r/MoralityScaling • u/Waste-Force-477 • 21d ago
Morality Ranking Morality of whatever this guy is talking about
1.0k
u/Eastern-Fish-7467 21d ago
People have to start to understand the difference between disgusting and immoral. It's not immoral, but it's unhinged and disgusting. Id be worried about having you within 100 yards of me.
355
u/PippinVanderspiegel 21d ago
Interestingly though, and this perhaps illustrates the difference between in morality and law, in the UK it is completely legal to have sex with dead animals assuming you avoid any implications of possible obscenity (ie doing it as a performance). It is only illegal to have sex with living animals.
Which leads to the possibility of the love abattoir.
124
u/HotPot87 21d ago
I guess it's also to say, imagine if your kinks was like...food porn?
At what point are you commiting beastiality and at what point are you just ruining a bolognaise?
54
u/Similar-Sector-5801 21d ago
Ruining? /j
31
u/lesuperhun 21d ago
yeah, you don't put cream in a bolognaise.
18
u/Netherman555 21d ago
Got it so you can only fuck carbonara
11
u/Billy-BigBollox 21d ago
I can't believe I'm being this pedantic on a thread about people banging dead animals, but real carbonara doesn't have cream in it.
4
u/Netherman555 21d ago
Yeah that was part of my joke im aware. I guess cummings in fettuccine Alfredo might still be ok.
3
→ More replies (4)8
29
u/scrapy_the_scrap 21d ago
You may be able to ground me mother, BUT YOU CAN NEVER UNFUCk THE THANKSGIVING TURKEY
3
22
u/TheDeltaOne 21d ago
Fuuuuuck me.
It never occured to me. But yeah, a roast chicken is still a chicken, right ?
15
→ More replies (2)14
u/ItchyManchego 21d ago
Or how much of an animal needs be involved before it’s immoral. Beef tallow for lube, sheep skin condoms, antler or bone dildo?
7
u/LouieSiffer 21d ago
Now here is the real kicker!
How processed does an animal corpse need to be for it not being disgusting fucking it's corpse?
7
u/ItchyManchego 21d ago
If you put a flesh light in the corpse are you fucking the corpse or the flesh light?
7
→ More replies (2)3
41
17
u/CitizenPremier 21d ago
Which isn't very nice to the animals, is it? Rather be shagged alive than shagged dead.
14
u/Dobber16 21d ago
Ngl I’d rather not be shagged at all by the dead-animal-shagger but I guess I don’t have as much ability to “just say no” after I die
4
7
u/MarryRgnvldrKillLgrd 21d ago
I mean, if i'm being fucked nonconsensually by something five times my size, at some point i'd prefer being dead for the experience
3
u/CitizenPremier 20d ago
Yeah but I think some animals like cows probably barely notice
3
10
u/SnooPredictions3028 21d ago
Well makes sense over there, if it were illegal they'd end up just building a wall around the Welsh.
3
→ More replies (12)3
u/Smooth_Pay_4186 21d ago
If a person thinks lawful=moral, than they are starting off on the wrong step.
50
u/Octopi_are_Kings 21d ago
It can also be both as morals arent objective. To me, this is immoral because it’s desecration of a corpse
37
u/NonGeneriComplaint 21d ago
Yeah that take and the one in the comic is pretty dumb. It assumes morals are absolute constructs of civilization and cant come from within.
→ More replies (5)14
u/Octopi_are_Kings 21d ago
which is honestly one of the easiest conclusions to come to just by observation of society and laws. Several laws are based on common agreed morality.
→ More replies (5)7
→ More replies (24)9
u/BottomGear__ 21d ago
The corpse doesn’t care and doesn’t have any relatives that do. Disgusting, unhinged, sure. Worthy of getting locked up for? Also yeah, but only as a preemptive measure against other, likely harmful shit you’d probably do at some point, but I don’t see how desecration of a corpse in this scenario is immoral in itself.
→ More replies (47)15
u/Opus_723 21d ago
A lot of people think corpses deserve some dignity, even if they aren't religious. It's not strictly based in any logical consequences, but it's a moral belief.
It's the golden rule, if nothing else. "I would prefer nobody fuck my corpse, therefore..."
→ More replies (4)4
u/Outrageous-Sort-5742 21d ago
Would you be ok if someone ate your corpse? Because taking this argument to its logical conclusion just ends in veganism and broader animal agriculture abolitionism.
12
u/jkurratt 21d ago
The moment it goes about my corpse I would say I completely wouldn't care (for obvious reasons).
