Arguments Against Necrophilia

The moralization of the feeling of disgust has been the unsound premise of many arguments about the ethics of homosexuality. In the case of homosexuality the argument has lost much of its once strong persuasive power, however in the case of necrophilia our moral intuitions appear not to have shifted quite so much. Moreover, there seem to be no sound arguments against homosexuality, and thus, when the same arguments are applied to necrophilia their logical consistency is no stronger. This essay disproves the strongest arguments against homosexuality and shows that when the same arguments are applied to necrophilia they too fail to prove necrophilia’s immorality. Finally, some unique arguments are posited against necrophilia that are not applicable to homosexuality that may leave necrophilia’s moral status open.
The argument for disgust as a moral indicator is surely one of the weakest arguments against homosexuality (Davies, 2012:617). The most charitable form of the argument is as follows. When an act causes wider society to feel disgust, typically on a level fundamental to humanity, that act is wrong (the clause of it being fundamental to humanity pre-emptively negates the subjectivity rebuttal) (Leiser, 1997:263). When the argument is clearly explicated, it evidently has no persuasive power. This is due to the lack of a clear link …show more content…
In world one all of your friends respect you and regard you well, and act accordingly. In the second world, all of your friends act in the exact same way as they would in world one; however they secretly despise you and think poorly of you. If you believe harm only lies in perceptible negative materialisations, both of these scenarios are of equal harm, i.e. none. However, if you do believe harm lies in setting back of interest, and one of your interests is to be truly well regarded, then it appears there are indeed harms in the second scenario (Alexander & Moore,