The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

Peter Pevensie · 2002-05-22 08:01:44

clark, thanks for taking the time to post such a detailed reply. If you'll forgive me, I'm not going to respond. Aside from the fact that you've given me a great deal to think about, I'm feeling more than a little over my head in all this. I'll just say this: now that I have a clearer understanding of your position, I have a great deal of respect for your intellect.

Again, thanks...

clark · 2002-05-22 08:17:50

Thanks for your thoughts Peter. I appreciated your point of view (even if it dosen't come across in the posts).

Palomar · 2002-05-31 15:57:35

Peter wrote: "There are some very interesting religious offshoots to your question, Phobos, given that an early colony is likely to be made up of people of many different faiths, each with its own rituals and beliefs regarding death. In the harsh environment of a Martian base or colony, would those beliefs be subordinated to basic survival, a la the floating colony in Waterworld?"

*This is an interesting topic. I'd say chances are good that, at least in the earliest stages of Mars exploration/colonization, what to do with a corpse would be dependent upon sheer practicality.

Supposing one of the first astronauts on Mars, of the Roman Catholic faith, were to die, how could last rites be administered? Or a proper Catholic funeral? Would he or she be considered out of the grace/dispensation of the church in the event these particulars could not be attended to, since there is not a priest present? The same could go for Jewish services, Islamic rites, etc. For some folks, this is very serious stuff...and I respect their rights to these sentiments.

As for me; well, were I to die on Mars, just do what's useful and in the best interest of all...even if it means my corpse can help grow corn

--Cindy

MS member since 6/01

clark · 2002-06-03 08:57:42

As for me; well, were I to die on Mars, just do what's useful and in the best interest of all...even if it means my corpse can help grow corn

This in a nutshell explains the sentiment that confuses the issue of what to do with a body after a person has passed on. The simple matter is that once you cease to exsist, you cease to have any rights. We fall into this notion that we retain full rights over our body, since it is in effect our most basic form of property- self. However, the whole premise of rights is derived from the notion of self-determination, and free-will. It is only natural that we would not want to give up this individual right at any time, even in death, but the fact remains that at death we are no longer in a natural state in which we may act out our self-determination or free-will. It is exactly at this moment that our guareenteed rights are disolved and we resume the title of "property"- it is impossible to delinate the difference between a piece of property and a deceased body- they are in effect the same thing. If you grant "rights" to a body, you are in effect granting rights to ALL inanimate objects, a ludicrous proposition.

While there are sentimental reasons for following a deceased individuals last wishes, these sentimental reasons are not grounded in logic or common sense- it is an entirely human act motivated out of some social need for establishing order through action. Now there is the argument that how we treat our dead is indicitive of how we value life, but that relationship and the value is completely subjective- many cultures in human history held the highest honor by consuming their dead- while this may be repugnant by today's satndard, it is no less honorary than a military burial in a tomb- the society is placing the value based on their moors and customs.

Would it not be considered the highest tribute an individual could pay by providing the means neccessary for the continued survival and exsistence to the space colony they have endeavoured to build? The people who go to mars, at least I hope, will go to build a new world- how hard is it to imagine a philosphical belief that holds that even in death, you can provide life for others.

####, the whole concept of Zubrin's message is based on "nothing wasted". A vacum sealed mummy on mars is a testiment to another time of human thinking- our bodies are part of the environment, not seperate. It is our identity, not our bodies- out self- that is important.

Before any disagree, I ask you this- are you less than who you are minus your arm? Your leg? Your eyes?

If the body parts do not make you less, than why should the destruction of the entire body in a manner not of your own choosing be any worse after you have passed on? The parts do not make us- they are merely the physical extensions upon which we rely in order to work our will in the world.

C M Edwards · 2002-06-03 13:55:28

Well, if rights are the big issue...

Whose right is it to see to the disposition of "their" dead?

If I understand Clark correctly, I should not expect the dead guy to rise up and do it.

CME

PS: Also, a related question: "Who can give me permission to go through the pockets and look for loose change?" If you can answer that, you know where the real rights are.

clark · 2002-06-03 14:04:53

Whose right is it to see to the disposition of "their" dead?

This "right" implies that a deceased body can belong to another individual, I do not recognize that such a right exsists.

C M Edwards · 2002-06-03 14:17:28

I should note that if the dead guy actually DID rise up and see to his own disposal, I would not be inclined to argue with him.

