Morality question (Mature Audience)

[LV426]

Some of you might recognize these questions and others may not but I wanted to see what everyone thinks.



A man goes to his local grocery store once a week and buys a frozen chicken. But before cooking and eating the chicken, he has sexual intercourse with it. Then he cooks it and eats it. He never tells anyone about what he does, never regrets it and never shows any ill effects from behaving this way. He remains an upstanding member of his community.


Is this morally wrong?




Second scenario:


A man has his parents over every Sunday, and every Sunday they eat duck. The man doesn't like his parents coming over and he doesn't like to eat duck but his parents insist so every Sunday his wife prepares them a duck dinner. One day the man decides that he has had enough and he takes the defrosting duck out of the fridge Saturday night and he has sexual intercourse with the duck. He then puts the duck back in the fridge and the next day his wife cooks the duck as usual and serves it for dinner.
He never tells anyone about what he does, never regrets it and never shows any ill effects from behaving this way. He remains an upstanding member of his community.


Is this morally wrong?



Keep in mind that one of these scenarios actually happened and one, as far as I know is fictional.

[Klark]

1) I don't know if that's morally wrong, but it's definately messed up....ugh.

2) Yeah, I think this one is. Although one could call it experimenting, the fact is that he should stand up to his parents and his wife should back him up on it. "I don't like duck, I don't like having you over every Sunday. Every once in a while ain't so bad, but you're getting on my nerves." should suffice....not seeing what the slogan "fuck a duck" is all about. heh

[LycanSpectre]

Well, no one was harmed, and no one's rights were violated.

No one died
No one was harmed
No one was deprived of anything

So while disgusting, inconsiderate, and sick, it was not morally wrong.

[blueeyes]

The first one, although disturbing, is not morally incorrect, although the fowl probably wouldn't be too happy about it.

The second is morally incorrect. Although the methods are the same and the results are almost completely similar, it is very different. The perpertator decided to act with a negative intent, and that means that the person probably saw what they did as inacceptable, which also makes it a moral problem.

But that's just my opinion. By the way, how did the victims of the second case find out?

[LV426]

His "wife" walked in on him one Saturday night during his adventures.

[Wolf-Bone]

Ok, wait up a minute. Did his wife catch him doing it and cook the duck the next day anyway (fuckin' EWW!)?! Or was it something he did every week and he just eventually got caught?

[Hagakure]

Both of those are kind of disturbing. As for morally wrong, I don't think they are. If you're going to have sex with a dead duck, then maybe your parents deserve to eat it when you are done.

[Hellcat]

both of those are a bit fowl :D

Seriously, the former looks like a case of necrophelia, which by modern principles is probably seen more as some form of mental illness. However the chap is not intending to humilate or harm anyone but himself then on his moral judgement is concerned.

The second, in my mind, goes against my morals as the guy set out with the intention of humilating someone even if it is without their knowledge. To me that is immoral

[Lost_Soul]

As most others have already stated, the first one isn't morally incorrect.* He did it on free will and didn't involve any others.

The second is morally incorrect because he involved others without their consent.

*Did I use a double negative?...It almost seems like it was neccessary.* :confused:

[LV426]

Ok, wait up a minute. Did his wife catch him doing it and cook the duck the next day anyway (fuckin' EWW!)?! Or was it something he did every week and he just eventually got caught?
He did it every wekk until she caught him, then she left and she doesn't know if he still fucks the duck.

[kaycee]

Some of you might recognize these questions and others may not but I wanted to see what everyone thinks.



A man goes to his local grocery store once a week and buys a frozen chicken. But before cooking and eating the chicken, he has sexual intercourse with it. Then he cooks it and eats it. He never tells anyone about what he does, never regrets it and never shows any ill effects from behaving this way. He remains an upstanding member of his community.


Is this morally wrong?




Second scenario:


A man has his parents over every Sunday, and every Sunday they eat duck. The man doesn't like his parents coming over and he doesn't like to eat duck but his parents insist so every Sunday his wife prepares them a duck dinner. One day the man decides that he has had enough and he takes the defrosting duck out of the fridge Saturday night and he has sexual intercourse with the duck. He then puts the duck back in the fridge and the next day his wife cooks the duck as usual and serves it for dinner.
He never tells anyone about what he does, never regrets it and never shows any ill effects from behaving this way. He remains an upstanding member of his community.


Is this morally wrong?



Keep in mind that one of these scenarios actually happened and one, as far as I know is fictional.

1) Whatever floats your boat. At least he isn't abusing children or hurting anyone right? So he fucks chickens. People have all kinds of weird fetishes. If he wants to eat his fuck for dinner, then so be it. That's his own bizzy. I bet people do weirder stuff than that eh?

2) That guy is a sick, twisted bastard.

Undoubtedly, we all have the same answer to your question about the two cases.

[SnowWalker]

In my opinion:

the first is not morally wrong (because no one gets hurt ... well the chicken did.. but that's a whole different subject ;) )

I think the second one IS morally wrong, because even though no one gets "hurt" in the general sense of the word, it's still rather a nasty thing to do!

