All of us try to live by some expression of the golden rule, which is to treat others with the respect you believe you deserve. The origin of human rights is within that expression of the conscience. If we see killing, we ask ourselves - would we want to be the victim? Since we wouldn't, we believe that people should not be unjustly murdered. There are many expectations we agree that human beings should have of one another, including much more than murder. Some of us have a challenge accepting the universality of human rights. They think we must have all the rights possible, or none at all - that MY rights count more than YOUR rights. They should have the right to fuck that person they're attracted to, even if the person won't let them. Of course, that's hypocritical, and one can imagine they would see the problem with their attitude if all of society acted that way and suddenly someone just killed them because they didn't agree with their opinion. This sort of thing always comes up in the depths of depravity that prejudiced people descend into trying to defend their dislike of homosexuality. They morally justify horrible things, losing sight of the harm that can be done in those actions and comparing them to harmless consensual homosexuality. Why, for example, should necrophilia be wrong? A human being that is dead cannot claim human rights, right? Wrong. We can't enforce them, but we do claim them - as living people yet to die - and we agree that the survivors will respect our rights and see that our last wishes are accounted for. We agree that our human rights extend beyond the grave, that we should be able to expect not to be raped whether we are dead or alive... that any abuse to our corpse would constitute a unconsented violation. We agree that our right to self-determination of our belongings does not end with death, so that we can leave behind instructions about what will become of our wealth. We have human rights even as human corpses, because those rights don't cover our material but our well-being, reputation, integrity, dignity, and in death our legacy. Human rights are a matter of community. When some are treated unfairly, we struggle to reach a compromise and agree to a change. It's our history and our identity. We agree to defend our collective human rights. These rights begin as ideas in our conscience - in our good natures - and spread into the community where they are imbued with their power. Anyone can say "there is no agent of the universe that grants these rights" until they're blue in the face, but that person will answer to the community and that community will be thinking "we are that agent." Best hope there is an agent of the universe that can help your reputation with the community if you violate the human rights of the dead. No one will want you around.
Was all of this made in response to that the same arguments used in favor for homosexuality can also be used for necrophilia? lol May I personally ask you a question? Do you care what happens to your body after you die? And if so, why? And how would you ever be able to tell? What difference would it make to you if someone violated your corpse as opposed not to?
I made this in case there was anyone who doubted, or who wanted a more detailed response to the notion that a person forfeits their human rights upon death, or who wanted the existence of human rights justified. I consider it preliminary and incomplete, but sufficient for now. There is harm in necrophilia that does not exist in homosexuality. Period. That has been argued ad nauseam in the other thread. Yes, I care what happens to my body. I want it respected in the normal way we respect bodies, in a coffin in a grave. My final fate matters to me, and I don't want it cheapened any more than death already does. Put me in a peaceful place and leave me to the passing of time, don't let some asshole put his balls on my face. That's humiliating. I would not want to be violated in death, I would consider such a violation as despicable as if it had occurred in life. I'm not big on funerals, but I'm not against it because those who love me will need the ceremony. I know I will never know if it happens. Part of the reason we respect the dead as a community is so that we can have a reasonable expectation that we will be protected against violation once we are no longer able to protect ourselves.
So it's not wrong in an absolute sense at all, it's just all depending on the cultural upbringing, correct? There is no absolute inalienable right, it's just how society views the act. If a society existed where they viewed it as respectful to have sex with the deceased then it'd be disrespectful NOT to perform such an act.
Right and wrong is agreed upon by your society. The society you describe has never existed to my knowledge on this planet. Maybe aliens. I suppose if we met aliens like that, we'd have to respect their right to do that to each other and they'd have to respect our right that they can't do it to our dead. There is also the matter of culture and subculture. If there is a subculture with that practice but it is within a larger culture that taboos it, they still have to answer to the culture.
Who is calling our rights absolute? They're not. If you harm other's freedoms, then your right is revoked. That means it's not absolute. And do you even know what inalienable means? Or no? And who is saying human rights are something that exists inherently like the law of gravity. NOONE. Well, you. They're not, we invented them for protection. It's an invention, like the constitution, the car, the sword, whatver fuckin else you can think of.
If we found a society in the remote jungle who viewed necrophilia as a respectful act, then we'd be forced to accept them as normal and not punish them, correct? Duh that's what I've been saying the entire time in the other thread... you know, the one you kept arguing against me in..
How can we punish another society, that's not our place. We control our country, people who live here follow our laws. And we would view them as barbarians since we live in a society that protects people from defilement. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist though lol. We made it up, it exists. And no one is arguing against you in the other thread on those issues, you just ignored us
But what you view as defilement, they view as respect. What you view as respect, the see as disrespect.
A right is something to which one has a just claim. I claim a right to have some control over my sexual interactions with others. That is a just claim, and dying doesn't unclaim it. If you violate that right after I am dead, you are taking something from me.
We don't have to like it, but what happens in another culture is beyond our influence whether we like it or not. Look at the Muslim world. No one is trying to invade these countries to free women. In our own culture we have rights and freedoms and take pride in the idea that we are roughly equals. We have a history of leveling the playing field over time. It wasn't easy, but it has happened. We still have some groups of people who are denied rights. That is, they see our rights, that our claims are just; they make the same claims which are also just, but some of us resist validating their claims even though their rights would not infringe upon ours.
Explain how a deceased human can own anything in the first place to be even be able to even take it from them. That's like saying Abraham Lincoln has the inalienable rights to remain the president of the United States indefinitely.
First, you explain how a living human being can own anything. First, he was replaced in office by a process that was agreed upon well before it happened. So, living or dead, no person is President permanently. We have term limits, they did not, but in any case they served in terms and were subject to the vote. If there had not been a procedure for the death of a President, the people would have voted that they needed a living person for their next President. Second, the fact that he was a President of the United States will never be taken from him.
My point being is that when you're dead, you're dead. You can't own a house when you're dead, you can't practice free speech when you're dead, and you sure don't have any rights to practice as a corpse period. You're unconscious and anything that happens to your body will go unknown because you can't tell the difference whether someone violates your corpse or not. Your body consists of inanimate matter. When you're dead your bodies just a bag of inanimate unconscious matter. Sure you might not like the fact of what could happen after you die, but what's your point? Some may view to respect your wishes, but same could be said for numerous other things as well.. Afterall it's just a wish, no one's actually being harmed from it.
THE HELL YOU CAN'T. My belongings are NOT public domain. My right to determination is not ended by my death - my will is an expression of my speech right, and only if I decide not to exercise that right can my belongings be distributed in some other way and that's only because I didn't leave instructions. Human rights are claimed justly in life and are not rescinded in death. The community will see to that whether you agree or not. And this is exactly why the community will protect your rights. Because they're all people who don't want to be violated in death themselves and they know the only way they can be confident they won't is if they defend the rights of the dead and promote them for the future generation. That's not true. The dead person is harmed, the survivors are harmed, the community is harmed, and if you do that much harm you'll see consequences whether you agree with them or not. That was the point.