Where is your morality coming from?

[Czardas]

Human bodies are objects. They're not alive. They can't think, feel, or do anything. They have no real purpose other than to get recycled, or used for scientific experiments; it might be strange or odd for someone to experience attraction to them, but I don't see how it's actually harmful to anyone. I mean, compare bestiality, another strange and unusual paraphilia, which does harm the animals victimised by it.

If someone kills someone else and then has sex with the corpse, the necrophilia isn't the issue. The murder is. Killing people is bad and should be punished. Masturbating with an inanimate object? Not so much.

Also, I've learned that anyone actually using a "think of the children" argument isn't worth taking seriously. They're up to no good. I've therefore chosen to disregard that part of your post.

And yes, I do agree that people go to absurdly inefficient lengths to dispose of dead bodies when it would be far better to dump the corpses in crematoriums where they can be burned to provide energy, or recycling them in some other beneficial way.

[Phenia]

If someone kills someone else and then has sex with the corpse, the necrophilia isn't the issue. The murder is.

Both are the issue and the former may well be the motive for the latter. Neither is acceptable to any nation I'm aware of.

Also, I've learned that anyone actually using a "think of the children" argument isn't worth taking seriously. They're up to no good. I've therefore chosen to disregard that part of your post.

You have no rebuttal is why.

And yes, I do agree that people go to absurdly inefficient lengths to dispose of dead bodies when it would be far better to dump the corpses in crematoriums where they can be burned to provide energy, or recycling them in some other beneficial way.

Yeah. Corpse-fucking, however, is not beneficial to anyone.

[Czardas]

If someone kills someone else and then has sex with the corpse, the necrophilia isn't the issue. The murder is.

Both are the issue and the former may well be the motive for the latter. Neither is acceptable to any nation I'm aware of.

*checks list of logical fallacies*
*adds tick mark near "appeal to popularity"*

You've as yet failed to explain why exactly having sex with an inanimate object is somehow as bad as (or even in any way comparable to) killing someone.

Also, I've learned that anyone actually using a "think of the children" argument isn't worth taking seriously. They're up to no good. I've therefore chosen to disregard that part of your post.

You have no rebuttal is why.

Well, yeah. How can I construct a rebuttal to an argument that at no point touches upon logic? "Think of the children!" is the most bare-faced appeal to emotion ever constructed and I'm somewhat shocked that people are still actually using it outside of parody.

And yes, I do agree that people go to absurdly inefficient lengths to dispose of dead bodies when it would be far better to dump the corpses in crematoriums where they can be burned to provide energy, or recycling them in some other beneficial way.

Yeah. Corpse-fucking, however, is not beneficial to anyone.

Presumably, it's beneficial to the person doing the corpse-fucking, otherwise they probably wouldn't do it. And it's certainly harmful to no one.

[The Capitale Building]

Cool.

Of course, I'm a nihilist, so that changes things a bit.

[Phenia]

If someone kills someone else and then has sex with the corpse, the necrophilia isn't the issue. The murder is.

Both are the issue and the former may well be the motive for the latter. Neither is acceptable to any nation I'm aware of.

*checks list of logical fallacies*
*adds tick mark near "appeal to popularity"*

Democracy is an appeal to popularity, then. But the fact that no country has made this legal should tell you that there is a moral consensus against it, and that carries weight regardless.

You've as yet failed to explain why exactly having sex with an inanimate object is somehow as bad as (or even in any way comparable to) killing someone.

First, I distinguish between human bodies and any/all "inanimate object." If you're with me so far, let me know.

Also, I've learned that anyone actually using a "think of the children" argument isn't worth taking seriously. They're up to no good. I've therefore chosen to disregard that part of your post.

You have no rebuttal is why.

Well, yeah. How can I construct a rebuttal to an argument that at no point touches upon logic? "Think of the children!" is the most bare-faced appeal to emotion ever constructed and I'm somewhat shocked that people are still actually using it outside of parody.

"Think of the children" wasn't the argument. That was your strawman. And your rebuttal was that you weren't going to take me seriously, which is an ad hominem.

And yes, I do agree that people go to absurdly inefficient lengths to dispose of dead bodies when it would be far better to dump the corpses in crematoriums where they can be burned to provide energy, or recycling them in some other beneficial way.

Yeah. Corpse-fucking, however, is not beneficial to anyone.

Presumably, it's beneficial to the person doing the corpse-fucking, otherwise they probably wouldn't do it.

That's like saying that presumably catatonic schizophrenics enjoy a benefit to catatonia or else they wouldn't do it. Or that presumably, suicide is beneficial otherwise they wouldn't do it. Fallacious.

And no, it's not - it's done out of mental dysfunction.

