subject to disintegration, a soul chained to matter assumes the cycle of matter and will be disintegrated with matter with attendant spiritual death. There is nothing more immoral than activities of the body or soul that channels those individuals to spiritual death. I am ware that what I am trying to explain will be nonsense to those that do not believe in God or afterlife and its is for this reason that I stated in my previous post that my perspective is spiritual. All gifts of God including our physical and soul bodies are for our spiritual ascent. That is the purpose for which God gave us these bodies. Any activity that ignores or contradicts this purpose is immoral. As always, stay blessed.

Formation of power centres applies again to everything. The man who loves normal physical heterosex.ual sex also participates in forming power centres for attraction to normal se.x and such power centres will draw alot of people to be overly attached to se.x - which is material - and as such can lead to spiritual death as you have said.

Does this make it immoral to love normal heterose.xual se.x?

Post Script: I have written this in a rush as I am leaving my office now to join a colleague for my daily guiness stout: as such I am not sure that I have articulated my concern properly, but I will still try to do so when i get home.

Just by the way, could my attachment to alcohol thus be said to be immoral as well - given that it will predispose me to a material attachment that could make me unable to detach myself from materiality? I don't drink much - but I must have my guiness stout after hours daily. There is certainly an attachment. Is that immoral?

@DeepSight. I think my two previous posts on necrophilia have addressed why necrophilia is immoral. New issues and exceptions that you bring about can be dealt with but I do not think it is of any use. I do not have anything further to add. As always, stay blessed.