Don't Buddhists use a similar loop hole to eat meat? In theory, they shouldn't be killing and eating animals because of the non-violence. But if they launder it via some other hunter, that's fine.
(sigh) I can't believe I have to say this twice on the same site.
Fucking a dead deer is just as immoral and dangerous as fucking a live one. Their bodies will still be host to a variety of potentially dangerous infectious diseases that may cross the species divide and become human-transmissible. This is a threat to your own health as well as public health.
For the love of any god that still might care, do not fuck roadkill. We do NOT need another HIV.
The "as well as public health" bit is the important one.
Humans are a social species. Most human infectious diseases require social contact in order to spread.
We lived through 2020. I think that fucking dead deer is unethical, for the same reason that not getting vaccinated and not quarantining is unethical. It is a hazard to yourself AND others.
Immoral: morally wrong, or outside society's standards of acceptable, honest, and moral behaviour
I argue that with the knowledge of it being dangerous and potentially a serious risk factor for an epidemic or pandemic it is indeed immoral.
Not to mention that it is probably, if not definitely, outside most societies standards of acceptable.
Fucking hell, by that logic teaching religion is immoral along with sex education. Get with the programme and enjoy the parameters of the initial premise.
MUNCH DOWN ON THAT CAN OF WORMS, COMMENT SECTION, YOU FUCKS
The one time I saw a post about bestiality and necrophilia, someone was saying it is common for hunters to fuck their kills, because the adrenaline of the hunt and all, makes them horny and crazy. No reason to bring it up here, though, I just want you all to suffer with me.
Please don't fuck dead things. You will likely get an infection. No one else wants to put up with your infected silly bad decisions. That's the morality of it.
If you find the dead deer and had no influence in any way on its death, fucking it is moral (or not immoral)
If you killed the deer (accidentally) it is only moral to fuck the deer if you are a person that wouldn't fuck a dead deer. Because if you are, you were subconsciously less likely to avoid killing the deer.
"Look, I'm not saying you should drive around at night time with your high beams on looking for deer to run over. That would be wrong.
BUT
If you're just out, driving along, minding your own business, and you accidentally hit a deer or maybe you find one that's already been run over, well.... I mean, no sense in letting perfectly good deer poon go to waste, right? Like, if it's still warm and everything, it'd almost be rude NOT to fuck it, know what I mean?"
Yea untill accidently one time your driving on pcp and you hit a pedestrian thinking it's a deer and boom you have not just necrophilia charges but rape charges because he wasn't quite dead when you started.
No, we often have to prescribe morality broadly, because engaging with the nuance with every instance is not really viable on a societal level. What are the chances that someone engaging with roadkill on the side of the road actually accidentally killed the animal, versus them doing it intentionally and claiming it was an accident? What would happen if this behaviour was normalized?
You're talking about the legal system. Our laws are pragmatic, and account for things like lying.
OPs post is a philosophical question. The premise is whether it's moral for you to fuck roadkill based on whether you killed it or now. Concerns like lying to a courtroom or to the people around you, are out of scope.
So philosophically:
them doing it intentionally and claiming it was an accident
This would be immoral, since they still killed the animal to fuck it.
This just puts the image in my head of a religious person seeing someone having sex with a dead deer on the side of the road and their first reaction being "Oh my god he's sinning!" and not "Why the fuck is that freak fucking a dead deer on the side of the road"
the difference is one requires a prerequisite (religion) while the other one doesn't require anything except...idk, common sense, or having more than one brain cell?
In a sense, yes. Leviticus 5:2 condones touching a dead creature:
"‘Or if a person touches any unclean thing, whether it is the carcass of an unclean beast, or the carcass of unclean livestock, or the carcass of unclean creeping things, and he is unaware of it, he also shall be unclean and guilty."
::: spoiler Relevant note that doesn't include deer
Leviticus 11:29-31 states that "creeping" creatures result in uncleanliness, but only until evening, so unless "evening" is an abstract term meaning "nearing the end of your life", you're only gross until tomorrow:
"‘These also shall be unclean to you among the creeping things that creep on the earth: the mole, the mouse, and the large lizard after its kind; the gecko, the monitor lizard, the sand reptile, the sand lizard, and the chameleon. These are unclean to you among all that creep. Whoever touches them when they are dead shall be unclean until evening."
:::
And the passages that mention sex with a creature, regardless of a heartbeat, include Leviticus 18:23. And as a bonus, their god is said to be talking to Moses with the intention of passing the message to all Israelites, it also slanders men being gay in the previous line (but as this was also to be delivered to women, I guess this implies rather that sexual acts suitable for a woman partner should never be done with a male partner.) :
"22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. 23 Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion."
It seems to say you would be unclean to touch a dead animal. That means you need to take a bath and wait until evening to be clean again. No harm, no foul.
And Christians can always pull out their get out of jail card, "Jesus fulfilled the law so OT rules don't apply."
So I think only true Christians could morally have sex with a dead deer.
Note that 18:22 is heavily debated because its been translated as male, but more nuanced translations decribe same-sex rape, not necessarily homosexuality as whole.
It's heavily disputed whether those translations are more accurate rather than just reading nuance where none exists. Some translations also interpret it as specifically about pedophilia, but again, they may or may not be more accurate than simply translating it as all M/M sex.
Meh, even if taken literally from the king james translation, doesn't matter much since it's old testament. One can shift the meaning to whatever they want.
In my skeptical opinion, likely invented by ramblings of a nutter, and the book was written as an attempt to write history by those who listened to the town crazy;
(Western editions) Translated multiple times - (roughly) Hebrew 'Torah' (the 'Nevi'im' and 'Ketuvim' came later) to Greek 'Septuagint' then to Old Latin 'Vetus Latina', then revised using the 'Septuagint' and translated directly from the 'Hebraica Veritas' to make the 'Vulgate', and into modern languages (true English, French, and German originally) 'Bible' by multiple groups;
As well as many translators there are countless individuals who either evangelise or simply read for themselves, each with their own unique interpretation of every verse;
makes me suspect that every single translation has some error, and because I cannot read Hebrew I'll never truly know. Even what used to be the most trusted digital translator, Google Translate, now uses AI to interpret and adjust the wording, making the translate service more useless than it already was. FWIW, whenever I need to consult the English Bible I prefer the King James Version (1769 revision, not the NKJV), not only because I love the language style, and that it is in a language I can read, but it is translated into English from Hebrew (Old Testament), Latin (Apocrypha) and Greek (New Testament), and in my opinion if there are deviations from the Hebrew 'Masoretic Text', the KJV will have less errors than others.