[Getbrett]

Morality is an invented concept. So-called moral statements (e.g. "necrophilia is wrong") are not propositions, they are instructions, and therefore logically cannot be true or false. Moral statements have no validity within the domain of reality because they do not reflect reality: objective morals are nonsense (and impossible), subjective morals are arrogant proclaimations issued by a minor stain upon the chaos of the cosmos.

[Kobrania]

And no, it's not - it's done out of mental dysfunction.

Orrrrr...They are avid recyclers?

[Phenia]

Morality is an invented concept.

I hate arguments like this. Yes, it's an invented concept, so is language, so is the concept of a concept. Big deal. intangible doesn't mean non-real, as you predictably leap toward:

Moral statements have no validity within the domain of reality because they do not reflect reality

Statements like that do not reflect reality: reality includes "invented concepts."

: objective morals are nonsense (and impossible), subjective morals are arrogant proclaimations issued by a minor stain upon the chaos of the cosmos.

So, subjective morality is arrogant. Reality is arrogant too.

[Phenia]

And no, it's not - it's done out of mental dysfunction.

Orrrrr...They are avid recyclers?

They are what they are because you are what you eat?

[ChengISao]

Creepy, but heyyy...what ever floats your boat between consenting adults is none of my business.

[Getbrett]

Morality is an invented concept.

I hate arguments like this. Yes, it's an invented concept, so is language, so is the concept of a concept. Big deal. intangible doesn't mean non-real, as you predictably leap toward:

Moral statements have no validity within the domain of reality because they do not reflect reality

Statements like that do not reflect reality: reality includes "invented concepts."

: objective morals are nonsense (and impossible), subjective morals are arrogant proclaimations issued by a minor stain upon the chaos of the cosmos.

So, subjective morality is arrogant. Reality is arrogant too.

You conveniently ignored my main premise in order to construct a strawman, well done.

Ethical statements do not express propositions (they are not true or false questions) and thus are not "truth-apt". Moral statements, and by extension judgements, cannot be logically objectively true (or false). Morality is an invented framework - yes, like language - and it holds no more authority than language does. Newspeaking the word "apple" to mean "cat" does not make a cat into an apple; stating "necrophilia is wrong" does not make necrophilia wrong.

[Czardas]

If someone kills someone else and then has sex with the corpse, the necrophilia isn't the issue. The murder is.

Both are the issue and the former may well be the motive for the latter. Neither is acceptable to any nation I'm aware of.

*checks list of logical fallacies*
*adds tick mark near "appeal to popularity"*

Democracy is an appeal to popularity, then.

Indeed it is. Incidentally, I don't support democracy either.

But the fact that no country has made this legal should tell you that there is a moral consensus against it, and that carries weight regardless.

You're ignoring the scenario presented in the OP, which is that it has become legal, and the moral consensus has changed so that it is now acceptable.

You've as yet failed to explain why exactly having sex with an inanimate object is somehow as bad as (or even in any way comparable to) killing someone.

First, I distinguish between human bodies and any/all "inanimate object." If you're with me so far, let me know.

Why?

Also, I've learned that anyone actually using a "think of the children" argument isn't worth taking seriously. They're up to no good. I've therefore chosen to disregard that part of your post.

You have no rebuttal is why.

Well, yeah. How can I construct a rebuttal to an argument that at no point touches upon logic? "Think of the children!" is the most bare-faced appeal to emotion ever constructed and I'm somewhat shocked that people are still actually using it outside of parody.

"Think of the children" wasn't the argument. That was your strawman. And your rebuttal was that you weren't going to take me seriously, which is an ad hominem.

Personally, you might want to raise children in a world where it's acceptable and tolerated to go to a bar and fuck human corpses. I don't. Most people don't.

That's just a "think of the children" argument in more words. So yeah, no strawman here.

And yes, I do agree that people go to absurdly inefficient lengths to dispose of dead bodies when it would be far better to dump the corpses in crematoriums where they can be burned to provide energy, or recycling them in some other beneficial way.

Yeah. Corpse-fucking, however, is not beneficial to anyone.

Presumably, it's beneficial to the person doing the corpse-fucking, otherwise they probably wouldn't do it.

That's like saying that presumably catatonic schizophrenics enjoy a benefit to catatonia or else they wouldn't do it. Or that presumably, suicide is beneficial otherwise they wouldn't do it. Fallacious.

Do catatonic schizophrenics choose to become catatonic? Do suicidal people choose to become suicidal?

Can necrophiles choose to have sex with corpses? Or are they physically incapable of not doing so?

And no, it's not - it's done out of mental dysfunction.

Paraphilias are mental dysfunctions? Or only this one is?

[Diamagra]

A corpse is an object. It is not only incapable of consent, but incapable of being harmed by the lack of consent. Hence, I would not consider it any more unethical than "having sex" with a dildo.

