Where is your morality coming from?

[Hiddenrun]

Nobody is being harmed - why would I object?

I don't know. I did expect more people to object, however.

[Rhodmhire]

What would your reaction be to this practice?

The idea that there woud be clubs where people do this would really creep me out, and my reaction would be that of disgust.

There are "clubs" out there who are into/fantasize/practice far worse things.

Like what?

There's a technical term for self mutilation that I can't remember.

There's that, and others.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

What would your reaction be to this practice?

The idea that there woud be clubs where people do this would really creep me out, and my reaction would be that of disgust.

There are "clubs" out there who are into/fantasize/practice far worse things.

Like what?

There's a technical term for self mutilation that I can't remember.

There's that, and others.

I'm going to be sick.

[Senestrum]

This is hilariously squicky, but if the, ermm... deceased gave permission I wouldn't see any ethical problems with it. But then again I tend to make decisions like that based on ethics, not morality.

Semantic wiggling. Ethics are no more grounded in an absolute objective truth than morality is.

That's a pretty funny thought, because ethics are based on what does or does not cause harm. Unless you're one of those people who thinks that there is no objective reason for harm being bad, in which case I don't really care what you think.

[North Suran]

What would your reaction be to this practice?

The idea that there woud be clubs where people do this would really creep me out, and my reaction would be that of disgust.

There are "clubs" out there who are into/fantasize/practice far worse things.

Like what?

There's a technical term for self mutilation that I can't remember.

There's that, and others.

I'm going to be sick.

I wouldn't watch Lars von Tiers' "Antichrist", then.

[Hydesland]

What would your reaction be to this practice?

The idea that there woud be clubs where people do this would really creep me out, and my reaction would be that of disgust.

There are "clubs" out there who are into/fantasize/practice far worse things.

Sure, and those would equally disgust me, if not more.

[Rhodmhire]

What would your reaction be to this practice?

The idea that there woud be clubs where people do this would really creep me out, and my reaction would be that of disgust.

There are "clubs" out there who are into/fantasize/practice far worse things.

Like what?

There's a technical term for self mutilation that I can't remember.

There's that, and others.

I'm going to be sick.

Apotomnophilia, that's it I think.

Oh, and there's self cannibalism too. There's no technical term for that.

[Pevisopolis]

I would see it as inherently immoral, but do nothing to stop it. Necrophilia confuses and shocks me, but what can ya' do in that situation?

[Hydesland]

That's a pretty funny thought, because ethics are based on what does or does not cause harm.

This is just total nonsense. Again, definitionally, ethics means the same as the 'morality', one is merely derived from Latin where as the other is derived from the Greek. You're not talking about 'ethics' in general, but a specific type of ethics.

[Hiddenrun]

This is hilariously squicky, but if the, ermm... deceased gave permission I wouldn't see any ethical problems with it. But then again I tend to make decisions like that based on ethics, not morality.

Semantic wiggling. Ethics are no more grounded in an absolute objective truth than morality is.

That's a pretty funny thought, because ethics are based on what does or does not cause harm. Unless you're one of those people who thinks that there is no objective reason for harm being bad, in which case I don't really care what you think.

What ethics are you speaking of? You say the word 'ethics' like there is some sort of universal consensus. Are you talking about normative ethics? (Please don't talk about Rawls, I'll have to gouge your eyes out) Modern ethics? Postmodern ethics, applied ethics, marxist ethics, blah blah blah blah blah? There are a shitload of different kinds of ethics, and while they do indeed focus on what or what does not cause harm, they by no means agree on what does and what does not cause harm. So you can base your beliefs on 'ethics' or 'morality' but if you don't go into more detail, that's like saying you eat and drink. So general as to be useless.

[Rhodmhire]

I would see it as inherently immoral, but do nothing to stop it. Necrophilia confuses and shocks me, but what can ya' do in that situation?

Like other paraphilias--you can try and determine somewhat of an origin and find alternatives to expressing it in reality.

Of course, stiffling said paraphilia(s) can be equally unhealthy as expressing them.

[Hiddenrun]

I would see it as inherently immoral, but do nothing to stop it. Necrophilia confuses and shocks me, but what can ya' do in that situation?

So you would find it immoral, but not oppose it because it would be legal?

I suppose that's something else I'd like to know. If you find something immoral or wrong, what do you do about it?

[Allbeama]

Imagine, if you will, that it became legal to copulate with dead people. Clubs catering to this particular taste open up. (Imagine all health issues are dealt with, and that the corpses in question belonged to those were given the legal power before death to consent to this.) What would your reaction be to this practice?

As long as no one is getting killed explicitly for this purpose, I see no reason to say they did anything morally wrong. Just a bit creepy is all.

[Hiddenrun]

That's a pretty funny thought, because ethics are based on what does or does not cause harm.

This is just total nonsense. Again, definitionally, ethics means the same as the 'morality', one is merely derived from Latin where as the other is derived from the Greek. You're not talking about 'ethics' in general, but a specific type of ethics.

Damn. You said it much more succinctly than I.

[Pevisopolis]

I would see it as inherently immoral, but do nothing to stop it. Necrophilia confuses and shocks me, but what can ya' do in that situation?

Like other paraphilias--you can try and determine somewhat of an origin and find alternatives to expressing it in reality.

Of course, stiffling said paraphilia(s) can be equally unhealthy as expressing them.

Still, what, exactly, is the origin of Necrophilia? Why would someone want to fuck a dead person? Do they find it to be kinky? Desperation? Confusion much.

[Rolling squid]

I would see it as inherently immoral, but do nothing to stop it. Necrophilia confuses and shocks me, but what can ya' do in that situation?