I suspect this sentiment is shared by those cultures that prefer to follow the wishes of the dead, especially those that believe their lost comrade may still be sitting around watching from the afterlife. If that religious belief were true, then the deceased really would have claim to some rights, particularly if survivors believed the dead guy could enforce them.

I know far more people who claim to have seen ghosts than claim to have been killed by them. However, I still show respect for the dead, even when another family's funeral customs differ from my own. Since I'm not afraid the dead guy is going to "get me", I wonder whose rights I've been respecting all this time?

Hmm...

CME

clark · 2002-06-03 14:29:39

If that religious belief were true, then the deceased really would have claim to some
rights, particularly if survivors believed the dead guy could enforce them.

Yet should the "religious belief" be the sole determinant for public policy or for establishing rights?

Which religion should we use then?

Since I'm not afraid the dead guy is going to "get me", I wonder whose rights I've been respecting all this time?

You haven't been respecting anyone's rights- you have been respecting others beliefs. Big difference. Since it is basically an issue of belief, it falls under a category where by Society is allowed to regulate the manner in which the belief is expressed. Most societies have tradionally allowed individuals to despose of their deceased relatives or firends in a manner in which they personaly prefer. However, there are many instances where the State determines how a body is disposed of- ie, during instances of conflict, disease management, unclaimed bodies, etc.

C M Edwards · 2002-06-03 15:31:06

You haven't been respecting anyone's rights- you have been respecting others beliefs. Big difference.

I am inclined to agree, as there is no such thing as the ghost police.

Society is allowed to regulate the manner in which the belief is expressed. Most societies have tradionally allowed individuals to despose of their deceased relatives or firends in a manner in which they personaly prefer. However, there are many instances where the State determines how a body is disposed of...

Indeed, the state determines how a body is legally disposed of in _all_ cases in the United States. Exceptions have to be cleared through government agencies. Have you ever been to a funeral where the family's customs required them -- not grave diggers -- to bury the body? Here in the States, the grave diggers still have to stick around, because if the family does a slipshod job and nobody fixes it, the grave diggers are charged with a crime. The situation is similar with other disposal methods.

The state has a lot to say about the dead, and is, in fact, one of the places you can go to inquire about going through the pockets for loose change.

But I must ask: Are there any examples of societies where it is customary _not_ to allow the friends/family of the deceased any say in the fate of the body? I'm not referring to anecdotes of deviants violating some taboo, but rather societal traditions. One could imagine a society, for example, where tradition forbids anyone who knew the deceased to even touch the body and it is taken from them immediately. But there would have to be people willing to do that, an entire social institution requiring organization and resources. Who would want to mess with that bunch of smelly old meat, if not the family?

The state does indeed often control how this is done, and in fact will see to it if necessary. But that is not the path of least resistance for a society to take. If there is a something to be done, it makes sense to allow the people who want the job to take over. Grave diggers cost resources, as does any disposal method that doesn't involve leaving them to rot where they lay. If there's no reason to do differently, the state will do whatever's cheapest.

I suspect that the main reason societies usually prefer families to deal with their own dead is more than shoulder shrugging. It's expediency.

I predict that the martians will generally allow the families of the dead to deal with their own bodies, just as every other society with any sense has done.

CME

clark · 2002-06-03 15:57:35

I predict that the martians will generally allow the families of the dead to deal with their own bodies, just as every other society with any sense has done.

Yet a martian society will be unlike any other society known to human history, so I am not quite ready to so accept this logic. In a controlled environment such as a space colony (of any sort) dosen't the fragile eco-system require that the community decide how best to dispose of the body? Furthermore, there is the issue of biological contamination of the planet which must be accounted for. While I can understand personal desires for burial of a loved one, that should not be reason enough to disregard all of humanities claim to Mars- which means that until the issue of if, and how we will terraform the planet, no move should be made that could undermine that prospect.

Palomar · 2002-06-04 11:25:10

Clark wrote: "####, the whole concept of Zubrin's message is based on "nothing wasted". A vacum sealed mummy on mars is a testiment to another time of human thinking- our bodies are part of the environment, not seperate. It is our identity, not our bodies- out self- that is important."

*Well, it seems to me that colonists initially will have only two options: Bury the dead or use them as I'd have my body used; that is, until and if a crematorium could be created -- and apparently the cremation process takes a lot of energy which colonists probably wouldn't be able to "afford."