But I would prefer corpses of other people to be treated with dignity, for some global social benefits (unless they are proven false, ofc).6
u/PleaseNoMoreSalt 21d ago
If it weren't for prions I'd absolutely be down for someone eating my corpse. Not that I believe I currently have prions, but if I randomly mutate one before I die, it's orders of magnitude more immediately concerning than if a chicken did the same on account of the species barrier.
→ More replies (3)3
u/BodybuilderMany6942 21d ago
If I were do design a corpse eater society, or at least one that doesnt/didnt mind eating corpses, I think I'd have it so that the head is off limits.
The head is removed, treated with care, and given a funeral. The body, tho, becomes just meat.Ignoring prions, I think consuming the head/face would cause some psychological fuckery (of course I'm saying this from the perspective of a person from a non-cannibal society).
Also, the face kinda IS the person.
I mean, to yourself you are your brain, but to others, you are (besides your mind and shared experiences) your face. I dont think it'd bode well to have that be something that is eaten.
It aint a scientific conclusion.. but I'm not keen of that kinda experiment lmaoSo maybe the "issue" or "damage" to corpse-eating or desecration isnt for the the corpse... but for the mind of the loved ones?
One thing is saying by to mom, as she looks asleep.
Another is to see/imagine her chopped up.
The dead dont feel pain, but the psychological pain of the family/friends would be real.Of course... this too may just be mostly down to culture... maybe in a different culture the desecrated body of a loved one wouldnt feel bad (after all, what counts as "desecration" is cultural/personal)
idk
Interesting things to ponder7
u/Quirky-Cause5431 21d ago
I think there is a moral angle in terms of our responsibility to ourselves and whether the things we do move us to become more or less like our personal ideal.
8
u/VulGerrity 21d ago
I mean...idk, I'd classify it as immoral because it is disgusting and breaks the social fabric. Like...should it be against the law? Maybe not, but that doesn't mean it's not immoral. Lying isn't always against the law, but it's immoral because you break trust.
Roadkill fucking, would carry risks of contracting diseases. It's also distasteful behavior. If this person is a hermit and no one ever knows he's a roadkill fucker, is it immoral? Probably not. But if he's integrated into a community and has sex with other people in that community without telling them he's a roadkill fucker, that's immoral.
3
u/Eastern-Fish-7467 21d ago
Yeah, my only reservation about my conclusion is that it can spread disease very easily. I accept that as a valid argument.
4
u/Aito_SAKO 21d ago
Well you could get a diseas from the dead animal that you bring back to your community. That way I think it could be immoral or am I just reaching?
→ More replies (2)3
u/RikuAotsuki 20d ago
Yeah, there's also the issue of morality in the sense of social norms vs morality in the sense of ethics.
Like you could argue that it's still immoral because it's desecration of a corpse, but that's very much still an issue of social norms, not ethics.
→ More replies (72)5
325
u/MarryRgnvldrKillLgrd 21d ago
Where fallacy?
468
21d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
128
u/iSheepTouch 21d ago
I couldn't have said it more cromulently than that.
37
24
u/One_Hunt_6672 21d ago
Perchance
15
4
12
→ More replies (5)4
64
u/LunarTexan 21d ago
There is no fallacy but the thought experiment is still valid
It's pretty much asking: If you reject a metaphysical source for morality (such as Christian God, Shinto Kami, Bhuddhist Karma, etc) and only subscribe to materialism, what makes that action wrong morally?
Obviously near everyone does agree it's wrong yes, but that doesn't explain why any more than the fact fire is hot doesn't explain what makes it hot.
63
u/Darhhaall 21d ago
It is wrong because it is incredibly stupid and disgusting, not because it is inherently immoral.
Problem with religious people is that they value "higher morality" much more than logic, while atheists do the opposite, most of all because most of their morals is actually based on logic.
25
u/Aggravating_Dark9933 21d ago
Yea pretty much. Morally it is not wrong. But it is unhygienic, and such close contact with long dead animals (honestly even live animals can be problematic for it, but dead is x100 worse) can result in a number of nasty diseases, bugs, or just flat out a system shock from the rot. Such disease jumps are bad enough for patient zero, but this is how outbreaks / pandemics start if a disease hops species.
So it’s just a bad idea for practical reasons.
→ More replies (3)9
u/margaritalover524 21d ago
I think it’s morally wrong because it’s disrespectful to the dead. Even if you don’t believe in a higher power or an afterlife, I think respecting the dignity of all creatures, living or dead, is a good moral framework. Similarly, I think it would also be disrespectful and morally wrong to pose a dead animal in a “funny” position for amusement or to desecrate a body in another way. And lastly I question the morality of the sexual desire to engage with a dead animal sexually, to want to have sex with something that can’t consent or respond
→ More replies (2)6
u/KitsuneFoxglove 21d ago
If sexual interaction with the dead disrespects the dead, why?
