Kay 17:

@UyiIredia

Morality is basically rules, do rules make an individual a person? As to killiing, its just regulated not absolutely prohibited. Society permits it in cases where itself is not threatened or for its protection.

Okay.

Kay 17:
The termite tale is to demonstrate that morality loses its essence if it pursues a goal of conformity. Trying to pound humans into a mould of conformity is immoral. Humans are different and unique. As long such differences don't get in the way of society's wellbeing.

Why is trying to pound humans into a goal of conformity immoral ?

Kay 17:
In our present environment, population reduction is not an issue. Science has taken us so far, that we are concerned about our rapid increase. So if a few are necrophiles, we have no problem.

It is not enough to state complacency as to the act. The object of this thread is to explore the morality of necrophilia and whether irrefutable reasons can be put forth to that effect. From your statement I infer that you take necrophilia to be moral insofar as the practice isn't too widespread to present a danger to the human species. Note that by this reasoning, the Holocaust and Khmer Rouge massacres are much justified.

Logic Mind:

Define moralilty.

Here's the definition of morality I'm working with: conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.

Logic Mind:
Your question is bypassed as you have assumed necrophilia immoral and are asking us why it is thus. What is moral or immoral as someone has already hinted depends on the society and the era you find yourself in.

I haven't. If you read my OP well you'll see that I clearly delineated my stance on the morality of necrophilia from my question. See it emboldened below

. 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).

Logic Mind:
If you take morality by it's definition of distinction between right and wrong, then I would argue that, because of the strange and repulsive nature of the act, necrophilia is wrong and consequently immoral.

Good. Now WHY is it immoral ? Can you present a reason for such ? The purpose of the questions is to explore the extent to which reason-based morality as proffered by atheists works.

Logic Mind:
Can it be right and moral at certain times? YES.
I certainly do not think it wrong when there was a pre-death agreement especially if the two has been intimate before the demise of one.

Okay. Going by this precedent prostitution, fanaticism, mass suicides, sado-masochicism, possible cases of murder (where one has agreed to be killed if some deal has/has not been met)aren't wrong and are MORAL. Because these acts also include agreeing parties. Now if you present objections to this posit, you'll have to explain why such objections do not apply to the issue of necrophilia. I won't pretend that you don't have a moral bias.

Logic Mind:
If we accept necrophilia as a phsycological problem, the deviation will come one day in courts when lawyers will argue that necrophilia is a mitigating circumstance for murder.

Okay.

Logic Mind:
It is dissappointing that this is being compared to homosexuality in such manner as to degrade and insult homosexuals or their proponents.

First, as JeSoul has pointed out it is being compared to the arguments used in favour of homosexuality. If you read the interview closely the woman has a compulsion for the act (similar to the claim made by homosexuals), she is okay with it (similar to the claim made by homosexuals), she derives pleasure from it (similar to the claim made by homosexuals), she suspects others pretend over the issue and possibly practice it in secret (the same case with homosexuality -people take time to admit it).

Read what Karen says here, note the emboldened:

It 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. I used to go from the therapist's office to the funeral home. It didn't work, folks!

Logic Mind:
For those that condemn it on religious grounds, know that your almighty perfect infallible god made them thus.

Not so. God is understood to have given humans choice;the choice to be good or evil. We can explore this more if you want to. However, if it turns out that you are an evolutionist, you'll have to explain why natural selection will choose for a behavioural trait that is antagonistic to the precept of passing on one's genes.

Everyone would agree that it's idyllic we work towards the well-being of all, too find love, joy, peace and happiness, and everyone deems it necessary to know what's true and what's not. Most people generally agree with the Golden Rule. These are a basis from which we can infer that there are moral absolutes.

Hmmm. Joy, happiness, generally pleasure; are not rules but desires. And you didn't state whose desires, whether society or the state or an individual. You didn't mention what extent of happiness/pleasure they aim for and what type of rules that guide them to it. You were too ambigious.

The immaterial is what gives the material meaning. One can be without thinking, unfortunately that means such a person is dead

Like thinking yes.

I can't prove God any less than I can prove abstracts such as mind or love but God's existence can be inferred from the teleology we see in living things. Here is a nice 'Atheist's Riddle' that puts it succintly

All codes we know of are designed
The sequence of nucleobases in the DNA is a code
We have 100% inference that the DNA is designed and 0% inference that it isn't

Now don't jump around this by simply asserting that evolution is responsible for making the DNA because there's no inferential basis for this. To falsify my deduction above you'll need to point to a naturally-occurring coded system. See here for more. Note that, I altered the riddle, but the point is the same.

