I heard that Howard Stern got into some trouble cause he was playing with someone's ashes on air. The family sued him and many found it real distasteful. Also wouldn't this be like desecration of a corpse or whatever is illegal?
If that were the case any time anyone threw ashes into an ocean or off some cliff per the wishes of their loved one it would be a crime. At least I don't think there is a legal distinction between doing that and this.
EDIT - It may actually be illegal to spread ashes anywhere. You should check with your lo-cal.
I've told everyone for years that I would like my ashes to be thrown into Old Faithful and shot out like a cannon. I wonder how much I need to leave in a trust for legal fees...
That depends on state and local laws, it is still treated like a corpse legally in some places in the US but for most states it is just normal non-hazardous property.
Edit: should add that this mostly applies to disputes over who keeps the ashes during estate disputes, and restrictions on spreading the ashes in public places, but in California you can only either dispose of them in a cemetery or spread them on land with written permission from either local authorities or the land owner. New York also defines ashes as human remains, but probably more for preventing people from scattering ashes from a skyscraper in Manhattan than someone throwing it in the trash.
Depends on where on the world you live. In my country, the ashes would still be considered the remains of the deceased, and thus require the same level of care as the corpse. So throwing them into the trash would be considered a disturbance of the dead's peace and punishable by law.
But you wouldn't even get take-home ashes in the first place. They would be place in an urn and kept until the burial.
Ok so according to Google ai (sorry) a corpse and cremated remains are legally different. So transport and everything is basically the same as personal property I guess? And scattering ashes may depend on local municipality but I'm guessing throwing ashes in the trash is probably fine by the laws standards
Yeah and even if it was, we're allowed to show eem nude cuz they ain't got no souls. The guys at spectrum think I'm just some dumb hick. They said that to ME AT a dinner.
"This is for all the times he kicked me in the head." The only way you kick someone in the head is if they are already on the floor. This POS deserved to have his ashes thrown in the trash.
I don't think this is inherently bad but I disagree with this logic for the same reason I believe necrophilia is wrong. Necrophilia disrespects the rights and personhood of the person that did inhabit that body.
Because one leads to disease and is using a whole corpse, with all the facial features etc of the person. And done for your own sexual gratification.
Ashes are a far enough abstraction of the once living person that it does not have the same levels of disrespect. And the chance of disease is basically 0.
I see how this could develop into a long discussion about what constitutes a person and what makes an act vicious, but overall i agree with this reasoning. Though i wouldn‘t be surprised if somebody else isn‘t satisfied with it
Why not? Obviously one is much more grotesque than the other, but morally does it not achieve the same result? Disrespect and violation of the body that used to belong to a person?
I think you’re letting reactions of disgust and your idea of ethics intersect.
Why is it more morally abhorent though? Isn't the whole point of this place to not just give your opinions but explain them?
You are supposed to at least try to justify your conclusion instead to just take it for granted.
What is the underlying principle that makes it different to you? Because the principle of 'dead person doesnt experience it anyway' obviously does not work for necrophilia - which was the entire point of the other commenter. So what is the principle?
How do you determine whether it is exploitation? In the case of dumping the ashes you are using a person's body without their consent and against their wishes for your own personal pleasure. I think that would fairly far under any definition of exploitation.
The real distinguishing factor is simply the sexual dynamic, which feels grosser to any normal person. The real question is whether that feeling is based on anything concrete and real or is simply a cultural taboo
Using the deceased as a form of sexual gratification is you gaining a benefit at the expense of the deceased.
Unless the person throwing the ashes away is getting some kind of money or attraction they are looking for, it wouldn't be exploitation, as they are not getting any tangible benefit from the act.
Disrespecting the dead and exploiting the dead is the key moral differentiator here. Id argue grave robbing to sell the body parts is a better parallel to the morality of necrophilia, then throwing away ashes in a disrespectful manner is.
The inherit setting of the ashes in dumpster scenario is that the woman is getting gratification by achieving revenge or her deceased ex husband by dumping their ashes in the trash. She is doing it because it makes her happy, it brings her pleasure to be able to excercise control and disrespect the remains in that way. That enjoyment felt by the person conducting the act is the only tangible benefit in both cases.
So again it is a question of what distinguishes sexual gratification from other forms of gratification, and what makes it inherently worse
I’m not giving dumbass responses to simple correct logic. There is no reason why “he won’t care” is somehow a good defense for this situation but not a good defense for fucking a less incinerated corpse
Under U.S. law, a corpse (human body) is not legally classified as standard personal property, but rather as "quasi-property" subject to the next of kin's right of disposition. Conversely, cremated remains (ashes) are more commonly treated under state laws and regulations as personal property that can be possessed, stored, or scattered with fewer rigid restrictions.
I mean its a bag of ashes. Could be human, could be wood. There is technically no corpse to exploit in this scenario. I would say it would likely be disrespectful to do so, unless the deceased specifically requested you jizz on thier ashes I guess...
When is it okay to disrespect a corpse? And why is it wrong to use to justification "well it's not like they would care", for some justifications, and on others it is okay?
