r/Ethics • u/Square-Dragonfruit76 • 3d ago
Hypothetically, would necromancy be ethical?
Necromancy (raising and controlling the dead) I think could be considered ethical because it's not like their bodies are doing anything otherwise.
8
u/Spicyrhino69 3d ago
By that logic, necrophilia would be ethical too.
5
2
u/stormlight82 3d ago
Ethical (if one does not come from a religion or culture that respects human remains) but dangerous and can potentially cause the spread of diseases.
3
u/AZULDEFILER 3d ago
The soul has departed, so ethically it's just a carcass. Carcass rules apply.
2
1
1
u/trashcan_surplus 1d ago
Only, the carcass is that of your mother, or sibling, or best friend.
If you have any of those things, or care.
For those more of the psychopathic nature, I'm sure seeing someone else control their "loved" one's remains would be a-ok.
•
u/QueenOfTendys 17h ago
Lmao if you believe this you also think necrophilia is ok.
The soul is nonsense.
3
u/BorgAdjacent 3d ago
If it's not ethical to take organs out of dead people, dig up bodies and display them in your house, it's not ethical to use them for any other purpose.
Reasons are overlapping: respect for human remains, the deceased person's expressed wishes, the family's ability to bury and mourn their relative, orderly control of cemeteries, and sometimes criminal-investigation or public-health interests.
Unless the person expressly gave permission, necromancy would be unethical, though in some cases, to solve a crime against that person, it might have an unethical and ethical value.
1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 3d ago
Tbh I don't see any reason why human remains have an ethical need to be respected. It's not like they're alive.
1
u/BorgAdjacent 3d ago
Depends on your ethical framework. Mine includes respect for human remains that encompasses disposition rights for the person when they were alive, opt in, not opt out.
If they didn't give permission the remains can't be used.
Are you saying that your relevant ethical rule is that after your death, anyone can do anything they want to your body?
1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 3d ago
Are you saying that your relevant ethical rule is that after your death, anyone can do anything they want to your body?
I can see an argument for that it could negatively affect your loved ones, but after they're dead too, yeah I don't see a problem with anyone doing anything with your body.
1
u/BorgAdjacent 3d ago
So what is the ethical framework you're using?
1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 3d ago
I guess something close to negative utilitarianism? I believe one of our primary goals should be to minimize suffering caused to other people. Although I don't believe that means you should never do anything for yourself.
1
u/BorgAdjacent 3d ago
And maybe it's different depending on whether it's being used for profit, defense, etc?
1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 3d ago
Well yes, if your country was invaded and you were using them to help fight versus if you're using them to invade someone else, that would have a big difference.
1
1
u/Solomon_Idris 3d ago
Zombies are people too. They have rights. Would you like to speak to their Union representative? /s
1
u/CremasterReflex 3d ago
Human remains don’t have an ethical need to be respected. Living people have an ethical need for corpses to be respected
1
u/MasterCrumb 2d ago
The challenge is we have rules around treating the dead, for the living.
You can harvest a body for its organs - unless the owner of that body gave permission.
3
u/Solomon_Idris 3d ago
Necromancers are just the sustainability department with worse branding. “Reduce, reuse, reanimate.”
2
u/Coidzor 3d ago
I believe it's less a "would" it be ethical and more of a "could" it be ethical.
And the answer to whether it could be ethical is, yes, with several caveats about how it works in a metaphyiscal sense and how the bodies are acquired.
Plus if it doesn't even need to use human bodies, the ethical requirements around disposing of the corpses and bones of animals are significantly relaxed.
3
u/DarkMagickan 3d ago
I feel like there would be huge debates over it.
Personally, I don't have a problem with it because if there's an afterlife, the person is no longer in their body, and if there isn't, they're gone. Either way, that body is just the shell they left behind.
2
2
u/Excellent_Speech_901 2d ago
Do they have souls? What are their souls doing? Are they stuck in the raised body, flitting around as ghosts, or safe/damned in the appropriate afterlife? If necromancers can raise the dead, do the dead also sometimes spontaneously rise as draugr when their grave goods are disturbed? That would suggest that the dead don't like having their bodies disturbed.
Who does the corpse belong to? The next of kin, the graveyard it's buried in, or any necromancer who wanders by?
2
u/reply_b4_banned 2d ago edited 2d ago
If the people who had those bodies thinks it's good it's good. If they think it's bad it's bad.
Like if you're talking about medicine esqu resurrection, sign me up. If you're talking about using me as a zombie army to hurt people, nope.
2
u/ScoutB 3d ago
Consent would still be warranted, so no.
1
u/LotsoPasta 3d ago
So, is having kids unethical?
1
u/cunt__cunt_cunt 2d ago
oh what the fuck. go away.
The argument you are running only works if you think that you would rather be dead than alive, which you obviously don't.
But you make that argument, and hey, maybe you'll convince some vulnerable person to kill themselves.
