Rights for the dead?

[ruby sparks]

What if no living person claims the body? Would it then be wrong to chop it for parts and use it as a teaching cadaver? Anything wrong with using it for animal food, as a sex toy for necrophiliacs? Anything wrong with digging up graves of long forgotten people?

In that case, I would say arguably no good reason at all for it to be 'wrong' that I can think of, apart from infringing social convention and/or the possibility that someone may, at some time, come to claim it.

It is already accepted that we can do a lot of things with dug-up remains after a long period of time has passed. I'm thinking of archeology for instance.

 

[laughing dog]

If somebody has a right to have contractual obligation fulfilled for them, then they do indeed have rights.

Thank you Captain Obvious.

Not fraud. Breach of contract.

Depends on intent.

And why should we honour contracts to people who don't exist anymore? That's an interesting question. There may be a good secular reason if, and only if, there are living people affected by it.

Um, honoring one's promises is simply good secular policy.

No, that is a stupid reason. Because the state taking all property of the dead and using it to better fund social programs to the benefit of all, including organ harvesting and cadaver supply to medical students is going to do more good than these theoretical purported charitable donations you speak of, that may or may not even happen.

That assumes your very utopian vision of the uses of the property and body parts actually occur. Regardless, it is a secular reason.

A better reason, and one raised above. People do work hard to provide for their families, including after they are gone. That selfish impulse of putting your own kids is definitely something to contend with and a rational secular argument for inheritance. As is the argument made in the previous thread that people may gift their valuables to their children and then outlive their expectations and have children who don't support them back, and leave them destitute. But there are good counter arguments to that as well, and that is better discussed in another thread. That's more to do with inheritance and less to do with rights for the dead.

As you acknowledge, yet another secular reason for "rights for the dead".

And societies around the world and through the ages have tended to believe in spiritual life after death, some even to the point of ancestor worship. The dead are revered, honoured, and obeyed due to religious or quasi-religious impulses.

And their "rights" are honored for secular reasons as well.

This thread asks about secular reasoning.

And you have been given a number of secular reasons. The fact you do not like them is immaterial to the fact that they are secular reasons.

 

[bilby]

Indeed. If the OP title was changed to 'Rights for Furniture?' would the issue be about giving or not giving rights to the objects themselves, or more about giving living people rights, the 'owner' while he or she is alive and the 'recipients' afterwards.

Yes, while I disagree with them, there are some coherent secular arguments for inheritance, and one was presented above. But that isn't precisely what the OP is about.

I am asking about rights for the corpse itself.

What if no living person claims the body? Would it then be wrong to chop it for parts and use it as a teaching cadaver? Anything wrong with using it for animal food, as a sex toy for necrophiliacs? Anything wrong with digging up graves of long forgotten people?

What if no living person claims the late Aunt Gerturde's prized antique dining table? Or perhaps more sensibly, what if no living person claims Aunt Gertrude's refrigerator full of steaks that have now passed their use-by date?

Society simply need to find a way to dispose of the steaks in a manner that avoids causing a nuisance and/or a threat to public health. Burying them in a deep hole or incinerating them seems like a good option; Or you could chuck them off a boat into the ocean. Perhaps you could send some to a microbiology lab, to determine what kinds of microbes grow on them. Maybe you could use them for pet food. Or, if you are certain that they are not a risk to health, they could be eaten by people.

Ultimately, the decision on what to do with the out-of-date steaks from the late Aunt Gertrude's refrigerator is not importantly different from the decision on what to do with her corpse, or her antique dining table - it's up to her next of kin, (or, if she has none, to the public trustee or equivalent government official) to dispose of the items in any way that they choose, as long as it avoids harm to the public - unless she left a will, in which case it is the responsibility of the executor to dispose of those items in a way that complies with that will (where not prohibited by law).

 

[dendrast]

Actually, I'm planning to donate my body to science, just to please my mother.

At last! I'll be in medical school!

(Yeah, I know, I've used that joke before. But not since this morning.)

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Thank you Captain Obvious.

Thank you, Captain Contradiction. That was a classic, claiming something false and then proclaiming it obviously true. Bravo.

 

[dendrast]

Actually, I'm planning to donate my body to science, just to please my mother.

At last! I'll be in medical school!

(Yeah, I know, I've used that joke before. But not since this morning.)

Actually, speaking of puns, the title of this tread is excellent!

 

[laughing dog]

Thank you Captain Obvious.

Thank you, Captain Contradiction. That was a classic, claiming something false and then proclaiming it obviously true. Bravo.

Please point to where you believe I did such a thing. Otherwise, it appears that you simply babbling again.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Actually, I'm planning to donate my body to science, just to please my mother.

At last! I'll be in medical school!

(Yeah, I know, I've used that joke before. But not since this morning.)

Actually, speaking of puns, the title of this tread is excellent!

Thanks! I didn't think anybody would notice