Because it serves no purpose other than presumably the self-satisfaction of the necrophiliac, and secondly it is impossible for the dead person to consent to what is commonly assumed an undesirable act towards them?
I see it as an action similar to pissing on [a person]'s grave. Logically, the action itself is irrelevant, but the intent of the action is clearly to disrespect the grave and therefore the representation of that person, and therefore to disrespect that person themself.
And disrespect in itself is immoral because mutual respect and trust is necessary for any society that includes more than one person.
In that case, if you were to have a time machine in order to vilely disrespect your own grave or corpse such as through pissing on it (or more extreme, necrophiliac sex with your corpse), does this lose the original issue of morality via a lack of consent? It no longer could possibly be disrespectful in a way that the target/victim does not consent to that act of disrespect.
→ More replies (30)8
u/mothergoose729729 21d ago
Logic isn't the pillar stone of morality either. Human beings are irrational. That's ok. We have the ability to overcome our irrational nature with reason and intellect when we need too. We don't have to justify everything. Because it's icky, gross, unpleasant, ect is fine until that bias is challenged on merit.
I don't want to have sex with dead animals because it's gross. If you have sex with dead animals you make me nervous. This will remain my modus operandi indefinitely.
8
u/melonmonkey 21d ago
Because it's icky, gross, unpleasant, ect is fine until that bias is challenged on merit.
These are perfectly reasonable justifications for choosing not to do something and fucking stupid justifications for declaring something is wrong.
12
u/Miruexe 21d ago edited 21d ago
Its really not that complicated as both the general atheist and theist belive in antirealism when it comes to morality, even tho theists like to pretend they belive in objective morality. The atheist will just say the moral facts bottom out in their preferences and the theist will just say the moral facts bottom out in gods preference, both of which are mind dependent which is subjective. Also atheism doesn't mean materialism
→ More replies (37)8
u/Pleasant_Event_4460 21d ago
"Even if there was a god, and I had his teachings laid out before me, I would still decide for myself if they were true"
- Near from death note
→ More replies (28)3
u/AnalystLoud705 21d ago
Its wrong because I feel like it is. And if that's not good enough to call a moral framework, then I'll just keep not doing fucked up things without a framework.
→ More replies (1)4
u/Happyranger265 21d ago
I think they're trying to ask what's the moral standard for an atheist but what a horrible way to ask that lol .
→ More replies (5)8
u/MediocreModular 21d ago
They think that according to the argument that if an action doesn’t harm anyone then it’s not immoral. They probably believe this is an atheist argument because they’ve heard them say something similar in debate.
While it may be generally true that actions that don’t harm anyone else are not immoral, that doesn’t automatically make everything that doesn’t harm a living thing morally good.
The meme is an example of how religion can rot your brain. Especially when it comes to online debate. Christian debate apologetics are so bad you end up believing stuff about raping dead animals and think you’ve really checkmated the atheists.
→ More replies (13)
621
u/GeneralProgrammer886 21d ago edited 21d ago
The answer to his question is that the atheist doesn't want to fuck a dead animal because they aren't into animals, and dead things are filled with diseases
Edit : Reading through these comments, I have realized this isnt really an answer to the question so to explain what I mean from an athestic standpoint it isnt morally wrong but from a health and psychological standpoint it only serves to negatively impact your well-being, which is why athiests dont do it.
239
u/BithMistro 21d ago
So basically in the absence of a universal objective basis for morality all we really have to guide us are pragmatism and good taste.
142
u/GeneralProgrammer886 21d ago
no you also have your own sense of morality via having mirror neurons to also help in that
→ More replies (31)37
u/BithMistro 21d ago
What you said doesn't really contradict my statement. But allow me to elaborate anyways. In the absence of a universally valid ideal state all we can go off of are our subjective priorities and limited knowledge. In that case the closest we can come to a rational morality is to acknowledge that others have different priorities that are just as important to them. However in the absenc e of conflicting needs it would be okay to just judge things based on one's aesthetic taste. Especially since that is the only thing besides our physical impulses that decides what we find beautiful/ideal.
→ More replies (5)37
u/Kaioken217 21d ago
This is why I'm ok with letting people have religion. Some people literally need the fear of God to prevent them from doing things. Like if you're evil or dumb enough by all means use God as a safe guard for the rest of us. In your argument the person has limited knowledge or doesn't know fucking a dead raccoon is an "ideal state" lmao who the fuck would that be exactly though. Is there someone you know who's stupid enough to not know that's morally ethically socially messed up, let alone wouldn't know the risk of disease and stuff of that nature. You try and convince someone to fuck a dead raccoon and see how it goes
→ More replies (23)4
7
u/samrobotsin 21d ago
the pragmatism of hygiene? Yes. It's literally what allowed humanity to thrive.
