Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / NewStats: 3,195,008 members, 7,956,735 topics. Date: Monday, 23 September 2024 at 05:48 PM |
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Why Is Necrophilia Immoral ? (10617 Views)
What Is Considered Sexually Immoral? / 4 Reasons Why Pastors' Children Are Usually Immoral / Is It Immoral For Christian Women To Wear Thong Underwear? (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (Reply) (Go Down)
Why Is Necrophilia Immoral ? by UyiIredia(m): 3:44pm On Jan 23, 2012 |
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 ? |
Re: Why Is Necrophilia Immoral ? by Nobody: 3:48pm On Jan 23, 2012 |
Anyone who thinks Necrophilia should be accepted needs to be locked up in an asylum !! 1 Like |
Re: Why Is Necrophilia Immoral ? by UyiIredia(m): 3:52pm On Jan 23, 2012 |
This is the article, 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. |
Re: Why Is Necrophilia Immoral ? by UyiIredia(m): 3:54pm On Jan 23, 2012 |
frosbel: Why ? Will you maintain that your statement applies to to gay$ ? Have you read the article ? |
Re: Why Is Necrophilia Immoral ? by UyiIredia(m): 4:01pm On Jan 23, 2012 |
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? These statements made by her make it evident that Karen derives pleasure from making love to dead bodies. |
Re: Why Is Necrophilia Immoral ? by JeSoul(f): 4:20pm On Jan 23, 2012 |
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". |
Re: Why Is Necrophilia Immoral ? by DeepSight(m): 4:22pm On Jan 23, 2012 |
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? |
Re: Why Is Necrophilia Immoral ? by DeepSight(m): 4:27pm On Jan 23, 2012 |
JeSoul: 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. |
Re: Why Is Necrophilia Immoral ? by UyiIredia(m): 4:32pm On Jan 23, 2012 |
JeSoul: I'll prefer the word queer. She seems normal but her $exual practices are differing from the 'normal ones'. JeSoul: 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: I'll prefer you say normal. If it was perfectly normal, it wouldn't be scandalous in some other parts. JeSoul: 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: Exactly ! |
Re: Why Is Necrophilia Immoral ? by UyiIredia(m): 4:53pm On Jan 23, 2012 |
Deep Sight: Yes it is. This will be a good medium to explore how deists (as yourself), atheists and theists perceive morality. Deep Sight: I agree with the bolded. But the thing is you are clearly making a presumption (QED) Deep Sight: 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 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:, 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: It wouldn't, especially when one considers your next question. Deep Sight: 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: 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: 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) ? |
Re: Why Is Necrophilia Immoral ? by JeSoul(f): 4:54pm On Jan 23, 2012 |
Deep Sight: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.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. |
Re: Why Is Necrophilia Immoral ? by UyiIredia(m): 5:00pm On Jan 23, 2012 |
JeSoul: Same here. Let's see if there is you-know-them disagree and their reasons why. |
Re: Why Is Necrophilia Immoral ? by DeepSight(m): 5:00pm On Jan 23, 2012 |
JeSoul: 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. |
Re: Why Is Necrophilia Immoral ? by JeSoul(f): 5:02pm On Jan 23, 2012 |
JeSoul: Deep Sight: Uyi Iredia: I should re-phrase: an action/behavior is immoral to the extent a/the society 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 . |
Re: Why Is Necrophilia Immoral ? by UyiIredia(m): 5:10pm On Jan 23, 2012 |
Deep Sight: 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. |
Re: Why Is Necrophilia Immoral ? by JeSoul(f): 5:21pm On Jan 23, 2012 |
Deep Sight: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:Nicely put in this paragraph, though I would adjust that to say "a good portion of humans subscribe" rather than "almost all humans subscribe". |
Re: Why Is Necrophilia Immoral ? by UyiIredia(m): 5:26pm On Jan 23, 2012 |
That's a major lie! 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. |
Re: Why Is Necrophilia Immoral ? by UyiIredia(m): 5:34pm On Jan 23, 2012 |
@ JeSoul How about the most unusual funeral? 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: Agreed. JeSoul: Yes. JeSoul: 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: J'adoube. |
Re: Why Is Necrophilia Immoral ? by Nobody: 5:51pm On Jan 23, 2012 |
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? |
Re: Why Is Necrophilia Immoral ? by Nobody: 5:57pm On Jan 23, 2012 |
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 . |
Re: Why Is Necrophilia Immoral ? by UyiIredia(m): 6:18pm On Jan 23, 2012 |
diluminati: 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 ? |
Re: Why Is Necrophilia Immoral ? by 1Godfather(m): 7:09pm On Jan 23, 2012 |
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. |
Re: Why Is Necrophilia Immoral ? by JeSoul(f): 9:53pm On Jan 23, 2012 |
Uyi Iredia: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:Lol. Don't worry. They never fail to show for a good tussle |
Re: Why Is Necrophilia Immoral ? by JeSoul(f): 10:05pm On Jan 23, 2012 |
Nice input from Godfather. 1Godfather: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. |
Re: Why Is Necrophilia Immoral ? by 1Godfather(m): 2:02am On Jan 24, 2012 |
JeSoul: 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. |
Re: Why Is Necrophilia Immoral ? by mnwankwo(m): 1:25pm On Jan 24, 2012 |
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. 1 Like |
Re: Why Is Necrophilia Immoral ? by DeepSight(m): 2:30pm On Jan 24, 2012 |
1Godfather: 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? |
Re: Why Is Necrophilia Immoral ? by DeepSight(m): 3:01pm On Jan 24, 2012 |
@ 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: 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. |
Re: Why Is Necrophilia Immoral ? by mnwankwo(m): 4:20pm On Jan 24, 2012 |
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. 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. 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. 1 Like |
Re: Why Is Necrophilia Immoral ? by UyiIredia(m): 5:38pm On Jan 24, 2012 |
Deep Sight: Agreed. Deep Sight: Largely what I hand in mind. Deep Sight: I hope it does. Deep Sight: Agreed. Deep Sight: 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: 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: Good question. |
Re: Why Is Necrophilia Immoral ? by DeepSight(m): 5:45pm On Jan 24, 2012 |
m_nwankwo: 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? |
Re: Why Is Necrophilia Immoral ? by mnwankwo(m): 6:18pm On Jan 24, 2012 |
@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. |
How Christians Can Put Their Angels To Work / 7 Secrets That Brought Bishop David Oyedepo To The Top In Ministry / Who Own The Rooster? Bible Quiz!
(Go Up)
Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 265 |