"Before any disagree, I ask you this- are you less than who you are minus your arm? Your leg? Your eyes?

If the body parts do not make you less, than why should the destruction of the entire body in a manner not of your own choosing be any worse after you have passed on? The parts do not make us- they are merely the physical extensions upon which we rely in order to work our will in the world."

*I have a difference of opinion here. Being minus an arm or a leg doesn't make a person less of a person; however, it does alter their lifestyle and capabilities. My husband is disabled from an accident in 1984. There are many things he could do if it weren't for his partially paralyzed left hand. He's not the same person he was prior to the accident, in many ways, and his quality of life isn't as good.

I see the point you are trying to make; however I feel the topic of disability (loss of eyesight, loss of limb) is a different one than that of what to do with a corpse on Mars.

The early colonists will have to be especially practical, and old habits carried over from Earth will have to be discarded *pronto*. There won't be many luxuries, needless to say. I think of all the land taken up by cemeteries. And lest anyone think I'm being rude or insensitive, I myself have relatives/ancestors buried in cemeteries, of course. Now my family is extremely spread out; the last time I visited my father's grave (985 miles away) was in 1993. I have no close relatives in that area, it's not anywhere near my hometown (which isn't where I currently reside), etc. I loved my father, but I don't want to travel nearly 1000 miles to see a headstone. My other deceased relatives are even further away. Thus, how often does the average US citizen -- a nation so large and consisting of many persons who have moved far away from their birth place -- go to cemeteries to pay respect to the dead? As Earth's population continues to grow -- and land becomes more and more scarce -- cemeteries may be seen in the future as an unnecessary vanity; cremation may become more in vogue.

On Mars, there will be even less options in this regard...at least initially. Alot of old Earth customs and habits will be in for a major overhaul for sure.

--Cindy

MS member since 6/01.

C M Edwards · 2002-06-04 14:02:42

Hmm. A telling point, Cindy. Almost nobody moving to Mars will be able to come home and put flowers on anyone's grave for All Saints' Day.

That in itself will be a major disconnect.

CME

Palomar · 2002-06-04 15:26:03

CM Edwards wrote: "Hmm. A telling point, Cindy. Almost nobody moving to Mars will be able to come home and put flowers on anyone's grave for All Saints' Day."

*Erm...since that is a logical "given," it actually was :not: my point. My point was that burial of corpses may most likely prove a custom unsuited to Mars habitation (and cremation may also not be an option, as it requires a lot of energy); also, that burial of bodies may simply be a land-consuming vanity which Earthlings can do without.

--Cindy

C M Edwards · 2002-06-04 16:01:15

Pity. It was a good point. Physical impossibility makes an excellent impetus for social change.

For example, some forms of traditional burial are likely to prove as impossible on Mars as they are in the Arctic during the winter here on Earth. There are places in the far north where it is customary to store bodies in the community morgue until spring thaw, because burying them earlier requires digging through the rocky ice frozen above the permafrost. On Mars, the permafrost never melts, so unless grave diggers bring their ice saws and air hammers, subterranean burial may be out in many places on Mars. (Early explorers are likely to go where the ground is hardest. That's where the water is.)

The traditional 6 feet under may be as physically impossible on Mars as travelling back to Earth for All Saints Day.

Cremation, on the other hand, is not so hard. If you freeze dry the body first (easy to do on Mars -- all you have to do is expose it to the outside air for a few weeks), it will burn on its own. Just add oxidizer.

CME

clark · 2002-06-07 10:55:31

Hey, how about respect ?

Subjective and irrelevant- if you are dead, you can voice no opinion, so your views are immaterial in regards to the manner in which you are disposed of oce you die.

I think many (... all probably...) of the colonists will do very useful things for the colony during their lives, and would prefer their bodies not to be recycled through some "chemical plant" or God knows what!

You may have your personal prefrences, but so what? How do you personal prefrences superceed the need or desires of the Society that still lives? Are you suggesting that dead people have rights?

Look what were they doing with the bodies: they were buried and then a tree was planted above them. I think this is a great thing to do. Would you agree with me?

So here you have a personal view on how bodies should be disposed of- and if everyone else in society agreed, then it would be a good idea- however, if I find it repugnant, what then? Should I not be disposed of in this manner? Even if it is in the best interest of Society that I be disposed of in this manner, should my personal views on the matter be honored? Even if it is part of an overall strategy to maintain the stability of a long term colony?