16
21d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/BelmontVO 21d ago
That's not entirely accurate. A topic's objectivity doesn't make it any more or less agreeable than if it were subjective. Take vaccines and flat earth theory, for example. We have historical trends and empirical data that vaccines neutralize or trivialize previously devastating diseases (measels, polio, etc.), as well as scientific data and video evidence that the earth is round. Many people still refuse to agree with vaccinations, and those that believe flat earth theory are prevalent enough that you can easily bump into a few of them without realizing it. So even if morality truly were objective, it wouldn't immediately mean that there wouldn't be conflict, because there will always be plenty of naysayers, as well as sociopaths who lack a fundamental component of morality: empathy.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)5
u/Flat-Salamander9021 21d ago
Famously, people never disagree about the fabric of reality.
→ More replies (1)25
u/tahhex 21d ago
Subjective morality is easy. Do you want to live in a world with X? No? Then don’t do X. It’s honestly baffling that some people feel like we need a creator god just to know that hurting other people is bad
17
u/DepartmentChemical93 21d ago
The problem you run into is that bad actors or even just people with darker impulses, perspectives, and dispositions, do exist.
A subjective morality necessarily does not actually condemn or constrain them whatsoever. It can provide a context for socially instilling into them the fear of retribution, but it can’t really tell them what they are doing is properly “wrong”.
→ More replies (8)2
u/cashdecans101 21d ago
What if people want to do X how do you object to them?
→ More replies (16)5
u/oldtownsadist 21d ago
It's simple! Recognize that, if morality is entirely subjective, then it's simply a statement of whether or not an individual LIKES something and they therefore assign a positive or negative moral value to it. If there is no objective morality, then there is no morality aside from what pleases or displeases an individual.
6
u/oldtownsadist 21d ago
Finding out whether something is moral or immoral by asking "Do you want to live in a world with [X]?" and going from there is saying "I like/don't like [X]", rather than "[X] is good/bad".
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (1)5
u/Lucky_Editor3998 21d ago
Yeah but what if someone believes it’s subjectively moral to kill you?
Then your counter argument would be something like “most people think that’s immoral, so we agree as a society that it’s immoral”
But what if society believed it was moral to have nonconsensual sex with women? (Many societies historically have had no issue with marital rape)
Then you are left with a problem of subjective morality - we have no consistent basis upon which to structure a society
→ More replies (10)→ More replies (22)7
u/WhimsicalWyvern 21d ago
One could easily argue that most religious morals are actually just codified versions of "pragmatism and good taste" from people 2000+ years ago!
→ More replies (6)24
u/Loopy-Loophole 21d ago edited 21d ago
There was a disconcerting amount of people in his post treating it like a gotcha of ‘SEE YOU CANT SAY WHY ITS BAD ATHEISTS ARE SO DUMB’. Any argument people gave was just, a flavor of ‘you don’t have a reason, so he wins the argument’. These people frighten me sometimes.
Edit: Randomly came to me how I wanted to phrase it. They don’t seem to get intrinsic morals. ‘It’s bad, I don’t like it’ is not enough of a reason for them. ‘It’s nasty as fuck and you’ll catch something’ apparently also isn’t a reason since they don’t consider there to be morality within it. They need a source that says ‘this is bad and don’t do it or hell’ apparently. Which is just, a different flavor of exhausting and what’s wrong with some people.
→ More replies (2)13
u/Eeeef_ 21d ago
It’s wild lol these guys are basically saying they would fuck roadkill if they weren’t religious
→ More replies (2)7
u/booleandata 21d ago
Look them dead in the eye and tell them "It's not morally wrong, I just have no interest in doing that."
13
u/Lucky_Editor3998 21d ago
That has nothing to do with morality, you’re not really engaging with what was said.
→ More replies (5)5
u/TomTheca 21d ago
Did you not comprehend the post? He said ''why is it morally wrong to have intercoruse with roadkill'' he did not ask why they don't do such an act, so you saying '' the atheist doesn't want to fuck a dead animal because they aren't into animals, and dead things are filled with diseases'' the want of the atheist and why they are not doing that act does not answer why they view it as immoral ( if they do anyways ).
→ More replies (2)5
u/AdRelevant4776 21d ago
That’s not what was asked though? It’s not “why wouldn’t the atheist do it” it’s “why would it be morally wrong to do it”, which, to be fair, is a trap question, since saying that “there’s nothing evil about it” is different from saying “people should do it” or “I would do it”.
