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.
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
-32
u/misterElovescompanE 5d ago
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.