This a fallacy of affirming a consequence. It goes like this "if Ade smokes weed then he would cough, so Ade smokes weed, then he coughs. That's the right way. "Ade coughs, then he is smoking weed" then this affirming the consequence. Because that statement is not necessarily true.

In your case, "If God created universe, there would be a design", God creates the universe and consequently there is design. But affirming the consequence would be "there is a design, thus there is God." This result is an abuse of logic.

t is not enough to state complacency as to the act. The object of this thread is to explore the morality of necrophilia and whether irrefutable reasons can be put forth to that effect. From your statement I infer that you take necrophilia to be moral insofar as the practice isn't too widespread to present a danger to the human species. Note that by this reasoning, the Holocaust and Khmer Rouge massacres are much justified

Remember morality is not what ought to be but what is, Looking at past morality especially in the quran and the bible these acts where there. Discriminating against twins was morality.

Kay 17:

Hmmm. Joy, happiness, generally pleasure; are not rules but desires. And you didn't state whose desires, whether society or the state or an individual. You didn't mention what extent of happiness/pleasure they aim for and what type of rules that guide them to it. You were too ambigious.

I am not being ambiguous. I pointed out desires that are universally agreed upon as moral. You OTOH are obfuscating my arguments by requiring me to be very specific when I don't need to.

Kay 17:
Like thinking yes.

If you agree with me, fine.

Kay 17:
This a fallacy of affirming a consequence. It goes like this "if Ade smokes weed then he would cough, so Ade smokes weed, then he coughs. That's the right way. "Ade coughs, then he is smoking weed" then this affirming the consequence. Because that statement is not necessarily true.

Any deductive logic necessarily commits that fallacy therefore your claim of fallacy doesn't refute it. However, to invalidate my deduction you'll have to point out that one or all the premises are false, or that the conclusion doesn't follow.

Kay 17:
In your case, "If God created universe, there would be a design", God creates the universe and consequently there is design. But affirming the consequence would be "there is a design, thus there is God." This result is an abuse of logic.

I have not mentioned God, yet. I am inferring design, BTW, the designer might be an alien.

Kay 17:
Remember morality is not what ought to be but what is, Looking at past morality especially in the quran and the bible these acts where there. Discriminating against twins was morality.

No. Morality is about what ought to be. If morality is about 'what is' then actions like murder and rape will be moral simply because 'they are'.

I am not being ambiguous. I pointed out desires that are universally agreed upon as moral. You OTOH are obfuscating my arguments by requiring me to be very specific when I don't need to.

Crack cocaine and tobacco, alchol induce happiness.

Uyi Iredia, I haven't read the article yet. Too busy. From the top of my head: how ddo the necrophiles get the around the issue of consent?
From my little understanding if sex is not consensual then it's RAPE, not so?

Kay 17:

Where are the examples?? If you had provuded them I would ve agreed there was a universal law giver, but since you are unable to do, I would assume there is no universal code, thus no universal law giver.

When you look at the decalogue you will discover that everyone's conscience agrees with it except you silence it with your evolutionary thoughts.  The moment you allow your conscience to speak it will agree that the Moral Law is the absolute morality and this is universal and this is because we still have God's image in us even though it has been marred by sin.

Kay 17:

Its like you ve struck out atheism from the dictionary. However, if God doesn't exist there would be "intellectual schizophrenics"

If there were no God there will be no intellectual schizophrenics.  The fact that there is God and folks know that there is God they then they attempt to convince themselves of what they want to believe.  This is called self deception.

Kay 17:

So myths can be rationalized in that sense, at least they involve supernatural beings doing their bit.

If you insist that they are myths then they are true myths.  Do you now believe in the supernatural?

Kay 17:

Marx says "I am thus I think" meaning the immaterial has order and makes sense with a material basis.

Your evolutionary worldview teaches that everything has to have natural processess.  If they are simply chemical accidents, why do you feel compelled to behave in a particular fashion?

Kay 17:

Also prove God exists and that the bible had a constant moral code.

There are many transcedental arguments (such as the first Cause, Design argument, the ontological argument, etc.) that proof the existence of God but that will not persuade your denial of God's existence because most intellectual schizos are strongly and emotionally motivated to not believe in the biblical God who is rightly angry at intellectual schizophrenics for their treason against Him.