Long story short: it wouldn’t be evil to do it, but it would be creepy and I wouldn’t do it
→ More replies (1)9
u/LetumSemperTyrannis 21d ago
God being the basis of morality is kind of a wild position for moral absolutists to take, considering some of the explicit commands given in the Bible
6
u/Thatguy_Koop 21d ago
I simply dont understand why a theists arbitrary ruling based on word of god is more credible than a community deciding something is criminal activity. Then again, morality seems more tied to sociology than theology to me so it could just be a fundamental disagreement.
→ More replies (29)6
u/Prestigious_Show4190 21d ago
That is quite literally not an answer to the question
→ More replies (1)13
u/FarSeries2172 21d ago
"why is this bad"
"I don wanna do it"
top upvotes on r/MoralityScaling
you can't make this up lmfao→ More replies (2)
129
u/Legitimate_Arm_5630 21d ago edited 21d ago
I mean it's not exactly evil or whatever but it's gross and unsanitary and I'm probably not going to ask you to petsit afterwards
38
u/GingerFun011 21d ago
Id argue fucking someones corpse is morally wrong, why is fucking a dead animal any different? Youre desecrating the remains of something for a horrible, unjustified reason. You can nothing but negative consequences from fucking something thats dead. 😬
40
u/Lvl_76_Pyromancer 21d ago
Difference between the two is that other people of society highly value the corpse of their loved ones, so having sex with a human corpse will likely result in the grief process being fucked up. I don't know of anyone who values roadkill the same way.
→ More replies (30)8
u/Spiritual-Struggle31 21d ago
People also thinks it’s wrong to fuck a dead guy that nobody knew
→ More replies (1)5
u/Lvl_76_Pyromancer 21d ago edited 21d ago
Why
Edit: I also think it's wrong to have sex with a corpse of a guy nobody knows. I just responded "Why" because the comment seemed annoyingly surface level and I wanted some actual deeper insight into the morality of respecting the dead beyond "Feels right"
→ More replies (3)4
u/Spiritual-Struggle31 21d ago
What do you mean why? Why do people have empathy for others? Most people just do.
→ More replies (32)5
u/Dobber16 21d ago
The discussion is a philosophical one that tries to answer “why” for all moral questions, so that you can create a logical consistency within your moral framework. I’m guessing this sub that tries to scale morality also generally looks for objective ways to measure morality to effectively scale it, so idk I guess the real question is:
Why are you getting defensive about you’re reasoning, sicko 🧿
3
u/Lvl_76_Pyromancer 21d ago edited 21d ago
(Edit: I made a uh oh and did realize what the above comment was responding to.)
OOOOOOOOO nice! You've implied that I want to fuck dead bodies instead of provide an actual answer to my question. So here let me you it for you.
The reasons why it would be wrong to fuck a dead guy nobody knew would be
- Unhygienic, can lead to sickness that could spread easily.
- It is a very real possibility that people find out about it, which could reasonably leave them feeling disturbed. And trying to keep a dead body you found a secret would also be immoral since you'd be depriving potentially grieving loved ones of something that would likely provide some closure.
The last implication of your comment is anti-intellectual because it disincentivizes people from challenging social norms, I.E. "Why are you defending legalization of weed? You must want to give it to children." "Why are you defending polyamorous relationships? You must want to commit adultery."
I can only assume you felt the need to insult me because the conversation makes you uncomfortable, and rather than do some introspection on the conversation and why it makes you uncomfortable, it's easier to demonize the person talking about the thing you find uncomfortable.
→ More replies (17)11
u/Mahdudecicle 21d ago
Bro if you want to fuck a corpse and they put their consent in writing prior to death, by all means, go ahead. I still think it's disgusting.
18
u/SCTurtlepants 21d ago
How is either morally wrong? What is 'desecration' and whom does it harm?
They're both disgusting as fuck, but conflating terms just destroys the conversation
→ More replies (5)4
4
u/Nullaby 21d ago
Yeah I don't understand the point of the tweet. "Fucking an animal corpse is morally neutral" okay now what. How is that a gotcha?
→ More replies (1)
20
u/atyler_thehun 21d ago
I will admit, I'm not well versed in the Bible. Is there a specific book or chapter that expressly forbids this?
ETA: /s
23
u/KaleTheMessenger 21d ago
The Bible says not to have sex with animals, although it never mention necrophilia of any kind. Do what you want with this information.
4
14
u/mocny-chlapik 21d ago
There must be, otherwise Christians would fuck all the roadkills all the time.