Of course, this will be long time recycling, but i think is the best alternative: you actually burry them and recycle them in the same time, you show your respect for the past deeds of the dead, and will not cost you anything (i mean energy etc.)!

Natural recycling aside, you are merely suggesting a manner of disposal that you find personaly preferable- what I belive we have been discussing is wether or not Society has a right to decide on how you are disposed of- not the individual.

Palomar · 2002-06-15 13:08:19

Hey, how about respect ?
Subjective and irrelevant- if you are dead, you can voice no opinion, so your views are immaterial in regards to the manner in which you are disposed of oce you die.

*Clark, I think families of the deceased may take objection to the notion of no rights for the dead. If there is a standard, agreed-upon method (whatever that would be) for dealing with corpses on Mars, chances are slimmer that someone will "raise the roof" with regards to the fate of a loved one's corpse. If there is not a prescribed, majority-agreed-upon method for dealing with corpses, the matter may naturally fall into the hands of the next of kin or appointed friend to make the final decision.

This brings up another, related issue: What about the right to die? What if an early settler on Mars becomes terminally ill, is terribly injured on Mars, or is so homesick for Earth with no chance of returning (for example, he or she has lived on Mars for 10 years and a return to Earth gravity would be impossible), that he or she decides they'd rather die now? The right to die is very complicated and volatile issue here on Earth...it may necessarily be a less complex issue on Mars.

I don't mean to get the cart ahead of the horse, but I think these are issues which should be addressed.

--Cindy

MS member since 6/01

Byron · 2002-06-15 13:38:14

This brings up another, related issue: What about the right to die? What if an early settler on Mars becomes terminally ill, is terribly injured on Mars, or is so homesick for Earth with no chance of returning (for example, he or she has lived on Mars for 10 years and a return to Earth gravity would be impossible), that he or she decides they'd rather die now? The right to die is very complicated and volatile issue here on Earth...it may necessarily be a less complex issue on Mars.
I don't mean to get the cart ahead of the horse, but I think these are issues which should be addressed.
--Cindy
MS member since 6/01

Cindy, I'm with you all the way on this one...

I'm very much hoping that the right to die would be enshrined in whatever constitution/ bill of rights is adapted for the Mars settlers. Everyone's body is theirs to do as they wish, including dying and what happens to the body after death. I disagree with Clark in that it's subjective to what happens to one's body after death, after all, it's still your body, and no one else has claim to it (unless it was in your will, of course.)

If some sort of free-market economy is established on Mars, which is what I think will happen, it'd be simply a matter of how much personal resources each person wishes to expend on their burial, cremation, or whatever. Things such as traditional burial will probably be quite costly, and few people would probably take that option. The majority of the people may very well allow their bodies to be recycled or whatever, as they'd rather their bequests get the money instead. But there will always be a few who will want to follow the traditions of their ancesters from Earth. Come to think of it, it really wouldn't be that hard to carve out graves in the frozen regolith with a laser or whatever...human are pretty adaptable creatures, you know...

The important issue here is the rights of each and every person to have control over their body during their adult lives, and by all means, these rights should be extended to death and beyond, as your body belongs to you and no one else.

B

P.S. I based what I was discussing above with the assumption that one has expressed their wishes in a will or some other document; if that's not the case, I think it should be up to the remaining spouse or next of kin to decide what is done with the body. All this would have to be done with reasonable limitations, of course (like no open pyres inside the dome ??? )

clark · 2002-07-01 09:04:14

*Clark, I think families of the deceased may take objection to the notion of no rights for the dead.

Personal feelings aside, where does a dead body derive any personal rights?

If there is not a prescribed, majority-agreed-upon method for dealing with corpses, the matter may naturally fall into the hands of the next of kin or appointed friend to make the final decision.

It very well may fall to next of kin, however, my point is that Society still has the right to ultimetly determine how a body is disposed of.

This brings up another, related issue: What about the right to die? What if an early settler on Mars becomes terminally ill, is terribly injured on Mars, or is so homesick for Earth with no chance of returning (for example, he or she has lived on Mars for 10 years and a return to Earth gravity would be impossible), that he or she decides they'd rather die now?