@Ola

You are really delusional, cos you claim morality is universal, but turn to say its not and its unexpressed in the mind of everyone. How you got to know that, I don't know.

Does God have any design??

Kay 17:

@Ola

You are really delusional, cos you claim morality is universal, but turn to say its not and its unexpressed in the mind of everyone. How you got to know that, I don't know.

My Christian worldview may be delusional to you but it accounts for my reference point for the existence of "good", God is my absolute reference point for "good". What is your reference point for "evil" if you believe evil exists? I believe we all need an absolute reference point for good in order to identify what is good or evil. And God has given everyone light which is our conscience warning us of evil or sin. The decalogue only gives us the fine print that no one can deny. The fine print reveals that lust is adultery of the heart even if we now call it necrophilia and that hatred is murder of the heart.

Kay 17:

Does God have any design??

Isaac Newton said:

"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being"

Louis Pasteur wrote:

"The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of ther Creator"

^^^ I asked if God had a design!!

I do think there is evil. My view of evil is a conflict btw design and purpose.

@Kay17

You seem to have changed your view on evil. I believe previously it was that which 'stifles human development'.

Turning to your latest one, are you aware that "accidental" and unintended by-products of a design (i.e. conflict between design and purpose) have sometimes produced very very poasitive and beneficial results ---- even sometimes much better results than the design purpose?

Sometimes I'm tempted to believe you are blind or just love repetitions

I ve always said evil is characteristic of man's awesome intellectual abilities which are boundless and is being cut short by natural opposition. The full realization of that power is impossible as a result. Design is misaligned with the purpose. I ve being clear enough!!

You woke up on the wrong side of the bed or something? 

I don't know what else you had written about evil; I only know the two I've seen which I mentioned i.e. 'something which stifles human development' or 'a conflict between design and purpose'. My interest in your penultimate post was to point out that conflicts between "design" and "purpose" in man's experience have sometimes produced very beneficial results.

I'm not sure I understand your latest post anyway, maybe further posts will clarify what you mean.

Anyway, it's all good.

Kay 17:

^^^ I asked if God had a design!!

I do think there is evil. My view of evil is a conflict btw design and purpose.

Since all living things show evidence of design shouldn't that tell you that this is the evidence of the works of God's intelligence? or don't you see design evident in animals and plants? If yes, then design implies that there is a designer and that designer is our Lord Jesus Christ.

BUMP!

JeSoul: 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".

I also thought about taking this "Relativist" Point of View but i realized that a mass majority of the World's Population see Necrophilia as a reprehensible act. Every Culture has ingrained in it some sort of reverence for the Dead, this gets passed on for generations. This Reverence is what makes it unthinkable to defile Dead Bodies. Take for example Blasphemy, most cultures have an Object of worship which they revere, Speaking against that "Object" will seem completely insane to Most of its worshipers.

This can also be argued from an Evolutionist Point of View, where our Fore-fathers realized that having Sex with dead bodies exposed them to harmful diseases, the one's that developed Fear/disgust for the act survived, while those that didn't develop it got wiped out, this Trait being passed down through Natural Selection. Just like for example, the Fear of Snakes.

I read through all the posts and am shocked to the bones to think that there is actually an act called Necrophilla.

Lord have mercy!

How did I miss this thread.

I am sure Jesoul doesnt argue much because she regrets some of her past silly statements.

Imagine her claiming that the same arguments for necrophilia are use to argue for gay s.ex! How foolish.


The most overriding argument for gays is that it is consensual. Two male or female adults.

Necrophilia is not consensual.

JeSoul: 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".

I also hope Uyi Iredia has changed his views

Uyi Iredia: 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.

^^^ I've not changed my views wrt this thread. Neither should I ebcourage your hope. State why you think necrophilia is wrong (I assume you do) whilst gays are okay.

Ok is this a serious question??

Uyi Iredia: ^^^ I've not changed my views wrt this thread. Neither should I ebcourage your hope. State why you think necrophilia is wrong (I assume you do) whilst gays are okay.

Because the individual is literally being sexually aroused and active with a DEAD BODY. lol the only thing sicker than that is cannibalism!

Uyi Iredia: ^^^ I've not changed my views wrt this thread. Neither should I ebcourage your hope. State why you think necrophilia is wrong (I assume you do) whilst gays are okay.

You missed the part about consent.

Use your brain

Logicboy03:


You missed the part about consent.

Use your brain

Assume the dead body consented to it with a signed affidavit while living. Will that justify the act ?

