What makes this wrong?

[doorknob]

It's wrong for all the reason's pretty much already stated above.

1 The child can't consent so it's rape. Irrelevant whether the child was harmed.
2 sex with children is wrong. Irrelevant of whether the child was harmed.
3 if the child is viable and would come out of the coma it would then be harmful to the child indefinitely.
4 It's wrong to use humans like an inanimate sex toy under any circumstances.

[Jason78]

Do we need the cup of tea thread again?

[The Skeletal Atheist]

What's wrong with fucking a dead kid? It's the same damn question. Here's a hint: if you are fucking a dead kid something isn't right with you psychologically.

[TrueStory]

It's wrong for all the reason's pretty much already stated above.

1 The child can't consent so it's rape. Irrelevant whether the child was harmed.
2 sex with children is wrong. Irrelevant of whether the child was harmed.
3 if the child is viable and would come out of the coma it would then be harmful to the child indefinitely.
4 It's wrong to use humans like an inanimate sex toy under any circumstances.

I was going to say something similar but your #4 applys to children only but if a consenting adult wants to be used like an inanimate sex toy then so be it.

[Drummer Guy]

It's wrong for all the reason's pretty much already stated above.

1 The child can't consent so it's rape. Irrelevant whether the child was harmed.
2 sex with children is wrong. Irrelevant of whether the child was harmed.
3 if the child is viable and would come out of the coma it would then be harmful to the child indefinitely.
4 It's wrong to use humans like an inanimate sex toy under any circumstances.

You, and several other, have missed the point.  What makes these things wrong?  I agree with all of your points, and so does my friend who asked the original question.  But the question is, why is it wrong?  All you're doing is restating that you think it's wrong.

There are others who have given me some good material to work from.  Contractarianism has the best interest of all parties in mind, as determined from an outside, unbiased, perfectly rational observer.  Our society protects those that cannot defend themselves.  This is wrong for the same reason that a date rape drug is wrong, even if the victim never knows about it and doesn't have any noticeable harm done, it's still taking advantage of someone without their consent.  The intention of the offender is also to be considered, do they have everyone's best interest in mind, or do they only have their own best interest in mind?  If you need to subdue someone in order to get what you want, then you've violated the social contract.

Follow up thoughts?

[aitm]

Morality did not evolve because there were punishments for immoral acts, it evolved because there wasn't.

That is a most excellent point. You should trademark that. I like it.

[Drummer Guy]

What's wrong with fucking a dead kid? It's the same damn question. Here's a hint: if you are fucking a dead kid something isn't right with you psychologically.

When you say "something isn't right" you make it sound like humans are intended to be a certain way.  Is that what you think?

[Drummer Guy]

Morality did not evolve because there were punishments for immoral acts, it evolved because there wasn't.

Wouldn't it be more true to say that about the law and social justice?  It would make more sense for a recognition of morality to evolve first, and then for the law to evolve because there are no punishments for immoral acts.

[Termin]

Wouldn't it be more true to say that about the law and social justice?  It would make more sense for a recognition of morality to evolve first, and then for the law to evolve because there are no punishments for immoral acts.

  Basic morality, which I would define as not hurting those in your own tribe/family group,  would have  evolved long before we even had languages, let alone laws.

[DeathandGrim]

Alot of this is wrong. I'm more than certain that several people would expose said child molester before he even gets out his wallet and also alert police. I also think that the power of crowdfunding and internet activism would see this child to a safe home. So this scenario is a tad unlikely IMO.

Now back to why this is wrong. The motive is all wrong. It's like Hansel and Gretel where the Witch feeds the kids and entertains them first. That's all there needs to be said about that. He's not saving the kid's life really because he's most likely going to fuck it up even worse when he wakes from the coma.

[doorknob]

When you say "something isn't right" you make it sound like humans are intended to be a certain way.  Is that what you think?

Um we pretty much are programmed to be a certain way. Science and psychology prove that. Humans behave in similar ways to similar situations for the most part. Of course there are exceptions but from a generalized perspective they are intended to be a certain way. Not saying that deviating from that is wrong. In some cases deviating from the normal human reaction is the right thing to do, it's just rare. So yeah fucking dead things is not a prescribed human behavior.

And I did not restate that it was wrong. If you can't understand the reasons why it's wrong what is it you are looking for? What would be by your definition an except able description of immoral? Please give an example.

[Sal1981]

No consent; basically rape.

[ahplshutup]

Introduction of "pedophile" has made it so obviously wrong. There's no trick answer that could possibly argue against this.

[Summertimeyeah]

You, and several other, have missed the point.  What makes these things wrong?  I agree with all of your points, and so does my friend who asked the original question.  But the question is, why is it wrong?  All you're doing is restating that you think it's wrong.

There are others who have given me some good material to work from.  Contractarianism has the best interest of all parties in mind, as determined from an outside, unbiased, perfectly rational observer.  Our society protects those that cannot defend themselves.  This is wrong for the same reason that a date rape drug is wrong, even if the victim never knows about it and doesn't have any noticeable harm done, it's still taking advantage of someone without their consent.  The intention of the offender is also to be considered, do they have everyone's best interest in mind, or do they only have their own best interest in mind?  If you need to subdue someone in order to get what you want, then you've violated the social contract.

Follow up thoughts?

People are getting taking advantage without their consent all the time. All the time.

[Baruch]

Consent is for the upper class.  Get back to work you scum!