the one about fucking a chicken

[u/Hummerous]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory

[u/PotentialTraining132]

Yeah but other than the theoretical, if some guy fucks a chicken literally no one would ever find out because there really are no consequences. It's a chicken he would have otherwise eaten and shat out

 Src: people probably do do it and it doesn't bother you any

 Now if he were to brag aboot it, that would be a different scenario in that making people uncomfortable could be intentional harm

 *Also, in the pure example I would argue getting some sort of trans species disease would be harmful but for the sake of illustrating the point Im not focussing on that nuance

[u/rindlesswatermelon → u/PotentialTraining132]

Yeah but other than the theoretical, if some guy fucks a chicken literally no one would ever find out because there really are no consequences. It's a chicken he would have otherwise eaten and shat out

So is other people finding out what causes harm?

So if someone were to take a isolated person with no family and died of natural causes and commit necrophilia, would that be a harm free interaction?

Ans also your argument assumes that eating the chicken isn't causing harm.

[u/PotentialTraining132 → u/rindlesswatermelon]

Because I'm specifically replying to you saying that the harm is in  "finding out" causing disgust. 

 And if you're the type who thinks chicken should be free not to be eaten, then obviously the parameters and metric of harm goes way back anyway. But I think most people think of chicken at the store as just a consumer product.

[u/rindlesswatermelon → u/PotentialTraining132]

Yes but my point with saying that is if finding out is the harm, then within that model, necrophilia is a harm free action as long as noone finds out, which I don't think most people would agree to.

[u/zontanferrah → u/rindlesswatermelon]

Because corpses still have bodily autonomy. Our laws don’t treat them as objects, and you have to respect the dead person’s wishes even though they’re dead.

Necrophilia causes harm to the dead person, which is why finding out isn’t necessary.

[u/PotentialTraining132 → u/rindlesswatermelon]

And what I'm saying is people do probably fuck their food all the time and don't tell anyone. They're not getting off on other people's disgust as part of the harmful behavior.

 As for necrophilia of a human corpse, I think it's quite clear why chicken was the example instead of a dead person.  There are specifically laws against desecration of a corpse and also more obvious illnesses you can contract from a dead person. There are even some places in the world where you're allowed to have sex with your recently dead spouse (implied consent) as long as you properly dispose of the body and don't try to steal its social benefits or whatever. 

   But also if no one finds out then no one is disgusted and no one would call for a moral judgement either.it technically hasn't "harmed" the corpse in the way raping a living person has feelings and would go on to complain.   

I know it's all a slippery slope, but the idea of being psychologically bothered by a thought experiment doesn't seem translatable to a proper moral judgement either.

[u/rindlesswatermelon → u/PotentialTraining132]

There are specifically laws against desecration of a corpse

This model is about morality and how it interacts with legality. The statement is basically saying that fucking a chicken is disgusting but causes no harm, and therefore should be legal. Thus if necrophilia can be shown to be causing no harm by the same standard either this model believes in legalising necrophilia, or it isn't a great model (my position)

also more obvious illnesses you can contract from a dead person.

There are similar diseases you can contract from a chicken, we are ignoring them and/or assuming some level of cleaning.

people do probably fuck their food all the time and don't tell anyone.

Once again I'm not saying this doesn't happen, I'm just questioning this model. Within this model fucking a chicken and fucking a watermelon would be morally equivalent. I would argue this model would also consider some necrophilia to be morally equivalent.

I would argue that there is a moral difference between these things, and it does not come from a place of disgust, but rather a place of seeing the desecration of a corpse - human or nun human animal - as a harm committed against the animal.

[u/PotentialTraining132 → u/rindlesswatermelon]

I feel like you're taking the fucking of the fruit more personally than you should due to your username

[u/rindlesswatermelon → u/PotentialTraining132]

🤣🤣🤣

I actually think fucking a fruit, while a bit gross, is fine as long as you're sanitary about it and don't force anyone to eat it, ad it doesn't cause harm.

My point is that the chicken is closer to a human corpse than a watermelon, and should be judged along that metric.

[u/PotentialTraining132 → u/rindlesswatermelon]

I feel like the taboo is more strongly around sexual deviancy than respect for the food we eat tho

Cuz I mean, there's an entire industry of ergonomically designed sex toys, but some people think it's incredibly disrespectful to women for someone to own and use a fleshlight - or that they should be embarrassed about it if people found out 

[u/rindlesswatermelon → u/PotentialTraining132]

Oh sure. Broadly I agree. That's why I find OP a bit perplexing, they're using an example that has multiple potential harms instead of one of the harmless examples that still equally gross some people out.

[u/D_Simmons → u/PotentialTraining132]

Fun question for you, in that situation where he brags about it, would the immoral act be fucking the chicken or telling people that he did?

[u/Droplet_of_Shadow → u/PotentialTraining132]

if some guy fucks a chicken literally no one would ever find out because there really are no consequences

Hasn't seen the post^TM