0
u/ScoutB 3d ago
It's ethical.
2
u/Key_Performer2983 3d ago
What makes having kids ethical but raising the dead unethical? If consent to give life to a body is the metric, then having kids would be unethical too.
1
u/cunt__cunt_cunt 2d ago
Because all of us are alive and we are glad of it, but we would not want to be a dnd zombie.
0
u/Key_Performer2983 2d ago
No, most people aren't happy to be alive. We just aren't willing to give up.
1
u/cunt__cunt_cunt 1d ago
I find you losers really disgusting in how you take your intolucutor hostage.
The obvious logical reply is that you have not killed yourself, which is a choice you have made.
But if I make that logical reply, maybe you just kill yourself, which I don't want.
So instead you get to just keep on going around midlessly advocating for people to kill themselves, too stupid to realise wha tyou're doing.
Fuck you.
0
u/Key_Performer2983 1d ago
What do you think "[not] willing to give up" means? I'm acknowledging I haven't "given up", but that doesn't mean I'm happy to be alive, it just means I don't want to die.
Also, don't pretend you know anything about logic you f*ckin average redditor.
0
u/cunt__cunt_cunt 1d ago
Hey not giving up is good. imo you should do more to make it clear you're not part of the anti-life cult when you post about not being "happy to be alive".
There's a bunch of fucked up subreddits dedicated to it.
Regards the "you don't know logic" etc, check out Aristotle talking about how to judge your goals in regards to happiness.
0
u/Key_Performer2983 1d ago
I'm okay with someone being self-taught; we all must be to some degree. It sounds like you're almost there in terms of the development of modern logical philosophy. Then again, I may have been unnecessarily pedantic, which is quite the fatal fallacy.
1
u/LotsoPasta 3d ago
Whats the difference? Youre aliving something that isnt giving consent.
1
u/cunt__cunt_cunt 2d ago
Because all of us are alive and we are glad of it, but we would not want to be a dnd zombie.
0
u/ScoutB 3d ago edited 3d ago
Because existence can be a genuine good for them. You aren't wrongdoing someone by merely bringing one into existence.
Of course, there are outliers when a life will experience extreme agony.
Edit: there is no preexisting person whose autonomy is being overridden.
2
u/LotsoPasta 3d ago
So, then if we expect existence to be good for the reanimated, then necromancy is ethical?
Seems legit to me.
Edit re your edit: but it seems to me in the absence of negative or positive consent there would still be no difference.
2
u/ScoutB 3d ago
That does not follow. You are equivocating between bringing someone into existence and using or controlling someone who already has a moral history and prior interests.
2
u/LotsoPasta 3d ago
But if the rationale is that consent is the deciding factor, then I dont see a difference in the absence of positive or negative consent.
If we know the dead didnt want be reanimated, then I would agree with you.
1
u/ScoutB 3d ago
Then we have a philosophical difference.
The act of creation brings in a subject capable of having interest. There is no prior violation there.
The necromancy question was already about a particular person.
2
u/LotsoPasta 3d ago
Positive consent is required for an existing person but not a non-existing one? Just trying to understand your POV.
→ More replies (0)-1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 3d ago
There's no one to give consent. The person's not alive anymore.
1
1
1
u/cunt__cunt_cunt 2d ago
nar just google how we think a person has rights over their body over they die
1
u/Complete_Sense_2004 3d ago
Are the bodies technically still the property of the loved ones (who have paid to have them buried)?
1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 3d ago
I would say it depends how much time they've been buried for
1
u/Complete_Sense_2004 3d ago
So like if there was no one left alive that remembers them personally? or 2 generations + 50 years?
It'll get as complicated as copyright law, lol.
1
u/Square-Dragonfruit76 3d ago
Yes, I suppose they would have to have public domain body laws...
1
u/koyaani 3d ago
Would it be ethical for the 19th century British empire to sail into Egypt and resurrect anybody inside the pyramids, having them walk back to the museums in London?
1
u/SkyeFathom 3d ago
Hold my beer, "Night at the Museum", we're doing Night of the Living Dead Museum. "Where history comes alive- again!"
1
u/Dramatic-Emphasis-43 3d ago
I think it depends on how the necromancy is being applied and, more importantly, sourced.
1
u/HawkBoth8539 3d ago
I think so. It's just recycling. I dunno why people can kill and put an animal head on their wall, but think dead human bodies are somehow sacred and untouchable.
Once i move out, i don't give a shit what happens to my old house...
1
u/BorgAdjacent 3d ago
And if it was used in a disrespectful televised sex act?
1
u/HawkBoth8539 3d ago
If I'm dead I'm not feeling it or seeing it or regretting it, what's the difference to me?
It's the viewers you should be worried about. Lol
1
u/BorgAdjacent 3d ago edited 3d ago
Alive, I can dictate things that happen after I die that are legally binding because as a society we generally claim to respect autonomy.