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.
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
Weird from a cultural perspective where any sort of non-medical interference with a corpse is frowned upon, so we're trained from a very young age to find any of that stuff icky/morbid. Other cultures may not have that same aversion.
Kinda in the same vein as we in North America have a very conservative opinion on being naked in public where other cultures couldn't care less.
What I'm asking is if a person who wants to and does have sex with corpses, knowing that this is socially profane and must be kept secret, is this a trustable person?
Also, respect for the dead often involves rituals that are non-medical. I think disease obviously played a part in how these rituals were formed, but I don't think that disease is the primary reason people care.
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.
The idea that you're morally obligated to maximize your own health to minimize your burden on society usually doesn't stand up well to follow up questions.
Realistically, the societal health costs of being obese would be statistically higher than fucking roadkill. I think most people would find themselves pausing before suggesting to an obese person that thier obesity is more morally problematic than fucking roadkill.
There is something to health of an individual in a society and morality, it's pretty hard for me to ignore that intuition. I just don't know a real formulation which doesn't introduce more issues to a system of morality than it resolves? Curious if anyone had one.
When I read liability, my instinct was contagion. There is absolutely a moral obligation to minimize contagion—we did a whole covid-lockdown thing about it.
Being obese is too self-contained an issue, if it is an issue, I think. The only one suffering, if they are suffering, would be the obese person, and the only externalization of that would be financial costs that are too abstract for people to take personally.
I have the great privilege of living in a society with socialized Healthcare, so these questions do come up from time to time.
The lifetime Healthcare costs for people who have conditions which can be mitigated by lifestyle choices is a real thing. Smoking, being an obvious example much less touchy than obesity. Even if I'm extremely comfortable with the slice of my taxes that go to Healthcare... wouldn't it be great if we got to spend less on smoking-related issues, and could instead buy more MRI machines. Merely pay for more doctors? Nurses? Expand the treatments we can even offer?
Just because they're abstract, doesn't make it any less of a question of morality. I don't see any moral difference between the contaigen and smoking from the perspective of the personal responsibility of maintaining the overall health of your society. One is just accepted by society.
I don't see any moral difference between the contaigen and smoking
I don't understand what you mean.
Smoking isn't contagious. Smoking might be socially contagious, but that's a different kind. Smoking and the resulting cancer would be the kind of disease that people "choose" to take on, which is different from being accosted by influenza.
You might be thinking about this on a societal level? I meant interpersonally. Showing up to an event while sick and without a mask is a little fucked up. And covid touches on the societal, but my chief moral complaint is really with people who were neglectful of the community effort to minimize harm during a pandemic, who would choose possibly killing somebody's grandma so that they could go to the beach. I'm not really thinking about... taxes.
Whether it is ethical for people to "overuse" the medical services their society provides I think depends ultimately on what it is fair to ask people to do, and what the actual consequences of not doing them are.
Like, is it immoral to get a dildo stuck up your arse? Because you're wasting a doctor's time. I feel like we might be touching on such austere efficiencies that we're beginning to lose sight of what a doctor is for.
Well if you ask that to an atheist than because there’s no god that moral injustice no longer exists because an atheist sees that moral injustice as a religious moral injustice that only God believers see. The religious moral injustice being disrespecting life after death.
☝🏻 However, anyone sane would see an animal alive or dead and know that it’s wrong to fuck an animal.
The disconnect here is that many atheists were former theists so their core beliefs are rooted in religion and they have difficulty separating the two.
The reality is that for atheists there is no such thing as morality. Things are not inherently right or wrong. A theists might ask if it’s morally wrong to have sex with roadkill but a true atheist would simply ask why would you even do that? Atheism is understanding that actions don’t really have meaning they only have consequences. You can choose to do anything but you have to reckon with those consequences.
This is where theists get hung up. “If nothing matters why wouldn’t I just rob everyone I meet and have sex with everything?” They can’t fathom the idea of deciding for themselves because they would have to accept that no matter the outcome they made the choice and can’t shift blame to the man in the clouds.
In short it’s not wrong to fuck a dead deer, it’s just gross.
Omg you may be right.. Is there really no other source of the stigma other than personal faith-based beliefs?.. The social moral rule not to fuck a dead animal clearly stems from the religious one, and/or diseases contracted resulting in a rule based on the need for good health.. But "Don't, you might die" is far different from the more common "Don't, it's wrong".. Wow I spent far too long analysing this
Ikr it's pretty fucked up. It took me a day to come to that conclusion. I was like they have to know that fucking an animal is wrong nmw, in any state of being, so what else could there be and then I'm like you know what there's a disconnect here because of the no God thing so what does it matter if there's no God because of its no longer a sin to fuck an animal and to them that would mean any state of being so like..... I guess in a fucked up way yeah it would come down to the semantics of the situation. That is, if you were to equate basic human common sense, to religious morals and guidance on how to exist as a better being rather than being decisive.
Like it's fucked up but I can get where that individual drew that conclusion from; Yet, I'm still hoping no matter what that they know that fucking an animal in any state of being, is wrong.
I'm going to take this shit post seriously for some reason. Sometimes people confuse morality with practicality. Or associate groas factor with immorality, or even things associated with something gross with immorality. Yet, they are all related for a reason.
We have an inherent revulsion to fucking dead bodies. This is because dead things spread diseases, and therefore we instinctually avoid it. Also culturally it is disrespectful and gross. Practically, it is best to decide as a society to not allow that, and shun people who do it. If you practice safe sex with the corpse, and nobody legitimately knows or is hurt by this action, is it morally acceptable? Maybe, but what are truly the chances of a freak who would fuck a corpse wearing a condom because he's concerned for future sexual partners? If he is a necrophiliac, what are the chances that this wouldn't extend to killing to achieve this, or stealing bodies, which would be traumatic for the people related to the people whose bodies he acquired? If he is wired differently and doesn't get this ick factor from fucking dead things the way regular humans do, either his brain is a little messed up, he has gone through some traumatic, personality changing experiences, or he has specifically sought our to desensitize himself from shame. Do you want to trust such a person in society? Or should we perhaps correct deviant behaviors before they become a problem? There's a lot more context than a specific example in a vacuum.