~Snowy

[Rlib]

The first is unhygienic only for the weirdo (and anybody he might contact later...), the second is unhygienic for his relatives :)

Seriously it can't be legal to serve food you've rubbed bits of yourself into...

[Lycanthropologist]

there are diffrent ways to look at the question depending on the position you take in philosophy. i personally like to argue the side of utilitarianism. so if the man having intercourse with the birds is causing more pleasure than pain then he is acting in a morally right manner

[Xzengrim]

The first one is not morally reprehensible. The chicken is an inanimate object, a peice of property. And as a peice of property, the man out to be able to own it and do whatever with it he pleases, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone or encroach on the rights or well being of others. Unless it is against the man's own morals to have sex with a frozen chicken, having sex with a chicken is mechanically no different from having sex with any other inanimate object.

The second one is morally reprehensible because it is unsanitary. It displays ill will and risks the health of the other people involved (whether or not they actually came to harm). For this reason, it is an irresponsible thing to do. People should not eat unsanitary or disagreeable things without being informed that they are doing so.

[Le Bete]

If you take the view of the guy, the first scenario is for self pleasure and the second is for revenge against a duck dinner (so obviously he likes chickens and not ducks, thus his outwardly expressed behaviors towards chickens and ducks). O.k., I think the second scenario was immoral because he was getting back at someone else and using the bird to do it. I also think both are immoral because of the disrespectful acts he performed upon once living things. People and other animals eat other live animals for food, and this is not considered immoral or disrepctful for some reason. These questions asked by "Lycanthropic Howl" are really thought provoking, if you dwell upon them, as so many other moral questions come into play. To me, you must have respect for all other living things, this guy truely didn't respect the birds, all he cared about was himself, I think he was disrepectful and immoral.

[Lycanthropologist]

The first one is not morally reprehensible. The chicken is an inanimate object, a peice of property. And as a peice of property, the man out to be able to own it and do whatever with it he pleases, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone or encroach on the rights or well being of others. Unless it is against the man's own morals to have sex with a frozen chicken, having sex with a chicken is mechanically no different from having sex with any other inanimate object.

The second one is morally reprehensible because it is unsanitary. It displays ill will and risks the health of the other people involved (whether or not they actually came to harm). For this reason, it is an irresponsible thing to do. People should not eat unsanitary or disagreeable things without being informed that they are doing so.


Good post although we have diffrent points you make a very strong case

[ThrasherCub]

I have incredibly complex and strict code morals. In fact, I have over 400 minor rules for them.

I find that sexual pleasure should come from a single source in life, and it should be a single being, whome you love and devote your life to.

This guy's banging a frozen meat product.... That more than qualifies as wrong in my eyes.

[Lycanthropologist]

I have incredibly complex and strict code morals. In fact, I have over 400 minor rules for them.

I find that sexual pleasure should come from a single source in life, and it should be a single being, whome you love and devote your life to.

This guy's banging a frozen meat product.... That more than qualifies as wrong in my eyes.

So you have written out your own moral code.

[Tiamot]

1) What a man does with his chicken in the privacy of his own home is his own business.


2) I think this one is wrong simply because the guy wasn't man or adult enough to deal with the situation in a rational way. Besides, what he did, did not solve the problem. I'm sure they'll keep having duck untill he guy actually says something.

[ThrasherCub]

So you have written out your own moral code.

More or less. It's drawn from many codes and rules of various important figures, religions, and mythologies.

[Kaine]

1. To my beliefs this is morally wrong, and sick.

2. Worse, sicker.

I think I kept my cool too much, this is just plain gross, and completely wrong, it should be to anyone's belief.

[Nack]

1- No, its not morally wrong but a little disturbing for the chicken.
2-Yes, that's morally wrong, their his parents, there are other ways to get back at them, but not fucking the food they eat. :eek:

[cyberphreak82]

The freedom to choose our own destiny is one of the most treasured freedoms any being has. Therefore to violate the free will of another living creature is the ultimate iniquity that one can perform, and any immoral act is committed in conjunction with a violation of said free will. In the first case, no one's free will was violated. The man got sex and a meal, just as he wanted. The chicken's free will was not violated, because it was dead. In the latter case, however, the entire family's free will is violated, even if they are unaware of it. Therefore this act is immoral.

[lycan]

Well, first of all it's beastiality, and second of all its necrophilia (spelling?). So, would his problem be called necroality or beastiphilia? :D

[Loups_Garou]

They were both morally wrong because these people were not only having sex with animals, which is morally wrong, but they were having sex with dead animals, which is even worse. As for eating them... that's just nasty.

[XWOLFX]

Well...he had sex with a chicken!...then he ate it!
Well...he had sex with a duck!...then everyone ate it!

There is definently something wrong there.

[perpetual sorrow]

1.- ewwwww yeah its morally wrong

2.- kinda but i'd love to see the face of the wife