*Kails*:


Because the individual is literally being sexually aroused and active with a DEAD BODY. lol the only thing sicker than that is cannibalism!

I made my objective clear at the beginning of the thread. If someone consents to the act of necrophilia before dying will you give it a pass ?

Uyi Iredia:

Assume the dead body consented to it with a signed affidavit while living. Will that justify the act ?

The moment the person dies, then it is non consensual.

Why? If yu are have se.x and a girl then immediately says you should stop....you then stop or it is ra.pe.

Logicboy03:

The moment the person dies, then it is non consensual.

Why? If yu are have se.x and a girl then immediately says you should stop....you then stop or it is ra.pe.

No. The person did not revoke the affidavit before death. If such occurred and someone has sex with that person's body, it would be non-consensual. In the assumed case, the affidavit or will of someone is 'Let so and so f**k my dead body* will that make necrophilia acceptable ?

Uyi Iredia:

No. The person did not revoke the affidavit before death. If such occurred and someone has sex with that person's body, it would be non-consensual. In the assumed case, the affidavit or will of someone is 'Let so and so f**k my dead body* will that make necrophilia acceptable ?

If a 4 year old tells you (or signs a document) to poke her, would you?


A dead person and a minor can not give consent.


please, dont argue for argument sake.

Logicboy03:
If a 4 year old tells you (or signs a document) to poke her, would you?


A dead person and a minor can not give consent.


please, dont argue for argument sake.

Your question is fallacious because I know it is intended to dismiss my argument based on my moral stance which I made clear here. However, my answer is No. This doesn't diminish my argument. The consent can be extended to the dead by affirnation whilst living. This principle is the basis of WILLS which allows a dead person's consent on issues as regards the treatment of one's body, its properties, its relatives. I simply extend it to necrophilia and YOU HAVE NOT provided a good counter. You state dead people don't give consent when the emphasis has been made they can by writing it while living. Minors can and do give consent. It's all too known that little kids, pre-teens and teens below 18 engage in consensual sex with each other within their age groups and with adults.

Uyi Iredia:

Your question is fallacious because I know it is intended to dismiss my argument based on my moral stance which I made clear here. However, my answer is No. This doesn't diminish my argument. The consent can be extended to the dead by affirnation whilst living. This principle is the basis of WILLS which allows a dead person's consent on issues as regards the treatment of one's body, its properties, its relatives. I simply extend it to necrophilia and YOU HAVE NOT provided a good counter. You state dead people don't give consent when the emphasis has been made they can by writing it while living. Minors can and do give consent. It's all too known that little kids, pre-teens and teens below 18 engage in consensual sex with each other within their age groups and with adults.

Consent is also instantaneous not "in-advance"

This is why I said that a you can be having s.ex with a girl legally but if she says "stop" in the middle of of your climax, you must stop or else it is ra.pe.


A dead man can not change his mind or give consent.


Go home. You are not intellectually on my level. You can only be so when you stop hating like a bigot.

Logicboy03:


Consent is also instantaneous not "in-advance"

This is why I said that a you can be having s.ex with a girl legally but if she says "stop" in the middle of of your climax, you must stop or else it is ra.pe.


A dead man can not change his mind or give consent.


Go home. You are not intellectually on my level. You can only be so when you stop hating like a bigot.

You still IGNORE the means by which this is circumvented. A person giving his consent before death. You don't want to argue against wills so you simply state the dead can't give consent. That's not the case. Consent can and is given in advance by stating what you want done at a later time with or without your presence. It is that consent to necrophilia can be given before death. Two, you didn't counter the argument that minors give consent. I am waiting for you to actually bring an argument. So far you have not toppled the posit that consent to necrophilia can be given before death as an extension of the legal principle of carrying out the wishes of the dead which they stated whilst alive.

It was a living person that made the decision as to what should be done with his property - his body - when he dies. That is just as valid as a Will is - because it is exactly the same: a living person making a decision on his property before he dies. Simple.

In fact, it is a normal practice for people to make wills donating their organs for scientific research or medical use when they die. Is it therefore wrong for a living person to donate his body for research on necrophilia when he dies?

Does the consent lapse at death? If it lapses at death, then all Wills also become void at death for the same reason.

^^^True. Logicboy knows this and is avoiding it by insisting that consent is not given in advance: that way the quandary of avoiding the morality of necrophilia on the basis of consent is easily side-stepped. In fact, there are other options for him to argue, which I anticipate and am ready for should he bring them eg the claim of slippery slope fallacy.