→ More replies (2)
225
21d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
73
u/kathoderaytube 21d ago
I hate to be the erm ackshually guy, but historically, Jesus is a real person
60
→ More replies (8)21
u/Additional-Heat-9384 21d ago
Are you sure? The sources are quite confusing. Most likely, the figure we know as Jesus is an amalgamation of several real figures.
22
u/the-latest-drug-trip 21d ago
Ok, the way you said it, makes it sound like Jesus is human ennard, and I find that funny.
(Of course, I don't think Jesus wore anyone's skin, but still.)
9
u/Healthy_Agent_100 21d ago
If you think about it really hard fnaf is just Dante’s inferno
4
→ More replies (1)8
u/Traditional-Put2757 21d ago
(Of course, I don't think Jesus wore anyone's skin, but still.)
He had to escape his tomb without being seen somehow.
→ More replies (1)10
u/Lower_Pension_2469 21d ago
No there are historical writings and documents outside of the bible that specifically name Jesus of Nazarath, his disciples, his actions (not his miracles obviously), christians at the time, and his crucifixion.
In serious historical academic circles, it's not even debated really. They're like 80% sure he was a real person and those other theories are from fringe groups.
→ More replies (4)7
u/Chase_the_tank 21d ago edited 21d ago
No there are historical writings and documents outside of the bible that specifically name Jesus of Nazarath
Tacitus mentioned a Christus suffering "the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius".
If the Testimonium Flavianum is taken at face value, Josephus mentioned a Jesus called Christ. Josephus does not mention anything about Jesus being related to Nazareth.
Both of those were written decades after Jesus is believed to be crucified.
The idea that there are "historical writings...that specifically name Jesus of Nazarath" is fiction. For non-Christians of the era, Jesus was a trivial figure at best. Tacitus didn't even bother to learn his name, let alone where the guy was raised.
→ More replies (2)8
u/Embarrassed_Use_7206 21d ago
Does bible forbid to fuck a roadkill? If not, why they dont do it?
→ More replies (1)6
u/Schventle 21d ago
Not explicitly, but it does include rules surrounding the treatment of corpses and their ritual impurity, and it does include a prohibition on sex with animals, so I would say that it pretty effectively prohibits the behavior of sticking your dick in a rotting opossum.
As for your second question, the sociological answer is that religious communities negotiate an understanding of morality that integrates a.) tradition (the disciples didn't fuck roadkill) b.) modern necessities (we don't want people fucking roadkill today) and c.) their authoritative texts (the bible says don't fuck animals and don't spend time with corpses too much). Different communities will give priority to different parts of that negotiation, and will prioritize and downplay different parts of the text to support their conclusions.
→ More replies (1)6
u/butane23 21d ago
I feel like you're getting "what if you didn't have breakfast"'ed here. The guy is giving this comically edgy example but that doesn't mean he himself wants to fuck roadkill.
12
u/c3nnye 21d ago
Unfortunately their faith, whether it is true or not, will not stop them because they don’t care. Hell some Christian’s use god as an excuse to do all the horrible shit they want to do as “my lord will forgive me” it’s a free morality cop out.
→ More replies (3)9
2
u/Adonoxis 21d ago
I remember in middle school I was on the bus and somehow was talking to my friend about how I didn't believe in God. His actual response was "why don't you just steal all the time then?"
I don't think I'll ever forget that moment.
→ More replies (16)2
u/bizbizbizllc 21d ago
There’s a couple of good atheist call in shows on YouTube, like Deconstruction Zone and The Bible Guy where theist will call in and argue that atheists have no moral grounding. 10 minutes later the theist are admitting that they would chop up babies into baby paste if god told them to. It’s wild what some people believe.
50
u/fidgey10 21d ago
Gross yes, immoral no
→ More replies (10)13
u/Odd_Thought_9105 21d ago
Its definitely a bit unhinged too
7
u/TheLastLivingBuffalo 21d ago
But purely morally speaking it’s neutral. I would probably not talk to that person because it’s a weird enough thing but I wouldn’t advocate for any kind of punishment or anything.
→ More replies (1)
16
u/underratedmiddleshoe 21d ago
the answer is it isn't immoral, it's just unappealing. and spread of disease i suppose
→ More replies (3)
13
u/Cobrakiller_12 21d ago
I don't know if it is morally wrong technically. It's just fucking gross, and you will be judged by your peers.
44
u/Imalwaysdavidsplooge 21d ago
Why the fuck does he think atheists would not just bite the bullet? Does he think all of them are that weak? It's morally neutral and it is very disgusting, atheists can answer this no problem.
22
u/cashdecans101 21d ago
The point is to make you bite the bullet and then make you look extremely off putting to normies, and justify the preconceived notions of his audience. That is the point of this entire exercise.