I'll bite- Do you have the right to enslave yourself? The right to die is a complicated issue because it stradles the line between individual liberty and the role of society in and of itself. Society exsists solely to ensure your rights as an individual, of which, the right to control your own body is but one right Society ensures. However, the individual making the choice to terminate their own life sets the individual at odds with Society, since the act of termintating ones life is also the act of forsaking all of your other rights- please remember, Society is charged with ensuring ALL of your rights, and LIFE happens to be one of them. Society MUST protect the individual, and as such, it must protect you from yourself if you look to cause bodily harm to yourself. But what about your personal right to control your own body? How can this conflict exsist?

What would be the role of society if you were murdered? Well, it would be charged with avenging your murder- it was also charged with preventing your murder- that's why there are laws such as "do not kill". At all points Society is taking responsibility for your life and ensuring the rights inherent in life- if you allow the "right to die" you are in effect saying there are some times when Society does not have to guraeente our rights or our life, which is a bit of a paradox becuase Society exsists SOLELY to guraeente our life and rights.

Everyone's body is theirs to do as they wish, including dying and what happens to the body after death.

Your body is your own to with as you wish? So then we should oppose all laws and regulations that limit or compel us to act with our bodies in a certain manner? Silly. Shall we allow public drunkness? How about allowing children to shoot up heroin? It is there body after all. Shall we allow people to urinate in public? How about sex in public? After all, the laws that regulate these behaviors are actually Society telling us what we can and can't do with our bodies, and where. What if I have a transmittable disease, but do not want treatment, it would seem that society would now be powerless to protect itself from the threat I represent.

Your body is your to do with as long as it does not infringe on Society (ie any one else). Please avoid absolute statments, they weaken your point.

I disagree with Clark in that it's subjective to what happens to one's body after death, after all, it's still your body, and no one else has claim to it (unless it was in your will, of course.)

So you suggest that people still retain a right over their body even after death? Silly. Does a dead person still retain a right to their house? Their car? Their dog? No. No. And no. If you do not retain any rights or control of any property, how can you claim any right over your body? Why one, but not the other? Also, it creates a rather large problem if we accet this silly argument- that we retain a right to our body even after death- how can we ever even consider touching ANY grave? After all, to move a grave or unearth a dead body would be to violate their rights...

The important issue here is the rights of each and every person to have control over their body during their adult lives, and by all means, these rights should be extended to death and beyond, as your body belongs to you and no one else.

The issue about rights during life is not really debatable (at least not for me ) The issue though in death is- if you say we have rights in death, and that these rights extend to our bodies, you are in effect granting "rights" to an inanimate object. Does your TV have rights? Does your steak?

I based what I was discussing above with the assumption that one has expressed their wishes in a will or some other document; if that's not the case, I think it should be up to the remaining spouse or next of kin to decide what is done with the body.

Fair enough, but why is Society required to respect or even consider the dead's parting wishes? Allowing the next of kin decide is merely allowing certain individuals to take into POSSENSION the dead body, it in effect becomes proerty of the next of kin- if that is the case, then again, Society can determine how that property is utilized- the same way society can decide certain areas need to be parks and certain places need to be homes.

YES again, but only over their bodies. But what gives you or "the Society" rights over my body? It's like saying: "Hey, look, there is a handicaped man there, which can't defend himself. Let's kill him and steal everything he has".

If you are dead you have no rights- the situation you present deals with someone who is very much alive. If you are in a coma, does Society have a right to "pull the plug" if no one else can speak for you?

So what you imply is that the stronger one makes the law, or what?

Not even close. I am suggesting that the LIVING have rights and the DEAD do not, as such, the bodies of the dead can be disposed of in any way that society deems fit, even if it goes against what the person wanted when they were alive.

I cannot speak anymore because i'm dead, and you simply come and do what you want with my body? What would stop somebody else then to (sorry for this, i don't really mean it) **** on your body after you die, huh?! If you say you have nothing against that then you have some very serious problems. But again, you would not have any rights, right?

Okay, say someone does deficate on my dead body, what do YOU think my response would be given that I am DEAD? Why would I care, I am dead. How would I voice my objection, I'm dead. I don't belive I have any serious problems BGD, I believe you however are letting your personal feelings cloud an otherwise rational discussion- look at your statements, it's just ridiculous to suggest that a dead person cares about what happens to their body- it is the living that care.

If what he desires is something else, which harms the society directly, then the society will choose what to do, based on respect.

"respect", or what is considered respectful is subjective- you are actually stating that Society can do whatever it wants as long as it is "respectful". What if Society finds that there is only ONE way to dispose of a body that is respectful, yet you disagree with it?