Incidentally, this is what some people don't get about pedophilia/related philias. An ex girlfriend of mine once had a discussion with me that people were obsessed with condemning age gaps online. While true, I didn't agree with her because she went on to say "when I was a teenager, I remember going to a concert for my favorite band and wishing I could fuck the lead singer. If that had happened, I would have been happy and still talk about it today, not yap about how it was abuse." And yeah, maybe, in that instance, it would have been fine. Or maybe he would have pulled a Steve Tyler and became her legal guardian so he could fuck her all the time and been abusive and controlling, and derailed her future by taking her out of school and on tour with him and getting her pregnant then leaving. Is it POSSIBLE to have someone underage consent? Maybe (and a big maybe at that) but really what are the chances that it is a completely healthy and fulfilling relationship that will be positive for both people in the long run? Stigmatizing inappropriate age gap relationships only benefits society. 18 is an arbitrary line, to be sure. Is 17 or 16 OK? Multiple developed countries think so. 15? Not so sure, maybe focus on the actual size of the age gap there, which most countries do. But at some point we have to draw the line as a society to just say "no, sexual activity with this child is not allowed" to not allow for abuse of trust, because kids don't know what is best for them and what they want yet. And is it then morally wrong to violate what society has decided the arbitrary line is? Yes, at least in most cases. Legal does not mean moral, but to completely disregard society is not a way humans are meant to live. So are you going to be a normal guy that can take the "hit" of not dating under 18, or are you going to be the creep flirting with high schoolers and yapping about Romeo and Juliet laws?
This nuance is hard for people to understand. Even in organized religion, where God presumably has all the "right" answers, there is not always an absolute answer. In Christianity for example, Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 10 to avoid practices that make others uncomfortable or more likely to hurt their conscience, even if God doesn't specifically condemn said practice, and to avoid flexing your "rights" on others if it bothers them. "All things are lawful but not all things are helpful." Mysteriously, this part of the bible tends to not be remembered, and religious people instead veer towards absolutism.
This is a common "gotcha" argument that floats around the Internet. Essentially, it posits that under the teachings of a given religion (typically Christianity), there is a source of morality which is absolute. That might be the religion's holy text, deity, or the religious authorities of that religion. In either case, there is one authoritative source which dictates what is morally correct and not correct for the entire universe from now until eternity.
So, the argument goes, if one is to reject the teachings of this or all religions, as irreligious people do, it necessarily means accepting that morality is inherently relative and that there is no absolute standard for mortality that is universally applicable. Therefore, as the argument goes, since one would have to accept that morality is relative, it can be framed relative to anything or nothing, and therefore there is no act which can be immoral relative to any reference frames in a context without religion. And therefore, nothing can be said to be immoral because whether it is moral is relative.
That's the end of the argument.
To its credit, there isn't anything wrong with this argument. But I do believe the argument posits that conclusion to be far worse than it really is. Suppose I am an irreligious person. Why is fornication with roadkill immoral? Well, because I think it is. It makes me feel bad and the reward gained isn't worth the risk (the embarrassment of being seen in the act or catching some disease from it). Therefore I don't do it. Is it possible that some person could think that it is moral? Yes, absolutely. But that doesn't matter, because even if relative to one person's moral compass an act is moral, doesn't mean that people in general can't just collectively reject that perspective and condemn the act as a group. In fact, human societies imposing their views on what is and is not moral relative to their own experience describes pretty much the entirety of human history.
Edit: To sum up, my counter argument is that yes, all morality is relative. I don't see how this is a bad thing. Humans have the ability to reason and reject moral viewpoints which they collectively find repulsive. They do not have to accept it just because someone else thinks that way.
More succinctly, the argument is: without religion, there is no source of moral authority other than the disapproval of others. Acts that have no chance of being discovered would therefore not be subject to any moral judgment and must be permissible, even if clearly wrong.
This is a contradiction with those acts being clearly wrong.
There are multiple ways of attacking this naive argument.
I would argue that the assertion "there is no source of moral authority other than the disapproval of others" is absolutely 100% correct. People's moral compasses are informed by what the people around them think and culture that they live in. I just argue that there's nothing wrong with that.
I'm almost certain that the society the killer belongs to would answer "yes" to that question.
Unless, of course, that loner with no family is suffering from an incurable disease that is making their life pure misery, and resides in a place where medical euthanasia is legal. Then the answer might be "no".
Society will never find out, so they will have no opportunity to answer the question. Are you saying that what matters is not actual disapproval, but hypothetical disapproval?
Anyway, like I said, there are multiple ways of attacking the argument. Accepting the unpalatable logical conclusion of total relativism is one of them.
Uh, yeah, that's how rules work. If you do something that's against the rules, you've broken the rules, regardless of whether anyone ever finds out about it. Morality isn't a concrete thing that exists. It's an abstract set of rules which are a creation of human society.
I think there are (at least) two things wrong with the argument:
it assumes that there can be no source of absolute morality aside from religion, ignoring centuries if not millennia of moral philosophy/ethics (which at least tries to answer the question seriously).
even if nonreligious sources of morality don't exist, the argument assumes that religion is a source of absolute morality. since conflicting religions exist, the religionness-property alone is not enough to validate religion as a source of absolute morality.
It doesn't assume that there is no source of absolute morality. It says that religious people are incorrect to derive their absolute source of mortality from a deity, whether it exists or not
I prefer to frame the argument like this:
"If you found out your God didn't exist, would you go around killing people? Why not?"
At least for me, it seems that the assumption that there is no absolute source of morality besides religion is correct. Human morality has changed a lot throughout history, and lots of people have tried to dictate morality across borders and across time. The only ones who have succeeded in the slightest are religious leaders.
The argument is generally that one specific religion provides a source of absolute morality. The existence of conflicting religions does not invalidate that. It provides one source of absolute morality, not necessarily the only source of absolute morality. Anyone can claim something is a source of absolute morality. I can claim a magic 8-ball is a source of absolute morality. It does not mean that people will accept it, but I can claim it.
It sounds an awful lot to me like Christians want to fuck horses. Or at the VERY least, they spend a concerning amount of time thinking about fucking horses.
I think fornicating with an animal is no worse than voring it, and I know dozens of people who vore animals. Personally, I'm vegan, except for kangaroos and bees.
Kangaroos will overpopulate and destroy habitats of other animals through overgrazing if they aren't hunted. The government sets a hunting quota, and if it isn't reached, they organise cullings. Culled kangaroos are dumped in ditches or mass graves to rot. It's better for them to be hunted so someone benefits from all that death.
Bees can fly and make intelligent decisions about where to put their hive, so beekeeping is kinda consensual. As much as a bee can consent, anyway. If a nest location is unsuitable, bees will swarm and find a new nest. They're used to planning ahead by months and judging local resource conditions. However, some beekeepers clip the queen's wings to prevent swarming, and I think this is completely unethical and inexcusable. But outside of that, the way beekeepers prevent swarming is by helping their bees and giving them a good life. In fact, taking honey can even be good for the bees! Sometimes bees will fill all of their comb with honey and won't have enough space to raise eggs. It's called being honeylogged. Honeylogged hives will swarm to go find a new nest, just cause they had too much honey!