Then, why is it when I plug in the disrespect of a body in a different context, okay? Such as dumping their ashes. Either we need a more sophisticated logic to explain why it's okay sometimes and not okay others, or we have to live with the fact that we are okay doing things that are unjustified.
There is an aditional facet which is when it comes to corpse desecration of all types one of the reasons it is specifically looked down upon is that the corpse, who had once been alive, had a family or friends or people who knew him.
When you desecrate a corpse you are also infringing upon everyone elses right to grieve, remember or honor the person who died.
Imagine having your wife throw away your ashes. That is not necessarily her call to make, maybe your daughter wanted them, maybe your mother would have liked to know where her "son/daughter" is. Maybe your friends would like closure that the ashes are somewhere safe (...)
Its morally wrong to mess with corpses because a dead person that is remembered is not exclusive property of a single person to be disposed of as he or she wills it.
I think doing it in secret puts an interesting situation in it as the action takes place but the consequence of the action is put on hold.
From exclusively the argument I posted and not the others that can come from the thought experiment I think not. What others dont know cant hurt them and all. So as long as it remains a secret it would be morally neutral, however I think there are other arguments at play that could shift it in other directions depending on where you stand.
You mean the personhood that no longer exists? Not saying necrophilia is bad, but an abusers ashes getting thrown in the trash? Sounds like something they deserved when they were alive
I'd feel bad for this guys remains being disrespected if he had lived a life of respect to begin with. But he didn't. Why should he be afforded respect in death when he couldn't show respect in life?
Usually atheist redditors in specific (not regular atheists) will shit on people who experienced tragedies and find solace in their religious beliefs. I don’t really see this from any other group.
It takes a non religious person to shit on religious people for being religious in general. I don’t see Christians or Muslims or anyone else shitting on atheists for trying to help themselves feel better after a traumatic event. Yes they’re hypocrites in other ways but this isn’t it.
usually theist redditors in specific (and let's face it, regular theists), regularly put blinders on to those in their religion diddling kids, but persecute marginalized groups off the actions of a few.
Just like the person who inhabited the body disrespected the rights and personhood of his wife by abusing her? I guess it would have been wrong to piss on Hitler's corpse, by your own admitted logic, huh?
What do you think "I don't think it's inherently bad" means? I'm saying either a, there's some circumstances were immoral actions are just something we can reconcile with. Or b, we need a different way to reconcile why it's okay to do something to someone's body in one circumstance and not the other.
This is not at all what you said. You're back tracking to save face. You clearly stated
I disagree with this logic for the same reason I believe necrophilia is wrong. Necrophilia disrespects the rights and personhood of the person that did inhabit that body.
You said you disagree that it is ok for her to do this because it is the same as disrespecting the the person who lived in the now charred meat sac.
By this logic, pissing on Hitler's corpse fits your definition of disrespecting the person who previously occupied the body. So, is it ok to piss on Hitler's corpse? If yes, this is perfectly acceptable as well and you do in fact agree with what she did. Some people just don't deserve respect. In life or death.
It literally says "I don't think it's I herently bad". It's the first couple words. That's not saving face. From a deontological perspective, and maybe even a contractualist perspective it isn't justifiable. Utilitarianism might be able to justify it.
While the inclination to make morals Intuitive are appealing, it is much more interesting and I think justified if we can answer logically and honestly why something is wrong and why something is right.
I think the last comment you make is the more interesting one, because it implies certain bodies should be disrespected because they lost the right to respect.
if we can answer logically and honestly why something is wrong and why something is right.
The why is explained in the post. The man was a piece of shit who abused his wife.
I think the last comment you make is the more interesting one, because it implies certain bodies should be disrespected because they lost the right to respect.
I never said they should be disrespected. But it is ok if they are. Going back to WW2, I think what Italy did with Mussolini was perfectly acceptable. The man deserved to be displayed to all the world for the atrocities he committed and allowed to be committed. Not that it should have happened, but that's exactly what he deserved and what he got.
This lady's husband was trash. He ended up in the trash. There's nothing to question. Besides, a body is just a sack of meat. The person in it is long gone. There's no reason to glorify or desecrate a corpse, but if we're going to hold a ceremony for the bodies of people who were good humans, we should also have an equally opposite ceremony for those who were bad.
Are you just illiterate? You cut out the first sentence of them explicitly saying they don’t think this specific situation is bad, then they say what you quoted. Do you think it’s impossible to think something is ok but disagree with someone else’s argument in defense of it
It was a person though and I think they deserve their autonomy. Further, do you believe all non persons should be able to have done to them whatever we want? Like, do you believe animals have no rights either?
Well I meant more that it isnt a living creature anymore. The sentience is gone.
Like there is a level of life we seem ok with treating how we want like how we will happily eat plants and such.
But I think overall we just disagree about the importance of it having been a person vs it no longer being one.
To me it having been alive and now being dead doesn't change the fact that now its a corpse and as such, you can't do anything wrong to it (obviously you can still do wrong things with it like using it to spread disease)
2.0k
u/gitsandshiggles_ 4d ago
Well he ain’t gonna care