Let's put it like that: if i don't have any rights over my body when i'm dead, because i can't speak and defend my rights, what would give me any rights at all while i'm still alive?

Umm, just a guess, but the act of being ALIVE gives you rights. Being able to understand who you are, and who others are allows you to EXERCISE those rights.

And what is the society actually? Is the people.

Society is "the people"- society guraeente's "the people" their rights. When some of "the people" die, are they still part of Society? Are "dead people" still part of "the people"? If not, then where does a dead body derive "rights"? Society only includes "the people" which dead people are not a part of- if dead people are a part of "the people", why don't they get to vote? Shouldn't "dead people" have fair and equitable representation?

Silly.

Think it through.

Palomar · 2002-07-01 16:13:31

*Clark, I think families of the deceased may take objection to the notion of no rights for the dead.
Personal feelings aside, where does a dead body derive any personal rights?

*So necrophilia is okay? If some mortician wants to have sex with my corpse, it's okay?

If there were no human sense in most people that a dead person deserves some respect and consideration, we wouldn't be outraged at, say, Jeffrey Dahmer for cutting up and eating some of his victims; we'd only be outraged that he murdered them, and unconcerned what he did with them after they were dead. But we weren't. We were ::at least equally:: -- if not more! -- outraged and shocked at the dismemberment, "trophy keeping," and cannabalism of the victims on Dahmer's part as we were his initially having killed them.

Heck, even some animals have grieving and disposal rituals of the bodies of their own; some monkeys do this.

IMO, this entire matter is, for humans, an ethical one. Start screwing around with respect for the dead and related issues, and watch a society's standards sink.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-07-02 06:51:38

*So necrophilia is okay? If some mortician wants to have sex with my corpse, it's okay?

You are confusing issues. Necrophilia is not "bad" in and of itself, now I, and most people would agree that having sex with dead people is repugnant, that is a personal feeling based on customs and culture, so while I would be averse to anyone who did this, I wouldn't neccessarily condemn them to death or scream that they have somehow violated the dead persons rights.

Please tell me where a dead body derives rights... ANYONE.

If there were no human sense in most people that a dead person deserves some respect and consideration, we wouldn't be outraged at, say, Jeffrey Dahmer for cutting up and eating some of his victims; we'd only be outraged that he murdered them, and unconcerned what he did with them after they were dead.

Dahmer was a socio-path and that is the frightening part- him eating his victims, that is repugnant becuase it violates many of our shared beliefs or cultural taboo's- I find eating monkey brain to be just as repugnant, but I understand that there are some cultures that do this- who is wrong Cindy?

We were ::at least equally:: -- if not more! -- outraged and shocked at the
dismemberment, "trophy keeping," and cannabalism of the victims on Dahmer's part as we were his initially having killed them.

No, the outrage stems more from the fact that he killed with such ease and pleasure- contrary to popular belief, most people do not have it in them to kill another human being, and when they do, they generally do not surround themselves with "trophies" unless they've gone nuts.

IMO, this entire matter is, for humans, an ethical one. Start screwing around with respect for the dead and related issues, and watch a society's standards sink.

Sounds like a statment backed up by empirical evidence... I'm sure we could expect nothing less from a student of Voltaire...

So, where's the proof of the validity of your statement that respect for the dead and society standards are linked?

Palomar · 2002-07-02 10:15:03

Clark: Please tell me where a dead body derives rights... ANYONE.

*Please tell me where a dead body ::doesn't:: deserve rights...particularly when the dead body was alive and that person made specific funerary requests [i.e. cremation with scattering of ashes versus burial versus whatever else] during life in preparation for death.

Clark: I find eating monkey brain to be just as repugnant, but I understand that there are some cultures that do this- who is wrong Cindy?

*There's a difference between monkeys and humans...usually, anyway.

Me: IMO, this entire matter is, for humans, an ethical one. Start screwing around with respect for the dead and related issues, and watch a society's standards sink.

Clark: I'm sure we could expect nothing less from a student of Voltaire...

*Thank you! Yes, I'm a student of Voltaire. I profoundly respect and admire the man; he's my hero.

Clark: So, where's the proof of the validity of your statement that respect for the dead and society standards are linked?