Because theres no "harm" being done. Its already dead so it doesn't care, nobody is around together traumatised so they dont care.
Its obviously wrong but without Daddy God telling you its naughty its not so easy to explain why. I kinda want to see the Bible passage that says "dont fuck an animal corpse ye faithfulle"
You just need to point at the reasoning and ask "so it is moral to do that with human too?" Because the reasoning is the same and then ask the people if they can to live in a world where it is moral that someone digs out the person's mother and do that and put her back.
I am confident that person will realise really quickly why it would be wrong.
Green is fucking a dead animal afterwards, because it fits greys explanation and is the morally allowed one. That's why green explicitely needs to msntion that they are proud.
This means that if we find a cure for contagious diseases then fucking dead animals becomes okay
Yes. It's ok. It says a LOT about the person doing it though.
Just like you CAN stand on the street corner and shout about flat earth and aliens. But it says a lot about you and we judge you for it.
And let's be real. If you're okay with intentionally killing a cow to then cut it up, jam it in your face hole and swallow, how can you be against accidentally killing a deer and not cutting it up, and using its hole instead. Let's be consistent folks.
Could you decide that having sex with the same gender, or with a different race, is wrong then if it's just whatever you, or mainstream society, thinks? Those things were definitely condemned by the mainstream once, but there's actually nothing wrong with them.
Yes. As proof of this, I offer this sentence: "Those things were definitely condemned by the mainstream once, but there's actually nothing wrong with them."
If you want being gay or trans or black or disabled to be morally acceptable, you have to fight for them. These things were hard won by activists over decades because they managed to change our culture, and now we dominate over racists and bigots. Forgetting this means you could lose it.
Because space is cool and we're never gonna get to dyson spheres by pontificating on the morality of fucking an animal's corpse.
Just a genuinely fucking stupid topic. Apparently I was right, there are people who need Christianity to keep them from fucking dead animals. You'd think that declaring themselves atheist means that they reasoned themselves into the position but no, no for these people 'atheist' means free ticket to fuck dead animals with no shame.
I'm not speaking about fucking animal corpses. I just think that we need philosophically to have an objective moral good (and we can have that without believing in a God).
you could morally treat dead human relatives and friends as a shared property. Desecrating property aka. vandalism is not allowed. Every living owner of said property would then have to agree, which would have to be decided by let's say guardians of a corpse selected in the body's last will. Out of practicality it would be opt-in with following examples: I consent (giving rights to state), I don't (default, giving rights to the people), I will leave the decision up to <name(s)>. Not consenting option would be almost impossible to clear as there would always be somebody wanting their shared property to not be desecrated unless outside of civilization where nobody else can exercise their rights in a arbitrary time window. It is an distinction between morality and practicality. While fucking a corpse by itself would mean nothing others would be still deeply mentally hurt, but this legal framework would clearly set boundaries of this is not your fucking business.
For all I care fuck a dead deer. We already slaughter and rape animals on an industrial scale. Pretending to have a morale high ground is a hypocrisy. That's why I respect vegans or people who strive to become them as they are only ones somehow consistent without being brainwashed by religion and still against this while religious people only think of it as disgusting but happily participate in torture when they don't see it, because they are brainwashed into stripping other creatures of self.
I agree, but I'll also say it's immoral if you have a conflict of interest. Such as if you paid a friend to run it over.
I view fucking an animal and voring an animal the same way: If it was going to die anyway, it's okay. If you're paying for it to die needlessly, you're evil.
Sure, but the bloodmouths get all huffy when I call them animal murderers, and say "Well I only paid a supermarket to pay a distributor to pay a slaughterhouse to kill them, so it doesn't count".
Yeah. Personally, I don't believe in personhood, it seems poorly defined. Actually, there's this game I really like the way it tackles personhood. You play as a robot, and you get to debate philosophy with a computer. The computer probes you on your beliefs, and at one point tries to ad absurdum you into agreeing that frogs are people. I forget exactly what the arguments are, especially since you can choose a few different things to argue. But it's really neat, because you're a robot debating what it means to be a person; who we as a society should extend personhood to. Personally, I said that frogs are people in My first playthrough. And in the sequel, there's this throwaway joke about how the "are frogs people" debate topic has been banned from the online forums. And I think that's great! Evidently, the NPCs really got into the weeds on that one!
So yeah, I think personhood is an iffy construct and I don't personally identify with it. I'm no person. I reject the very system that would grant Me special status for conforming to its notions of political life. So I don't think murder has much to do with personhood.
Oh, and historically, "person" just means a human body. You know, "it's nice to meet you in person." Letters and phone calls don't count, because as minds sending messages over the wire, we're not people. People are human bodies, according to our vestigial linguistics. What a load of bullshit.
I understand your philosophical argument, but imo the moment you compare running over a frog to hitting a child with your car, personhood becomes real obvious.
And frankly, I don't feel the need for some air-tight philosophical package to claim it. Species-based tribalism is, in fact, sufficient cause to me.
I think preventability is a big factor. We don't run over children, because we have the power to prevent their deaths. We can tell them to be careful around cars. Frogs don't listen the same way.
113 replies
Don't Buddhists use a similar loop hole to eat meat? In theory, they shouldn't be killing and eating animals because of the non-violence. But if they launder it via some other hunter, that's fine.
Why are there so many posts about necrophilic bestiality lately
Fucken christ can you imagine this guy answering the Trolley Problem?
"Okay so there's a trolley"
"I fuck the trolley!"
"No, wait- so there's a trolley and it's gonna run over either one person or three-"
"Oh! I wait for it to run everyone over and then I fuck their lifeless corpses!"
(sigh) I can't believe I have to say this twice on the same site.
Fucking a dead deer is just as immoral and dangerous as fucking a live one. Their bodies will still be host to a variety of potentially dangerous infectious diseases that may cross the species divide and become human-transmissible. This is a threat to your own health as well as public health.
For the love of any god that still might care, do not fuck roadkill. We do NOT need another HIV.
Not what this is about, it being dangerous does not make it immoral, those are two completely unrelated planes.
The "as well as public health" bit is the important one.
Humans are a social species. Most human infectious diseases require social contact in order to spread.