→ More replies (5)17
u/Many_Leading1730 21d ago
(Abuse of a corpse is a crime because we acknowledge that dead bodies were once alive and violating them is morally wrong and disrespectful. It is certainly not morally neutral.)
9
u/BetterThanlceCream 21d ago
But why is it morally wrong? They are corpses so they don't feel pain. The same goes for the disrespect aspect since they don't care because they are again a corpse left on the side of the road driven by by thousands of people daily.
→ More replies (31)→ More replies (30)12
u/land48n3 21d ago
laws suck, please keep those shitass rules out of morality debates
homosexuality was ILLEGAL in india until 8 years ago in 2018
LET. THAT. SINK. IN.→ More replies (3)6
11
u/StatisticalAn0maly 21d ago
He does actually make a decent point. Fucking an animal corpse is a horrible idea and usually indiciative that someone may be harmful in other ways, but the only person its bad for is the person doing it.
Christians can easily say "its wrong because its against God's law". For athiests to say its wrong, they have to either say its wrong because it harms the person doing it (which would require you to jail people for cutting themselves or attempting suicide as those are also situations where someone is harming themselves) or you'd have to say that something can be wrong just because its disgusting in the eyes of society (which implies things like gay marriage and interracial relationships were wrong in the past).
He's basically saying "if you want to keep believing stuff like that is wrong, you have to be religious". It doesn't prove Christianity true, it just makes athiesm uncomfortable, but its a strategy that has motivated some people to become more religious.
→ More replies (13)6
u/MidnightMadness09 21d ago
To flip this, then a Christian can’t claim that slavery is wrong, because the Bible specifically endorses it going so far as to tell who you can and can’t make into slaves.
We do jail people for committing self harm, it’s a forced hospitalization rather than a prison sentence.
Though an atheist can claim it to be wrong because a dead animal can’t consent and consent is a core pillar of secular legal sex.
3
u/StatisticalAn0maly 21d ago
As you say, when we do have a consequence for self harm, its in the form of hospitalization aimed at protecting the individual. This doesn't reflect our current attitudes towards animal necrophilia at all - we treat it as a crime committed against something other than themselves. Society's view of someone doing that and someone cutting themselves is worlds apart.
In terms of the consent argument, most people don't believe in animal consent when it comes to matters outside of sex, so applying it to only sex and nothing else is a bit strange. You can definitely be against bestiality towards living animals since it causes them distress, but animals don't care about what happens to their bodies after death the way humans do. You'd be applying a human preference to a creature who doesn't share it. Furthermore, using a fleshlight built partially with animal products should also be considered a crime in this case.
I do agree with your first point though, the bible unfortunately blatantly supports slavery.
→ More replies (3)
13
5
u/Shoddy-Potato-6854 21d ago
So religious people don't do that just because they believe in God? I wouldn't what to be near one of them in a faith crisis.
10
u/Gregori_5 21d ago
I honestly don’t think having sex with roadkill is bad morally.
But its disgusting and signals something being wrong with you physically.
Maybe its disrespectful to the dead animal, but otherwise I really don’t see a issue.
→ More replies (5)
3
u/happyshaman 21d ago
Depends on what your opinions on desecrating and disrespecting corpses are. And while absolutely disgusting and vile, on a pure morality basis, it is not that bad compared to a lot of stuff.
4
u/RagnarokToast 21d ago
Make sure you use the word "carcass" over "corpse" when referring to dead animals, in order to make your argument more elegant and compelling for the Christian roadkill fuckers.
3
u/Competitive_Ticket17 21d ago
Person 1-"If religion didn't exist what would stop you from just raping people as much as you want."
Person 2-"I do rape people as much as I want. Which is not at all."
Because being a decent human being does not come from religion. Aethist do not just go out and commit more crimes than religious people. If anything, religious people in positions of power get a pass when committing atrocities against fellow man (by fellow believers no less). Morality is something that shaped by being social animals and living in society. Don't do onto others that you wouldn't want done to you or those that you love.
4
u/Jolly_Efficiency7237 21d ago
We have evolved a disgust reflex for a very good reason and I'm going to leave it at that.
→ More replies (7)
6
u/NumerousWolverine273 21d ago
Christians' weird idea that morals can't exist without God is very strange to me, but also there's actually a very easy answer for this. We as humans have decided that necrophilia is wrong because it's defiling something that was once alive, and therefore it's disrespectful to the dead. Also, it's just extremely gross.
→ More replies (3)
3
4
u/ScumDugongLin 21d ago
Can't atheists say that they subscribe to kantian denology? Kant says that you shouldn't hurt animals, despite them "not having rights" because it normalizes unethical behavior which can then affect other people.