*I can't give you that proof, sorry. I think I can, however, give an example of what may constitute proof: Nazi Germany. Nazi propaganda and its belief system felt retarded people had no rights [a Nazi might ask an non-Nazi ethicist where's the proof retarded people have rights?]; crippled/disabled people had no rights; elderly people are "weak," therefore more "useless," and Nazi thugs therefore felt justified in beating up elderly people on the street...Or we can take the example of the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and their deplorable treatment of women [a Taliban member might ask a non-Taliban ethicist where's the proof women should have rights?].

To me, the issue at stake here is an ethical one. How a society of people treats its dead, elderly, and weaker members is an indication of its benevolence and humaneness or its brutality and harshness. Once the "green light" is given to disrespecting those who cannot speak for themselves -- or can no longer speak for themselves -- further [higher] levels of disrespect will follow. Many individuals follow "the lead" of society [the proof of that is well documented in history, i.e. the Nazi movement, for one], and react to the signals given in their society; thus, if the bar of tolerance, respect, and benevolence is set higher, people will generally respond in like fashion...and vice versa, should the bar be set lower. I believe the patterns and examples from history bear me out on this.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-07-02 10:40:25

*Please tell me where a dead body ::doesn't:: deserve rights...particularly when the dead body was alive and that person made specific funerary requests [i.e. cremation with scattering of ashes versus burial versus whatever else] during life in preparation for death.

It DOSEN'T deserve/have/need any rights, irregardless of it's former status. The act of being alive imbues you and I with certain unalienable rights- why, becuase we are ALIVE. A dead body is as inanimate as the ground we walk on. The "respect" shown to the dead is not for the sake of the dead- it is for those who remain alive. If we accept the logic that dead bodies have certain rights, then you end up with some rather odd paradoxes: Animals- disection of a Frog could be considered cruel and unusual treatment by the logic you propose- since at one time the animal was alive, the SPCA would have every right to interven- should we even consider the slaughterhouses? What about archeology? That is disturbing the dead- how can that ever be justified under this ridiculous suposition that dead people have rights!?

A dead body is a shell- it is flesh just like an animal- what makes humans human is the ineffible quality linked to the act of being alive- to feeling and being- when we are incapable of feeling, of being- we cease to be what it is that makes us human- we are returned to the dust from which we sprung. I hold that we do have rights, and that those rights are not the result of hair color or physical ability- but of merely being alive and being aware.

If your arm is detached from your body, does it have all the rights the rest of your body have?It's the same damn thing when you die- the thing that gave you the rights is GONE- the body is all that is left. How can you honestly contend that a dead body has rights? Please answer some of these questions.

*There's a difference between monkeys and humans...usually, anyway.

No Cindy, tell me what the difference is. Why is monkey brain okay but not human? Whzt makes it wrong? What makes it bad?

*Thank you! Yes, I'm a student of Voltaire. I profoundly respect and admire the man; he's my hero.

Then make your teacher proud and point out where the flaws are in my argument.

*I can't give you that proof, sorry. I think I can, however, give an example of what may constitute proof: Nazi Germany. Nazi propaganda and its belief system felt retarded people had no rights [a Nazi might ask an non-Nazi ethicist where's the proof retarded people have rights?];

You can't provide me proof of your statement so it is nothing more than idle and unsubstaniated conjecture- bad conjecture at that since you offer some rather bad and weak analogies that do not readily apply to this discussion. I am discussing a dead inanimate person, there is no question of wether or not it has rights becuase to grant it rights is to grant all dead things the same rights they once possesed whent hey were living- it also presupposes that the dead get a say in how things in society work- so they would be represented but never have to deal with the outcome of their decisions- ohmygodincrediblystupid.

Come on Cindy, you can surly do better than this...can't you?

To me, the issue at stake here is an ethical one.

Ethics = subjective.

How a society of people treats its dead, elderly, and weaker members is an indication of its benevolence and humaneness or its brutality and harshness.

Some socieities ate their dead as a sign of respect- wopuld you still hold that behavior as brutal and harsh?

Once the "green light" is given to disrespecting those who cannot speak for themselves -- or can no longer speak for themselves -- further [higher] levels of disrespect will follow.

No, we're talking about the dead only- anything else is a seperate discussion. The dead become objects at the point of death, which can only be reversed if somehow the body is given life again. Why should an object have any rights?

Palomar · 2002-07-02 12:35:20

Clark: "If your arm is detached from your body, does it have all the rights the rest of your body have?"