We lived through 2020. I think that fucking dead deer is unethical, for the same reason that not getting vaccinated and not quarantining is unethical. It is a hazard to yourself AND others.
Immoral: morally wrong, or outside society's standards of acceptable, honest, and moral behaviour
I argue that with the knowledge of it being dangerous and potentially a serious risk factor for an epidemic or pandemic it is indeed immoral. Not to mention that it is probably, if not definitely, outside most societies standards of acceptable.
Fucking hell, by that logic teaching religion is immoral along with sex education. Get with the programme and enjoy the parameters of the initial premise.
MUNCH DOWN ON THAT CAN OF WORMS, COMMENT SECTION, YOU FUCKS
The one time I saw a post about bestiality and necrophilia, someone was saying it is common for hunters to fuck their kills, because the adrenaline of the hunt and all, makes them horny and crazy. No reason to bring it up here, though, I just want you all to suffer with me.
I think someone was messing with you
I've shot a lot of animals through the years. "Horny" is now how I would describe the aftermath.
Mostly it's mild annoyance because now I have to clean it, which is a PITA.
Unfortunate typo lol
Please don't fuck dead things. You will likely get an infection. No one else wants to put up with your infected silly bad decisions. That's the morality of it.
What if you cooked or pasteurized the roadkill
Is it immoral to fuck a cheeseburger if you still eat it?
Consult several physicians
"Look, I'm not saying you should drive around at night time with your high beams on looking for deer to run over. That would be wrong.
BUT
If you're just out, driving along, minding your own business, and you accidentally hit a deer or maybe you find one that's already been run over, well.... I mean, no sense in letting perfectly good deer poon go to waste, right? Like, if it's still warm and everything, it'd almost be rude NOT to fuck it, know what I mean?"
Yea untill accidently one time your driving on pcp and you hit a pedestrian thinking it's a deer and boom you have not just necrophilia charges but rape charges because he wasn't quite dead when you started.
Checkmate atheists!
Dang, you got me there. Good thing you replied before my nightly pcp cruise, I could have done a sin
I avoid two things while on PCP, orangutans and driving.
You never know when it's actually just a retarded kid.
No, we often have to prescribe morality broadly, because engaging with the nuance with every instance is not really viable on a societal level. What are the chances that someone engaging with roadkill on the side of the road actually accidentally killed the animal, versus them doing it intentionally and claiming it was an accident? What would happen if this behaviour was normalized?
You're talking about the legal system. Our laws are pragmatic, and account for things like lying.
OPs post is a philosophical question. The premise is whether it's moral for you to fuck roadkill based on whether you killed it or now. Concerns like lying to a courtroom or to the people around you, are out of scope.
So philosophically:
This would be immoral, since they still killed the animal to fuck it.
This just puts the image in my head of a religious person seeing someone having sex with a dead deer on the side of the road and their first reaction being "Oh my god he's sinning!" and not "Why the fuck is that freak fucking a dead deer on the side of the road"
The difference between those thoughts is sort of vague.
the difference is one requires a prerequisite (religion) while the other one doesn't require anything except...idk, common sense, or having more than one brain cell?
Is it sinning? Is there a specific prohibition in the Bible about dead animals?
The Bible includes passages that condone murdering a cheating wife, so maybe don't use that as your yardstick.
In a sense, yes.
Leviticus 5:2 condones touching a dead creature:
"‘Or if a person touches any unclean thing, whether it is the carcass of an unclean beast, or the carcass of unclean livestock, or the carcass of unclean creeping things, and he is unaware of it, he also shall be unclean and guilty."
::: spoiler Relevant note that doesn't include deer Leviticus 11:29-31 states that "creeping" creatures result in uncleanliness, but only until evening, so unless "evening" is an abstract term meaning "nearing the end of your life", you're only gross until tomorrow:
"‘These also shall be unclean to you among the creeping things that creep on the earth: the mole, the mouse, and the large lizard after its kind; the gecko, the monitor lizard, the sand reptile, the sand lizard, and the chameleon. These are unclean to you among all that creep. Whoever touches them when they are dead shall be unclean until evening." :::
And the passages that mention sex with a creature, regardless of a heartbeat, include Leviticus 18:23. And as a bonus, their god is said to be talking to Moses with the intention of passing the message to all Israelites, it also slanders men being gay in the previous line (but as this was also to be delivered to women, I guess this implies rather that sexual acts suitable for a woman partner should never be done with a male partner.) :
"22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. 23 Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion."
It seems to say you would be unclean to touch a dead animal. That means you need to take a bath and wait until evening to be clean again. No harm, no foul.
And Christians can always pull out their get out of jail card, "Jesus fulfilled the law so OT rules don't apply."
So I think only true Christians could morally have sex with a dead deer.
Note that 18:22 is heavily debated because its been translated as male, but more nuanced translations decribe same-sex rape, not necessarily homosexuality as whole.
https://blog.smu.edu/ot8317/2019/04/11/lost-in-translation-alternative-meaning-in-leviticus-1822/
It's heavily disputed whether those translations are more accurate rather than just reading nuance where none exists. Some translations also interpret it as specifically about pedophilia, but again, they may or may not be more accurate than simply translating it as all M/M sex.
Meh, even if taken literally from the king james translation, doesn't matter much since it's old testament. One can shift the meaning to whatever they want.
The very fact of the whole text being:
makes me suspect that every single translation has some error, and because I cannot read Hebrew I'll never truly know. Even what used to be the most trusted digital translator, Google Translate, now uses AI to interpret and adjust the wording, making the translate service more useless than it already was. FWIW, whenever I need to consult the English Bible I prefer the King James Version (1769 revision, not the NKJV), not only because I love the language style, and that it is in a language I can read, but it is translated into English from Hebrew (Old Testament), Latin (Apocrypha) and Greek (New Testament), and in my opinion if there are deviations from the Hebrew 'Masoretic Text', the KJV will have less errors than others.
A good read of the women involved in one translation: Paula and the Latin Vulgate
I don't know. Much like most modern day Christians I haven't actually read it
Morally wrong? No. Disgusting and disrespectful? Absolutely.
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.
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.
UT OH
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
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?
Weird from a cultural perspective where any sort of non-medical interference with a corpse is frowned upon, so we're trained from a very young age to find any of that stuff icky/morbid. Other cultures may not have that same aversion.
Kinda in the same vein as we in North America have a very conservative opinion on being naked in public where other cultures couldn't care less.
I'm already a moral relativist.
What I'm asking is if a person who wants to and does have sex with corpses, knowing that this is socially profane and must be kept secret, is this a trustable person?
