Comment on Philosophy has peaked. Checkmate atheists
Passerby6497@lemmy.world 1 week agoMorally wrong? No.
Is it not? I’m not religious, but I still find it morally wrong to have sex with something that didn’t consent to it.
Whether the animal is alive or dead, it isn’t able to consent. And since the animal cannot consent, it is therefore rape, making it morally wrong.
I cannot fucking believe I’m going to participate here…
… but when you’re talking to someone about organ donation, you’d typically say something like “You can’t take them with you. That isn’t you anymore. You’re dead. It’s just meat now.”
… and that’s as much as I’m going to say because gross
But this is actually why we decide whether or not we participate in postmortem organ donation while we’re alive - we make the conscious decision ahead of time. Which is still then consistent with the consent argument
So then if I consent to someone fucking my corpse after I’m gone, it becomes morally OK for them to do it.
Well yea I guess if I go tell shawty she can ride my hog after I get the death erection and she does it I can’t really be mad at her can I
If someone writes in their will that their dick shall be made into a dildo so that their partner can keep having sex with them, they can do that. I find it gross, but not immoral.
I don’t even know how to approach that but you do you I suppose
With regard to the corpse, maybe.
There’s possibly a virtue ethics argument against the person doing it? Like, it’s a little weird that they want to, right?
but I still find it morally wrong to have sex with something that didn’t consent to it.
That makes it immoral in your framework. But you can simply construct one that doesn’t require consent, then it wouldn’t wrong.
Sure, but I can also construct a moral framework in which it’s ok for me to murder anyone I don’t like because my not-mental-illness-sky-daddy said so.
Moral relativism is bullshit and can be used to justify anything.
Exactly, you can construct what ever moral framework you want to, sky daddy or not.
What if it’s a plant instead? It once was alive, and is incapable of consent. Is it morally wrong to make a dildo out of wood? What about bone?
A plant is not an animal, and is also not a sentient creature. A bone is a part of an animal harvested and used as a tool, not the animal itself.
It’s a simple line to draw.
kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
A dildo also isn’t able to consent. A carrot isn’t able to consent and is more alive than the roadkill (since it can still reproduce). Ability to consent is something we require from conscious beings, but we generally don’t require it from objects, and corpses blur the line.
I definitely get the “ick” feeling from necrophilia, so my knee-jerk reaction is to consider it immoral, but it isn’t actually that easy to come up with a consistent justification for that condemnation.
QuinnyCoded@sh.itjust.works 1 week ago
UT OH
Passerby6497@lemmy.world 1 week ago
A dildo was never alive, and a carrot is not a sentient creature.
Lol, no they don’t. A corpse should be treated like the person it was, so it still needs consent otherwise you’re still raping it.
It absolutely is: a sentient (not even sapient, but sentient) being’s bodily autonomy is inviolable without their consent.
Extending your logic to make my point, if a corpse is blurring the line, what about brain dead coma patients, especially ones that are infertile? Are they ok to rape? They’re alive and can’t reproduce, so what’s the difference, right?
kkj@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 week ago
A corpse is not a sentient creature. Former sentience is not the same as sentience.
That’s your opinion, and it’s completely valid, but what’s your justification for why someone else should agree?
Well, they’re alive, for one. Corpses by definition are not. And what we think of as “brain-dead” is the long-term and potentially permanent loss of consciousness and therefore sapience, but sentience is a bit harder to disprove.
Your standard seems to be “current or former sentient beings,” which is consistent, but you haven’t given a justification for the “or former” part. Current sentient beings experience suffering, so that’s a pretty good reason, but corpses don’t.