Conversation

A man's beloved dog runs outside, gets hit by a car, and dies. The man mourns this greatly. Before burying the dog, the man has sex with the dog's corpse. He never had sex with the dog when it was live, and never does this again. Assume no risk of disease. This is:

Morally wrong
83.4%
Not morally wrong
16.6%

26,989 votesFinal results

5:50 PM · Jul 3, 2022

Replying to

Your mind is diseased.

2,055

Replying to

If "diseased" is your term for "curious about moral philosophy" then hell yea i'm diseased

128

Show replies

Replying to

I think the fact of imagining the reasons why someone would feel the need to do that is what makes it troubling and worriesome. Not the act in itself but what it implies. Of course no one is harmed but we have reasons to think someone could be based on this. Therefore morally wrg

Maxim Lott (MaximumTruth.substack.com)

Replying to

and

Yes. Our disgust senses didn’t appear out of nowhere. It’s a radar evolution gave us to warn of things that are likely to be harmful— everything from smells warning of disease, to someone sick enough to do the above; such person is relatively likely to do other sick things too

Show replies

Replying to

this is necrophilia.

Hi-Phi Nation, @hiphination@zirk.us

@HiPhiNation

Jul 6, 2022

Replying to

@Aella_Girl

People on Twitter just can't over their disgust Aella, this is one sample that's even more biased in favor of "this is sick" than even a representative one.

Replying to

This and the chicken poll are both great instances of the “Trolley problem” except in favor of virtue ethics (as opposed to consequentialism or deontology) for once.