Also, respect for the dead often involves rituals that are non-medical. I think disease obviously played a part in how these rituals were formed, but I don't think that disease is the primary reason people care.
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?
That makes it immoral in your framework. But you can simply construct one that doesn't require consent, then it wouldn't be 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.
Also it's likely to make you sick and then you become a liability to your community = immoral.
The idea that you're morally obligated to maximize your own health to minimize your burden on society usually doesn't stand up well to follow up questions.
Realistically, the societal health costs of being obese would be statistically higher than fucking roadkill. I think most people would find themselves pausing before suggesting to an obese person that thier obesity is more morally problematic than fucking roadkill.
There is something to health of an individual in a society and morality, it's pretty hard for me to ignore that intuition. I just don't know a real formulation which doesn't introduce more issues to a system of morality than it resolves? Curious if anyone had one.
When I read liability, my instinct was contagion. There is absolutely a moral obligation to minimize contagion—we did a whole covid-lockdown thing about it.
Being obese is too self-contained an issue, if it is an issue, I think. The only one suffering, if they are suffering, would be the obese person, and the only externalization of that would be financial costs that are too abstract for people to take personally.
I have the great privilege of living in a society with socialized Healthcare, so these questions do come up from time to time.
The lifetime Healthcare costs for people who have conditions which can be mitigated by lifestyle choices is a real thing. Smoking, being an obvious example much less touchy than obesity. Even if I'm extremely comfortable with the slice of my taxes that go to Healthcare... wouldn't it be great if we got to spend less on smoking-related issues, and could instead buy more MRI machines. Merely pay for more doctors? Nurses? Expand the treatments we can even offer?
Just because they're abstract, doesn't make it any less of a question of morality. I don't see any moral difference between the contaigen and smoking from the perspective of the personal responsibility of maintaining the overall health of your society. One is just accepted by society.
I don't understand what you mean.
Smoking isn't contagious. Smoking might be socially contagious, but that's a different kind. Smoking and the resulting cancer would be the kind of disease that people "choose" to take on, which is different from being accosted by influenza.
You might be thinking about this on a societal level? I meant interpersonally. Showing up to an event while sick and without a mask is a little fucked up. And covid touches on the societal, but my chief moral complaint is really with people who were neglectful of the community effort to minimize harm during a pandemic, who would choose possibly killing somebody's grandma so that they could go to the beach. I'm not really thinking about... taxes.
Whether it is ethical for people to "overuse" the medical services their society provides I think depends ultimately on what it is fair to ask people to do, and what the actual consequences of not doing them are.
Like, is it immoral to get a dildo stuck up your arse? Because you're wasting a doctor's time. I feel like we might be touching on such austere efficiencies that we're beginning to lose sight of what a doctor is for.
Well if you ask that to an atheist than because there’s no god that moral injustice no longer exists because an atheist sees that moral injustice as a religious moral injustice that only God believers see. The religious moral injustice being disrespecting life after death.
☝🏻 However, anyone sane would see an animal alive or dead and know that it’s wrong to fuck an animal.
The disconnect here is that many atheists were former theists so their core beliefs are rooted in religion and they have difficulty separating the two.
The reality is that for atheists there is no such thing as morality. Things are not inherently right or wrong. A theists might ask if it’s morally wrong to have sex with roadkill but a true atheist would simply ask why would you even do that? Atheism is understanding that actions don’t really have meaning they only have consequences. You can choose to do anything but you have to reckon with those consequences.
This is where theists get hung up. “If nothing matters why wouldn’t I just rob everyone I meet and have sex with everything?” They can’t fathom the idea of deciding for themselves because they would have to accept that no matter the outcome they made the choice and can’t shift blame to the man in the clouds.
In short it’s not wrong to fuck a dead deer, it’s just gross.
Omg you may be right.. Is there really no other source of the stigma other than personal faith-based beliefs?.. The social moral rule not to fuck a dead animal clearly stems from the religious one, and/or diseases contracted resulting in a rule based on the need for good health.. But "Don't, you might die" is far different from the more common "Don't, it's wrong".. Wow I spent far too long analysing this
Ikr it's pretty fucked up. It took me a day to come to that conclusion. I was like they have to know that fucking an animal is wrong nmw, in any state of being, so what else could there be and then I'm like you know what there's a disconnect here because of the no God thing so what does it matter if there's no God because of its no longer a sin to fuck an animal and to them that would mean any state of being so like..... I guess in a fucked up way yeah it would come down to the semantics of the situation. That is, if you were to equate basic human common sense, to religious morals and guidance on how to exist as a better being rather than being decisive.
Like it's fucked up but I can get where that individual drew that conclusion from; Yet, I'm still hoping no matter what that they know that fucking an animal in any state of being, is wrong.
Man this is so fucked up to talk about 🤦🏻♂️
Cursed philosophy lmao
So ... is that what they mean when they say "use every part of the animal"?
You fuck every hole of that animal, otherwise it's a waste.
Roadkill gangbang it is then
And since its already dead you can even make more holes if you got a knife!
Then it's a fucking waste of you're not fucking its waist.
I'm going to take this shit post seriously for some reason. Sometimes people confuse morality with practicality. Or associate groas factor with immorality, or even things associated with something gross with immorality. Yet, they are all related for a reason.
We have an inherent revulsion to fucking dead bodies. This is because dead things spread diseases, and therefore we instinctually avoid it. Also culturally it is disrespectful and gross. Practically, it is best to decide as a society to not allow that, and shun people who do it. If you practice safe sex with the corpse, and nobody legitimately knows or is hurt by this action, is it morally acceptable? Maybe, but what are truly the chances of a freak who would fuck a corpse wearing a condom because he's concerned for future sexual partners? If he is a necrophiliac, what are the chances that this wouldn't extend to killing to achieve this, or stealing bodies, which would be traumatic for the people related to the people whose bodies he acquired? If he is wired differently and doesn't get this ick factor from fucking dead things the way regular humans do, either his brain is a little messed up, he has gone through some traumatic, personality changing experiences, or he has specifically sought our to desensitize himself from shame. Do you want to trust such a person in society? Or should we perhaps correct deviant behaviors before they become a problem? There's a lot more context than a specific example in a vacuum.