So you would find it immoral, but not oppose it because it would be legal?

I suppose that's something else I'd like to know. If you find something immoral or wrong, what do you do about it?

Hopefully realize that people have a limited right to be wrong, and get on with you life .

[Hiddenrun]

Still, what, exactly, is the origin of Necrophilia? Why would someone want to fuck a dead person? Do they find it to be kinky? Desperation? Confusion much.

Some people like to objectify others when they fuck them.

I imagine this is the ultimate form of objectification where a human is still (nominally) involved.

[Hiddenrun]

I would see it as inherently immoral, but do nothing to stop it. Necrophilia confuses and shocks me, but what can ya' do in that situation?

So you would find it immoral, but not oppose it because it would be legal?

I suppose that's something else I'd like to know. If you find something immoral or wrong, what do you do about it?

Hopefully realize that people have a limited right to be wrong, and get on with you life .

That might be fine in many circumstances. But if something is legal that you find immoral or wrong, do you do nothing? I'm sure your answer will depend on what the 'something' is. That's what I want to know. Where is the line for you? You say 'limited right to be wrong'. Where, for you, are those limits? At what point would you act?

[The Adrian Empire]

From a purely scientific standpoint I'd be appalled can you imagine what diseases those people would get from said bodies, those diseases would quickly spread to the rest of the people, and we would all be dead. Everything and anything can and will affect your life should you allow it to, and so yes my morality would say f--- no those people should be detained for the good of public health. Consent or not, it's sick, people with that kind of paraphilia need psychological help not a sex club

[Pevisopolis]

I would see it as inherently immoral, but do nothing to stop it. Necrophilia confuses and shocks me, but what can ya' do in that situation?

So you would find it immoral, but not oppose it because it would be legal?

I suppose that's something else I'd like to know. If you find something immoral or wrong, what do you do about it?

Take my stance on, for instance, Abortion. I see it as unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but the option should still be available, and likely the laws which have to do with said issue are decided by each state. That's my more practical, modern day approach.

In my crazy, Anarcho-Syndicalist Commune City, I imagine that an issue of necrophilia wouldn't pop up all that often. I suppose it would remain "Legal", unless seen differently by the majority.

[Rhodmhire]

I would see it as inherently immoral, but do nothing to stop it. Necrophilia confuses and shocks me, but what can ya' do in that situation?

Like other paraphilias--you can try and determine somewhat of an origin and find alternatives to expressing it in reality.

Of course, stiffling said paraphilia(s) can be equally unhealthy as expressing them.

Still, what, exactly, is the origin of Necrophilia? Why would someone want to fuck a dead person? Do they find it to be kinky? Desperation? Confusion much.

Childhood experiences, depression, experimentation, etc.--or simply just unknown.

Sometimes people are just unknowingly attracted to things others look at as odd or disgusting.

Some paraphilias are far more easy to determine origin(s) from--such as foot fetishism, one of--if not the most common.

[Buffett and Colbert]

If the person who passed away consented to letting his or her body be used for necrophilia (for the specific people that are going to be involved, or for... public use), then I have no problem with people "doing" the corpses.

[Allbeama]

This is hilariously squicky, but if the, ermm... deceased gave permission I wouldn't see any ethical problems with it. But then again I tend to make decisions like that based on ethics, not morality.

Semantic wiggling. Ethics are no more grounded in an absolute objective truth than morality is.

That's a pretty funny thought, because ethics are based on what does or does not cause harm. Unless you're one of those people who thinks that there is no objective reason for harm being bad, in which case I don't really care what you think.

What ethics are you speaking of? You say the word 'ethics' like there is some sort of universal consensus. Are you talking about normative ethics? (Please don't talk about Rawls, I'll have to gouge your eyes out) Modern ethics? Postmodern ethics, applied ethics, marxist ethics, blah blah blah blah blah? There are a shitload of different kinds of ethics, and while they do indeed focus on what or what does not cause harm, they by no means agree on what does and what does not cause harm. So you can base your beliefs on 'ethics' or 'morality' but if you don't go into more detail, that's like saying you eat and drink. So general as to be useless.

Ethics is defined as the philosophy of morality, and not all ethics are based on harmful/ not harmful as a defining dichotomy. Immanuel Kant for example stated that there was an categorical imperative to "do one's duty" that defined ethics. Cost/Benefit analysis doesn't matter here, so much as one's logically defined purpose based on one's logical definition of oneself. IE Students must attend classes, if they do not they are not students.

You can see in Christian ethics/morality that it boils down to x is right or wrong because God said so. Again, no cost/benefit analysis required, at least not by human thought processes, because God has told us what is right.

There is a cost/benefit approach in Utilitarian or Consequentialist ethics, however.

[Rhodmhire]

If the person who passed away consented to letting his or her body be used for necrophilia (for the specific people that are going to be involved, or for... public use), then I have no problem with people "doing" the corpses.

How often would that circumstance occur?

I mean, even if the dead who would in theory consent to such behavior were a necrophilic themselves, why would they want to other than to give fellow necrophilic(s) the pleasure of doing so?

They technically couldn't feel said pleasure themselves--they'd be dead.

[Allbeama]

That's a pretty funny thought, because ethics are based on what does or does not cause harm.

This is just total nonsense. Again, definitionally, ethics means the same as the 'morality', one is merely derived from Latin where as the other is derived from the Greek. You're not talking about 'ethics' in general, but a specific type of ethics.

Damn. You said it much more succinctly than I.

Damn, that tasty morsel I saw was merely someone else's table scraps.