I mean, it's somewhat weird, and I probably wouldn't do it myself, but I can't see how it would be an issue on any ethical level.

It's not "somewhat weird," sexual attraction towards dead humans is a sign of severe mental illness, and should not be incouraged. It's a lot more unethical than using a dildo and most people who have sex with corpses tend to be murderers. Do note that you can't acquire dildos by killing people.

There is also the public good to consider. Personally, you might want to raise children in a world where it's acceptable and tolerated to go to a bar and fuck human corpses. I don't. Most people don't.

And pretending a human body is just an object is just that - pretense. Human burial is one of the oldest signs of human sentience and people don't devote all this land and time to cemetaries and funerals just for the efficient disposal of "objects."

I'm with Czardas on this one. Dead people are dead. They cannot care anymore.
But more importantly, YOU, Phenia, are annoying!

sexual attraction towards dead humans is a sign of severe mental illness, and should not be incouraged

Says who? You? Source? Oh, just your opinion. Then, why should the rest of us care?

Do note that you can't acquire dildos by killing people.

Ok, ok, you are somewhat funny...

There is also the public good to consider.

This just has to be a good one. And yes, you don't disappoint. THINK OF THE CHILDREN... Well, to quote Czardas: ""Think of the children!" is the most bare-faced appeal to emotion ever constructed and I'm somewhat shocked that people are still actually using it outside of parody."

Most people don't.

Well, let's say most people don't like broccoli. Now, shall we make broccoli illegal, although nobody gets hurt eating broccoli? Probably not, then why make a big fuss about necrophilia? Nobody's getting hurt! (Yeah, you're feelings don't count.)

[...] pretending a human body is just an object [...]

Well, it is. You're feelings for an object don't change that. Feelings just don't matter that much, sorry.

Human burial is one of the oldest signs of human sentience and people don't devote all this land and time to cemetaries and funerals just for the efficient disposal of "objects."

Just because it's old, doesn't make it right. Hmm, example.... oh, I know! Slavery, human sacrifice, etc, etc. For more examples just open your preferred holy book.
And, I agree, all this time and space devoted to dead people does seem like a lot of waste. If you like, let's discuss this in a new thread, I'm up for it.

[Bottle]

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?

I would find it substantially less gross than strip clubs, Hooters, and run-of-the-mill prostitution.

[Regiria]

Appalled. Repulsed.

who would be so pathetic to have sex with a dead person?

A corpse can't say no. Which makes it even more pathetic, that one would rather have sex with a corpse rather than a living human being. I imagine a soft, warm body next to you feels much better than a stiff cold one would. (I said "I imagine," because I know what they former feels like, and I wouldn't care to know about the latter) And you don't get reciprocated passion from a corpse.

[Domminus]

Dunno about the op, but in answer to the title, what morality?

[Tunizcha]

I have the same opinion on this that I have on grave robbing.

They're dead.

Consent is not an issue because they're dead. Legality shouldn't be an issue because they're dead.
If you're going to start giving rights to dead motherfuckers, stop burying them in the ground in the first place.

[Unterzagersdorf]

Deleted

[Cameroi]

comes from the kind of world i'd rather be living in and the very little it would take on everyone's part, including my own, for all of us to be able to live in, bennifit from, and be gratified by it.

alternatively you could say it comes from that little sign on the kindergarten wall.
the one that says "don't hurt each other and clean up your mess".

[Maurepas]

That it couldnt be legal, due to the corpse being unable to offer consent,

Beyond that, due to the aforementioned, I wouldnt participate...My morals come from me, my upbringing, and society, in that order, btw...

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I do see some concerns over how a lifeless corpse can give informed consent, unless they signed some sort of "My body is ripe for plundering" waiver before they died.

I see no way in which you can rape a corpse anymore than you could rape one of those mildly creepy real dolls.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

I have the same opinion on this that I have on grave robbing.

They're dead.

Consent is not an issue because they're dead. Legality shouldn't be an issue because they're dead.
If you're going to start giving rights to dead motherfuckers, stop burying them in the ground in the first place.

Amazing Atheist paraphrasing.

[Maurepas]

I do see some concerns over how a lifeless corpse can give informed consent, unless they signed some sort of "My body is ripe for plundering" waiver before they died.

I see no way in which you can rape a corpse anymore than you could rape one of those mildly creepy real dolls.

The corpse used to be a person, Id say unless that person left a will stating they could be fucked in death, then you are, in effect, raping them...

You see, unlike the creepy doll, the person used to be alive...

[TerraPublica]

I would be disgusted, but I would support it. I would never do it myself, but I have no right to tell someone else that they can't.

[Unterzagersdorf]

Deleted