Incidentally, this is what some people don't get about pedophilia/related philias. An ex girlfriend of mine once had a discussion with me that people were obsessed with condemning age gaps online. While true, I didn't agree with her because she went on to say "when I was a teenager, I remember going to a concert for my favorite band and wishing I could fuck the lead singer. If that had happened, I would have been happy and still talk about it today, not yap about how it was abuse." And yeah, maybe, in that instance, it would have been fine. Or maybe he would have pulled a Steve Tyler and became her legal guardian so he could fuck her all the time and been abusive and controlling, and derailed her future by taking her out of school and on tour with him and getting her pregnant then leaving. Is it POSSIBLE to have someone underage consent? Maybe (and a big maybe at that) but really what are the chances that it is a completely healthy and fulfilling relationship that will be positive for both people in the long run? Stigmatizing inappropriate age gap relationships only benefits society. 18 is an arbitrary line, to be sure. Is 17 or 16 OK? Multiple developed countries think so. 15? Not so sure, maybe focus on the actual size of the age gap there, which most countries do. But at some point we have to draw the line as a society to just say "no, sexual activity with this child is not allowed" to not allow for abuse of trust, because kids don't know what is best for them and what they want yet. And is it then morally wrong to violate what society has decided the arbitrary line is? Yes, at least in most cases. Legal does not mean moral, but to completely disregard society is not a way humans are meant to live. So are you going to be a normal guy that can take the "hit" of not dating under 18, or are you going to be the creep flirting with high schoolers and yapping about Romeo and Juliet laws?
This nuance is hard for people to understand. Even in organized religion, where God presumably has all the "right" answers, there is not always an absolute answer. In Christianity for example, Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 10 to avoid practices that make others uncomfortable or more likely to hurt their conscience, even if God doesn't specifically condemn said practice, and to avoid flexing your "rights" on others if it bothers them. "All things are lawful but not all things are helpful." Mysteriously, this part of the bible tends to not be remembered, and religious people instead veer towards absolutism.
As an atheist… the fuck did I just read?
Unholy christian text, avert your eyes from the depravity my dear follower of logic and common sense
Well it's not going to fuck itself, clearly.
You clearly haven't watched enough hentai
What does this have to do with atheists?
This is a common "gotcha" argument that floats around the Internet. Essentially, it posits that under the teachings of a given religion (typically Christianity), there is a source of morality which is absolute. That might be the religion's holy text, deity, or the religious authorities of that religion. In either case, there is one authoritative source which dictates what is morally correct and not correct for the entire universe from now until eternity.
So, the argument goes, if one is to reject the teachings of this or all religions, as irreligious people do, it necessarily means accepting that morality is inherently relative and that there is no absolute standard for mortality that is universally applicable. Therefore, as the argument goes, since one would have to accept that morality is relative, it can be framed relative to anything or nothing, and therefore there is no act which can be immoral relative to any reference frames in a context without religion. And therefore, nothing can be said to be immoral because whether it is moral is relative.
That's the end of the argument.
To its credit, there isn't anything wrong with this argument. But I do believe the argument posits that conclusion to be far worse than it really is. Suppose I am an irreligious person. Why is fornication with roadkill immoral? Well, because I think it is. It makes me feel bad and the reward gained isn't worth the risk (the embarrassment of being seen in the act or catching some disease from it). Therefore I don't do it. Is it possible that some person could think that it is moral? Yes, absolutely. But that doesn't matter, because even if relative to one person's moral compass an act is moral, doesn't mean that people in general can't just collectively reject that perspective and condemn the act as a group. In fact, human societies imposing their views on what is and is not moral relative to their own experience describes pretty much the entirety of human history.
Edit: To sum up, my counter argument is that yes, all morality is relative. I don't see how this is a bad thing. Humans have the ability to reason and reject moral viewpoints which they collectively find repulsive. They do not have to accept it just because someone else thinks that way.
More succinctly, the argument is: without religion, there is no source of moral authority other than the disapproval of others. Acts that have no chance of being discovered would therefore not be subject to any moral judgment and must be permissible, even if clearly wrong.
This is a contradiction with those acts being clearly wrong.
There are multiple ways of attacking this naive argument.
I would argue that the assertion "there is no source of moral authority other than the disapproval of others" is absolutely 100% correct. People's moral compasses are informed by what the people around them think and culture that they live in. I just argue that there's nothing wrong with that.
Is it wrong to murder a loner with no family if you don't make them suffer?
Most people don't actually believe the boo-hurrah theory of ethics (as it's called by its detractors).
I'm almost certain that the society the killer belongs to would answer "yes" to that question.
Unless, of course, that loner with no family is suffering from an incurable disease that is making their life pure misery, and resides in a place where medical euthanasia is legal. Then the answer might be "no".
It's a great example of how morality is relative.
Society will never find out, so they will have no opportunity to answer the question. Are you saying that what matters is not actual disapproval, but hypothetical disapproval?
Anyway, like I said, there are multiple ways of attacking the argument. Accepting the unpalatable logical conclusion of total relativism is one of them.
Uh, yeah, that's how rules work. If you do something that's against the rules, you've broken the rules, regardless of whether anyone ever finds out about it. Morality isn't a concrete thing that exists. It's an abstract set of rules which are a creation of human society.
I think there are (at least) two things wrong with the argument:
It doesn't assume that there is no source of absolute morality. It says that religious people are incorrect to derive their absolute source of mortality from a deity, whether it exists or not
I prefer to frame the argument like this:
"If you found out your God didn't exist, would you go around killing people? Why not?"
Many would.
At least for me, it seems that the assumption that there is no absolute source of morality besides religion is correct. Human morality has changed a lot throughout history, and lots of people have tried to dictate morality across borders and across time. The only ones who have succeeded in the slightest are religious leaders.
The argument is generally that one specific religion provides a source of absolute morality. The existence of conflicting religions does not invalidate that. It provides one source of absolute morality, not necessarily the only source of absolute morality. Anyone can claim something is a source of absolute morality. I can claim a magic 8-ball is a source of absolute morality. It does not mean that people will accept it, but I can claim it.
It sounds an awful lot to me like Christians want to fuck horses. Or at the VERY least, they spend a concerning amount of time thinking about fucking horses.
Tons of other violent crimes, too. Asking someone why they don't commit mass rape if they don't think they're being watched is wild.
Well obviously they don't think about fucking horses, that would just be weird. Children, on the other hand...
I think fornicating with an animal is no worse than voring it, and I know dozens of people who vore animals. Personally, I'm vegan, except for kangaroos and bees.
I'm afraid to ask. Why are kangaroos and bees an exception?
Kangaroos will overpopulate and destroy habitats of other animals through overgrazing if they aren't hunted. The government sets a hunting quota, and if it isn't reached, they organise cullings. Culled kangaroos are dumped in ditches or mass graves to rot. It's better for them to be hunted so someone benefits from all that death.
