▲ 445 ▼ Philosophy has peaked. Checkmate atheists (sh.itjust.works) submitted 1 week ago by 7ai@sh.itjust.works to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world 163 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] flamingos@feddit.uk 17 points 1 week ago (2 children) Does this logic also apply to human corpses? Like if I go to a morgue… permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] decolo@piefed.social 9 points 1 week ago corpses are dead and cannot receive a moral injury. (setting aside the potential to cause a plague outbreak, which is a morality issue IMO) permalink fedilink source parent [–] KernelTale@programming.dev 2 points 1 week ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] decolo@piefed.social 9 points 1 week ago corpses are dead and cannot receive a moral injury. (setting aside the potential to cause a plague outbreak, which is a morality issue IMO) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] KernelTale@programming.dev 2 points 1 week ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent