? This is political philosophy, it is about how laws should be. And I'm happy to see more of it, rather than nothing but news coverage.

In answer to the question: yes. I mean I can understand and potentially support a utilitarian type argument that enough people are disgusted by the mere idea that it happens, which outweighs the benefits to the people involved. But I think in practice this is really hard to apply to policy in a way that doesn't end up imposing the preferences of busy-bodies who don't actually care that much over all sorts of activities. The repression of homosexuality is an obvious example until fairly recently. I don't really see anything fundamentally different to opposition to consensual necrophilia and opposition to consensual homosexuality. Both are little more than "ew! icky!" with some health and safety concern trolling.

yep

We are decades away from this discussion. They don't even allow terminally ill people to commit assisted suicide yet.

If there is a buy 10 get 1 free punch card I'm all for it.

When we do allow it then if necrophilia was legal should some form of marketplace be allowed for those who wished to participate and had already decided to die? So that the necrophiliacs could get it why it's hot so to speak.

Would some say that not allowing such a marketplace would be against people's civil rights?

Just noting how pointless this discussion is.

Come on, this isn't remotely relevant to politics. No one is advocating for this kind of policy in the real world, it's clearly in the realm of philosophical/ethical thought experiments. And I'm all for having more of this kind of thing in SMP, but people come in to politics for politics and news stuff.

The praxeological dismissal of emotion, ritual, and sentiment is not very compelling. What really backs it up?

So? Where does the title say "Political discourse, but only stuff that's immediately relevant to contemporary politics?" By this logic none of the AC stuff should have been allowed here either. You may not have liked it, but most of it was clearly political, beyond mere trolley problem "what is the moral to do here?" type discussion.

And that's why it sucks lately IMO. And a lot of the news stuff is barely related to politics anyway.

Yes, we know, know. The wolves who raised you didn't teach you the plain meaning of words, but for the rest of us the op simply isn't political in any meaningful sense.

I mean, that's fine if you think it sucks, why not have these engaging ethics discussions in SMP where it doesn't suck and where more people will give you a thoughtful response beyond "yes, /thread"?

There is a political question involved, and not just a moral one. The political question is about whether, in a secular pluralistic society, the normative moral values of various communities have a place in lawmaking, and how that should work in practice. After all the question was "Should it be legal?", not "Is it moral?".

That said, my initial reaction to the thread was something along the lines of "SKLAAAAAAAAANNNSKYYYYYYY", and you don't have to use necrophilia to explore the relevant political philosophy, but c'est la vie.

"Is necrophilia moral?" is a philosophy question. "Should necrophilia be legal?" is a political question. They are distinct, especially if we talk about the logistics of the latter. I know you want this forum to a place for lolikes and tabloid journalism, but there's space for this too.

It is about what criteria decide what should be legal and views on civil/human rights type stuff. Does sound like politics rather than philosophy but it's close.

Why not just ignore the thread if it doesn't interest you?

I don't disagree. I already admitted that I broached the subject here because I thought it would be interesting to see the correlation between what posters thought about this issue and what they have previously expressed about other issues. Is that such a sin?

Obviously yes, but ocular penetration should be off limits.

.

I bet a fair percentage of corpses end up getting ****ed before being buried anyways. You don't hear a lot about necropheliacs because they all get jobs at funeral homes and morgues so they don't have to run the risk of robbing graves.

People are less likely to have objections to destroy non-human-looking objects than human-looking ones. Ask a bunch of people to smash a potato with a hammer, they don't care. Put some googley eyes and a smile on it, and fewer will.

I think it should be legal for obvious reasons. I'd relate this action to being a donor. You're the one who gets to decide what happens to your body. Necrophilia could well be diagnosed as a disease which could maybe be treated or contained by using your body as an active participant in this process.

Lol never thought of that. Time to install hidden cameras and do some investigative journalism! People would go so nuts if it were revealed that there's rampant necro abuse at morgues and funeral homes.

I was going to suggest a toothy smile cut into the cantaloupe.

Keeping it political, there is a significant different between this sort of thing and protected rights. I can't why the legality of necrophilia isn't a legitimate issue for party politics within a democracy whereas human rights should be handled at a higher level. Maybe someone can either explain why they must be treated the same or why we should chose to treat them the same.

This is politics. It is self-evident.

Thread is accurately named. Just don't click on threads that don't interest you?

So is consent the primary reason that boning dead bodies is illegal? Like, that it's assumed I wouldn't want sick people ****ing my corpse?

I think it should absolutely 100% be legal. Literally nobody is hurt by this, and anyone claiming to be needs to 1) respect my authority over my own damn remains and 2) the privacy of the wealthy necro.

Even though it may cause most people's loved-ones intense, possibly traumatic, grief and totally lacks dignity? Are people just supposed to warm up to the idea over time like a corpse getting ready for the deed?