Bees can fly and make intelligent decisions about where to put their hive, so beekeeping is kinda consensual. As much as a bee can consent, anyway. If a nest location is unsuitable, bees will swarm and find a new nest. They're used to planning ahead by months and judging local resource conditions. However, some beekeepers clip the queen's wings to prevent swarming, and I think this is completely unethical and inexcusable. But outside of that, the way beekeepers prevent swarming is by helping their bees and giving them a good life. In fact, taking honey can even be good for the bees! Sometimes bees will fill all of their comb with honey and won't have enough space to raise eggs. It's called being honeylogged. Honeylogged hives will swarm to go find a new nest, just cause they had too much honey!
Further reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_meat#Kangatarianism
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/comments/108w7tt/the_great_honey_debate_is_honey_vegan/
Wtf, do they think necrophilia/bestiality is morally acceptable just because "atheist"?
Because theres no "harm" being done. Its already dead so it doesn't care, nobody is around together traumatised so they dont care.
Its obviously wrong but without Daddy God telling you its naughty its not so easy to explain why. I kinda want to see the Bible passage that says "dont fuck an animal corpse ye faithfulle"
You just need to point at the reasoning and ask "so it is moral to do that with human too?" Because the reasoning is the same and then ask the people if they can to live in a world where it is moral that someone digs out the person's mother and do that and put her back.
I am confident that person will realise really quickly why it would be wrong.
Green is fucking a dead animal afterwards, because it fits greys explanation and is the morally allowed one. That's why green explicitely needs to msntion that they are proud.
Yes. It's ok. It says a LOT about the person doing it though.
Just like you CAN stand on the street corner and shout about flat earth and aliens. But it says a lot about you and we judge you for it.
And let's be real. If you're okay with intentionally killing a cow to then cut it up, jam it in your face hole and swallow, how can you be against accidentally killing a deer and not cutting it up, and using its hole instead. Let's be consistent folks.
2, The shared moral framework is how we know that it's rude to pop an airphone in and start playing a youtube video while someone is talking to you.
3, I'll be the only one deciding if you refuse to participate.
Could you decide that having sex with the same gender, or with a different race, is wrong then if it's just whatever you, or mainstream society, thinks? Those things were definitely condemned by the mainstream once, but there's actually nothing wrong with them.
Yes. As proof of this, I offer this sentence: "Those things were definitely condemned by the mainstream once, but there's actually nothing wrong with them."
If you want being gay or trans or black or disabled to be morally acceptable, you have to fight for them. These things were hard won by activists over decades because they managed to change our culture, and now we dominate over racists and bigots. Forgetting this means you could lose it.
Why, if there's no objective moral good?
Because space is cool and we're never gonna get to dyson spheres by pontificating on the morality of fucking an animal's corpse.
Just a genuinely fucking stupid topic. Apparently I was right, there are people who need Christianity to keep them from fucking dead animals. You'd think that declaring themselves atheist means that they reasoned themselves into the position but no, no for these people 'atheist' means free ticket to fuck dead animals with no shame.
I'm not speaking about fucking animal corpses. I just think that we need philosophically to have an objective moral good (and we can have that without believing in a God).
Does this logic also apply to human corpses? Like if I go to a morgue…
you could morally treat dead human relatives and friends as a shared property. Desecrating property aka. vandalism is not allowed. Every living owner of said property would then have to agree, which would have to be decided by let's say guardians of a corpse selected in the body's last will. Out of practicality it would be opt-in with following examples: I consent (giving rights to state), I don't (default, giving rights to the people), I will leave the decision up to <name(s)>. Not consenting option would be almost impossible to clear as there would always be somebody wanting their shared property to not be desecrated unless outside of civilization where nobody else can exercise their rights in a arbitrary time window. It is an distinction between morality and practicality. While fucking a corpse by itself would mean nothing others would be still deeply mentally hurt, but this legal framework would clearly set boundaries of this is not your fucking business.
corpses are dead and cannot receive a moral injury.
(setting aside the potential to cause a plague outbreak, which is a morality issue IMO)
I feel like im having a stroke deciphering those messages in grey.
For all I care fuck a dead deer. We already slaughter and rape animals on an industrial scale. Pretending to have a morale high ground is a hypocrisy. That's why I respect vegans or people who strive to become them as they are only ones somehow consistent without being brainwashed by religion and still against this while religious people only think of it as disgusting but happily participate in torture when they don't see it, because they are brainwashed into stripping other creatures of self.
I agree, but I'll also say it's immoral if you have a conflict of interest. Such as if you paid a friend to run it over.
I view fucking an animal and voring an animal the same way: If it was going to die anyway, it's okay. If you're paying for it to die needlessly, you're evil.
That's still you committing a roadkill, just second hand.
Sure, but the bloodmouths get all huffy when I call them animal murderers, and say "Well I only paid a supermarket to pay a distributor to pay a slaughterhouse to kill them, so it doesn't count".
Meat consumption definitely requires death and meat consumers are absolutely the reason for said death.
Granted it isn't murder, because that has additional meaning that requires personhood, but it is absolutely still death, no question.
Yeah. Personally, I don't believe in personhood, it seems poorly defined. Actually, there's this game I really like the way it tackles personhood. You play as a robot, and you get to debate philosophy with a computer. The computer probes you on your beliefs, and at one point tries to ad absurdum you into agreeing that frogs are people. I forget exactly what the arguments are, especially since you can choose a few different things to argue. But it's really neat, because you're a robot debating what it means to be a person; who we as a society should extend personhood to. Personally, I said that frogs are people in My first playthrough. And in the sequel, there's this throwaway joke about how the "are frogs people" debate topic has been banned from the online forums. And I think that's great! Evidently, the NPCs really got into the weeds on that one!
So yeah, I think personhood is an iffy construct and I don't personally identify with it. I'm no person. I reject the very system that would grant Me special status for conforming to its notions of political life. So I don't think murder has much to do with personhood.
Oh, and historically, "person" just means a human body. You know, "it's nice to meet you in person." Letters and phone calls don't count, because as minds sending messages over the wire, we're not people. People are human bodies, according to our vestigial linguistics. What a load of bullshit.
I understand your philosophical argument, but imo the moment you compare running over a frog to hitting a child with your car, personhood becomes real obvious.
And frankly, I don't feel the need for some air-tight philosophical package to claim it. Species-based tribalism is, in fact, sufficient cause to me.
I think preventability is a big factor. We don't run over children, because we have the power to prevent their deaths. We can tell them to be careful around cars. Frogs don't listen the same way.