So, the closest thing I’ve had to a childhood hero is Spock from the 60s Star Trek show. As I’ve grown older and more aware of of the world around me, I’ve realized elevating rationality to a virtue by itself isn’t enough to form a coherent ethos. In fact, I think individuals are actually very bad at rationality. Everyone who puts rationality on a pedestal, from Zizians to SBF to Reddit atheists to Elon Musk to Randian libertarians, is really just forgetting how subjective rationality can be.
I firmly believe that compassion is just as important as rationality when it comes to building strong, honest societies. You need both. We want ethics that are internally consistent, sure, but rationality and internal consistency don’t themselves give ethics purpose.
Putting aside the discussion about bodies and objects, the primary concern is consent - which also applies to objects anyway. Would you steal a dead person’s wallet “because they don’t need it anymore”?
Objects can’t consent at all and they never could, permission from an object to act on it sounds exactly like why the right think the left has gone crazy.
Biology and philosophy absolutely do not disagree. Some parts of philosophy, yes. Biologically they are a pile of complex organic matter that is unbinding.
What do you mean never? When they were alive they could consent. Why does that change when they die? Just because someone is incapacitated through death, doesn’t give us the right to rape them. When consent is not given it is presumed you don’t have it.
When alive, the body was a person. They are not incapacitated through death, they dead. Gone. The person ceases to be and only the object and memories remain.
And calling people objects is why the right is crazy.
If a person drowns and has no heartbeat, is it okay for you to have a quickie with them before the paramedics arrive to save him? Clinically they’re dead, so… by your logic, they’re an object, and never had the ability to consent in the first place, so quickly fucking them up the arse should be a-okay, right?
Or is there like a timer you have for when a person goes from a person to an object, which then retroactively never had personhood anyway? Is it just time, or is it temperature, or as soon as the smell sets in? Some people have been clinically dead for half an hour in cold water before being resuscitated, the cold helping protect from brain damage. And some people smell like dead bodies while alive.
The object never has agency. The person does. This edge case is a fine one, but only suggests that the person is dormant, not gone, and can be returned to life. If a body is in a morgue for a week, that ain’t going to be a possibility.
Yeah. People aren’t objects. Even if human remains were, you’d have a hard time arguing when a person stops existing without “well once they’ve rotted for a week, they’re definitely not alive.” yeah no shit
Because, they can shamelessly pay them less and get away with it?
No because men rape the dead bodies of women
That’s not the reason
I wouldn’t even consider to call them human, let alone “men”. Just talking animal.
Talking animal is what all humans are…
How about a combination of both
deleted by creator
Why would you consider that to be rape?
Why would any man consider that…
Ew.
As a man, some of my brethren are fucking gross and have no self control
Why wouldn’t you? There are very few instances in which one can assume they have consent over another person’s body.
Because rape is something that happens to a person, not an object. Are women raping their dildos?
Hey, what kinda person are you?
A rational one.
So, the closest thing I’ve had to a childhood hero is Spock from the 60s Star Trek show. As I’ve grown older and more aware of of the world around me, I’ve realized elevating rationality to a virtue by itself isn’t enough to form a coherent ethos. In fact, I think individuals are actually very bad at rationality. Everyone who puts rationality on a pedestal, from Zizians to SBF to Reddit atheists to Elon Musk to Randian libertarians, is really just forgetting how subjective rationality can be.
I firmly believe that compassion is just as important as rationality when it comes to building strong, honest societies. You need both. We want ethics that are internally consistent, sure, but rationality and internal consistency don’t themselves give ethics purpose.
Compassion isn’t irrational and rationality doesn’t require its exclusion.
Putting aside the discussion about bodies and objects, the primary concern is consent - which also applies to objects anyway. Would you steal a dead person’s wallet “because they don’t need it anymore”?
Can you rape a wallet?
Dead people can’t consent
Neither can shoes.
Neither can couches.
A dead person isn’t equal to a shoe. As humans we show more respect to our dead than old shoes.
You said dead people can’t consent. I said neither can shoes. Tell me the bit where I am wrong?
You have now added something about equality, on which I never commented.
I’m sure dead people don’t mind.
They might not mind but their family members do
deleted by creator
Objects can’t consent at all and they never could, permission from an object to act on it sounds exactly like why the right think the left has gone crazy.
Biology, legality and philosophy all disagree with your assertion that a dead body is equivalent to random inanimate objects.
It’s human remains. A deceased individual. A corpse. You do not get to treat it on the same level as a shoe.
Biology and philosophy absolutely do not disagree. Some parts of philosophy, yes. Biologically they are a pile of complex organic matter that is unbinding.
What do you mean never? When they were alive they could consent. Why does that change when they die? Just because someone is incapacitated through death, doesn’t give us the right to rape them. When consent is not given it is presumed you don’t have it.
When alive, the body was a person. They are not incapacitated through death, they dead. Gone. The person ceases to be and only the object and memories remain.
Notice how you use the pronoun “they” for what you said is now an object.
“They” is referring to the person.
And calling people objects is why the right is crazy.
If a person drowns and has no heartbeat, is it okay for you to have a quickie with them before the paramedics arrive to save him? Clinically they’re dead, so… by your logic, they’re an object, and never had the ability to consent in the first place, so quickly fucking them up the arse should be a-okay, right?
Or is there like a timer you have for when a person goes from a person to an object, which then retroactively never had personhood anyway? Is it just time, or is it temperature, or as soon as the smell sets in? Some people have been clinically dead for half an hour in cold water before being resuscitated, the cold helping protect from brain damage. And some people smell like dead bodies while alive.
I’m just curious as to your personal criteria.
The object never has agency. The person does. This edge case is a fine one, but only suggests that the person is dormant, not gone, and can be returned to life. If a body is in a morgue for a week, that ain’t going to be a possibility.
Yeah. People aren’t objects. Even if human remains were, you’d have a hard time arguing when a person stops existing without “well once they’ve rotted for a week, they’re definitely not alive.” yeah no shit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox
The person isn’t an object but the body, specifically, definitely is.