*Yes, I think it does. If my arm were to be severed in an accident, I'd feel dignified for the hospital to dispose of it via the sanitary process of incineration...and I'd be nauseated and angry if hospital staff decided to throw it to some dogs in the back alley, to eat.

Clark: "It's the same damn thing when you die- the thing that gave you the rights is GONE- the body is all that is left. How can you honestly contend that a dead body has rights? Please answer some of these questions."

*The body should be treated/handled as the living person who once inhabited so willed. That's a right.

Clark: "No Cindy, tell me what the difference is. Why is monkey brain okay but not human? Whzt makes it wrong? What makes it bad?"

*Because human cannibalization isn't necessary to the survival of most people, most of the time, on this planet. On a news report last evening, people in an African nation who are facing starvation are eating insects, roots, and one man is even eating dirt...but they are not eating each other. Human cannabilization may be necessary in extreme survival situations [the 1800s Donner party in the Rocky Mountains of the USA], but most historical examples of human cannabilization show it to have been committed as an act of aggression and conquest: "We don't just kill our enemies or strangers who wander into our tribal camp...we boil and eat them, too, even though we've got plenty of non-human food available." In this setting, it's a rape of human dignity. There is, however, the exception you mention later on in the post [which I'll get to in a minute].

Me: "Thank you! Yes, I'm a student of Voltaire. I profoundly respect and admire the man; he's my hero."

Clark: "Then make your teacher proud and point out where the flaws are in my argument."

*You believe everything is subjective, and that there are no values. How can I give you proof? Logically, I can't.

Clark: "...surly..."

*Ah, Freudian slips; gotta watch out for those.

Me: "To me, the issue at stake here is an ethical one."

Clark: "Ethics = subjective."

*And you also believe ::values:: are subjective. If that's so, you should feel no hesitation whatsoever to provide this message board with your full name, credit card names and numbers, bank account numbers, your street address, telephone number, and Social Security number [if you're a USA citizen]. But you won't -- which proves that even you have objective values.

Me: "How a society of people treats its dead, elderly, and weaker members is an indication of its benevolence and humaneness or its brutality and harshness."

Clark: "Some socieities ate their dead as a sign of respect- wopuld you still hold that behavior as brutal and harsh?"

*The objective principle in this is RESPECT. Yes, I've heard of a tribe of people who eat a portion of the deceased relative's brain, as a sign of respect. There's a difference between cannabilization in this specific instance [the tribal members know beforehand this will occur; it's traditional to them, and thus consensual] -- a sign of RESPECT [as weird as it may seem to me] -- versus Jeffrey Dahmer and well-fed tribes of old boiling and eating their victims or strangers as a sign of power-over, overkill, and hostility.

Clark: "No, we're talking about the dead only- anything else is a seperate discussion. The dead become objects at the point of death, which can only be reversed if somehow the body is given life again. Why should an object have any rights?"

*Because a dead human body isn't an object. Even animals don't treat their own dead with disregard. I've seen a mother sea lion grieving the death of her newborn infant; if that wailing wasn't grief, I don't know what is. Elephants, if coming across the skull and bones of a dead elephant -- even if not of their pack -- will gently caress and nuzzle the bones as a group, and will linger for a while very quietly and solemnly, then depart. They are recognizing the bones and skull as having belonged to one of them. Monkeys will do ritual-type activity for one of their deceased.

How do you explain this, Clark?

--Cindy

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2002-05-22 08:01:44

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#27 2002-05-22 08:17:50

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#28 2002-05-31 15:57:35

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#29 2002-06-03 08:57:42

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#30 2002-06-03 13:55:28

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#31 2002-06-03 14:04:53

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#32 2002-06-03 14:17:28

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#33 2002-06-03 14:29:39

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#34 2002-06-03 15:31:06

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#35 2002-06-03 15:57:35

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#36 2002-06-04 11:25:10

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#37 2002-06-04 14:02:42

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#38 2002-06-04 15:26:03

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#39 2002-06-04 16:01:15

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#40 2002-06-07 10:55:31

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#41 2002-06-15 13:08:19

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#42 2002-06-15 13:38:14

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#43 2002-07-01 09:04:14

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#44 2002-07-01 16:13:31

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#45 2002-07-02 06:51:38

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#46 2002-07-02 10:15:03

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#47 2002-07-02 10:40:25

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

#48 2002-07-02 12:35:20

Re: The Martian Dead - What's to become of them?

Board footer