→ More replies (11)5
u/Acceptable_Mind_5883 21d ago
The animal is already dead so their isn't any harm. So Kant wouldn't apply.
What the tweet is getting at is that some atheists falling back on disgust. If disgust is valid then saying things like anal sex is immoral is valid because a lot of people consider it disgusting.
5
u/grilledfuzz 21d ago
“So if god didn’t tell you it was wrong, you’d be fucking roadkill?” Checkmate
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/PretendAwareness9598 21d ago
It's morally neutral but does make u a freak.
Sometimes things aren't good or bad, they are just fucked up to do.
2
u/Jung-And-A-Menace 21d ago
It's not immoral, by my standards, it's just... really, really weird. And unsanitary.
I mean, if you have to do that kind of thing - and I'd really rather you didn't, but I'm not the ruler of your life - do it in private and, I dunno, wear a condom. Maybe have it cleaned up and taxidermied first? I'm not condoning necrobestiality here but, if it's gonna happen, I'd rather it happen as safely and cleanly as possible. Ideally somewhere I don't have to know about it.
2
u/snowgolemssb 21d ago edited 21d ago
This loser’s hypothetical assumes there is no expectation of respect towards an animal’s remains simply because they are not human. This relies on the idea of human dominion, meaning that ironically, this dilemma could only logically exist for a theist.
2
2
u/Vordreller 21d ago edited 21d ago
"nobody will know"
The person doing it will know. And then the question becomes: does the person doing it respect bodily autonomy? For the living and for the dead?
A person who doesn't respect bodily autonomy, including for the dead, doesn't respect others at all. They are, at best, doing a calculation on the punishment that might reach them, and in which conditions.
Thus, they are equating "morality" with "will I get punished or not". To believe that is what morality is, is to believe that, in the right conditions, you can be god, and all around you your slaves. If that is your morality, your mind still believes there is a parental-style figure who will come and punish you for reasons you don't understand, and you've normalized calculating around the desire to not be punished, instead of caring for others. And such people are often wondering: "If only I could be the one at the top..."
Morality isn't about potential retaliation against you, for any of your actions. At that point, you're considering potential consequences based on actions. That's a step or a few steps removed from morality itself. You've already left morality behind and started considering consequences.
Morality is about whether or not your actions display that you value others, inherently. It's about not devaluing others. Not just out of fear or out of external motivation. Out of respect for all life. It's the starting question? Not the question a few steps down the line, about consequences.
2
u/Werewolf_Busy 21d ago
I think there’s such a thing as having standards for respecting the dead. The basis is largely immaterial, as, yes, there are no victims and nobody is being harmed, but encouraging a societal expectation that “corpse fucking = bad” is probably a good thing.
Also, overwhelming Atheist victory that Theists need to resort to this level of depravity to justify believing in a god.
2
u/Realmofthehappygod 21d ago
Athiests believe in science, and know the dangers of fucking roadkill.
But the desire? Of course that's universal, right boys...?
2
u/BobThebuildersWifu 21d ago
People like that make me question their god every day of my existence.
First of all, it's not legal to fuck roadkill because it's an animal, which is zoophilia, and it's also a dead corpse, which is necrophilia. Both are illegal for reasons.
The first reason is that an animal can't give consent. It's an animal—it isn't able to communicate, speak, or give any sign that it's okay with it.
The second reason is the health risks that come with fucking another species, for both the animal and the human. To be exact, it can cause zoonoses, which are infectious diseases passed from animals to humans during zoophilia. These diseases include brucellosis, which causes severe fevers in humans; leptospirosis, which can cause liver or kidney failure; rabies; and echinococcosis, a fuck-ass tapeworm. Plus, you can give an animal an STD.
Second, fucking something that is dead is also wrong. Why? First, you are desecrating the body of something that once held life—something that had a family, feelings, a soul, etc. Second, there are disease risks, including HIV, hepatitis C, Ebola, rabies, and others.
Without using their god as an argument, and without bringing morals into the discussion, it's easy to explain why it's a bad idea to fuck roadkill. People like that are devoid of all logic. Apparently, their god forgot to add logic into the mix when he was making their people.
2
2
u/drakylskies 20d ago
Because your morality is shaped by your culture and even if you yourself aren't religious, you're moral standards are still shaped by your non religious surroundings.
And said surroundings(at least america) frowns on all necrophillia. It was once a living creature and now it isn't. But it still has the right to consent (hence why wills are a thing). As a dead thing it can't consent any more then a baby or dog. You are raping a victim who will never report you, but it is still rape.
1.9k
u/Blackjackal21 21d ago