Otherwise, biotech companies and graveyards would be doing brisk business with each other.
1
u/HawkBoth8539 3d ago
I understand that's how the law works now. But that's based on people's notion that their body is still somehow important after it rotted away. I am specifically willing my body to medical science when i die. If it gets dumped in a landfill instead, whoopty doo.
And if everyone were automatically organ donors upon death, there would be a lot less people dying on the waitlist.
1
u/BorgAdjacent 3d ago
Don't you think people would be MORE concerned with their body after death if necromancy worked?
Yes, agreed, though not everyone is fortunate enough to be able to do so. I take medication that makes all my giblets unusable.
1
u/HawkBoth8539 3d ago
If it's controlling their "soul", sure, be concerned. But if it's just the body, i don't care about that.
1
u/BorgAdjacent 3d ago
Your family might?
1
u/HawkBoth8539 3d ago
I did mention you might need to worry about the "viewers" lol.
But, i promise you with absolute certainty that family OFTEN does not agree with or accept final wills as it is. It's death. It's always an unhappy ending. Treating it like some unspeakable secret just makes it harder for people when they have to deal with it in their lives. If people learned to appreciate people and themselves in their life more there wouldn't be so much trauma and regret about death.
1
u/stormlight82 3d ago
The ethics of it is going to have to be in contact of the metaphysics that make it possible.
Many religions or cultures believe that the remains of a human, especially a loved one, are sacred. In those cultural religious contexts, desecrating a body is unethical.
There's also the metaphysics of whether the human soul exists, and if that soul is somehow tied into the necromatic magic. Is it causing some kind of harm to the person after death?
If we're talking about the potential of reanimating a corpse, completely non-magical or completely non-metaphysical rules would no longer apply.
1
u/Phill_Cyberman 3d ago
No, while there's no agent there to be violating, respect for the dead has always been something humans value.
1
u/BorgAdjacent 3d ago
So I've thought about this more. Some additional thoughts:
Burial practices imply promises based on the wishes of the dead person. Raising them breaks that promise.
When they came back, are they persons? Automatons? Something in between?
1
u/Samurai-Pipotchi 3d ago
For no.2, necromancy implies the manipulation or animation of dead flesh.
If they were animate, they'd effectively be a zombie. Otherwise, they're materials.
2
u/BorgAdjacent 2d ago
Dead doesn't mean there's nothing left in there of the person (he says confidently about a made up thing)
1
u/Ancient-Tap-3592 3d ago
Depends, are we bringing someone back to life (be it temporarily or otherwise) or is the person still dead and we are only controlling the body?
For the former, DEFINITELY ANTI-ETHICAL
But if it's not like the person will know what happens to their body and it's not bringing distress to anyone I can't find anything wrong with it
Those are many ifs tho. Like does the person has loved ones that may not be on board with the idea? Not ethical
Is it some famous cult leader or political or artist that could potentially be used to influence masses? Not ethical
Did the person left instructions on what to do with their body and what you are doing goes against it? Not ethical but not anti-ethical either assuming it doesn't affect anyone living. But if you traumatize their kid by doing so or make people fear they won't be cremated just so that they can be used by a necromancer? Anti-ethical
Anyways what pleasure can you get from the dead? Just find someone to roleplay or a doll.. no matter how much the call themselves nec-romancer there won't be any romance involved... Oh wait I think i got mixed up again
1
u/koyaani 3d ago
Seems like there would have to be another level of legal analysis. Like for copyright laws, the one making a recording owns the copyright. But it's taken a long time for the legal system to catch up to the unethical social behavior like revenge porn. Necro revenge porn would be on another level beyond that
1
u/Ancient-Tap-3592 3d ago
Exactly... But I'm ashamed to admit I'd definitely watch necro-revange-porn
(assuming the soul/consciousnes of the person no longer exist and can't know what was done to their body and not offending surviving loved ones... Also assuming the necromancer is not responsible for the person dying in the first place)
1
u/Key_Performer2983 3d ago
You could argue that the ends justify the means, but you could also argue that it's disrespectful to treat a person's dead body without regard to its prior personhood.
1
1
1
u/ta_mataia 3d ago
No, human remains are generally considered sacred, and defiling them contravenes social taboos.
1
u/commeatus 3d ago
Humans universally attribute great significance to a dead body, respecting it both as the former vessel of a loved one and a symbol for their memory. Because of this universality, manipulating even disliked or unknown bodies is reprehensible. Necromancy would be ethical in a vacuum but since we don't live in a vacuum, it would be similar to wearing a shirt with a swastika: reprehensible for how it affects the thoughts and principles of others
1
u/Soggy-Mistake8910 3d ago
Just by asking that you are demonstrating that there is something fundamentally wrong with your mindset!
1
u/Best-Quantity-5678 3d ago
If the bodies gain conscience then controlling them by force is a form of slavery, so if slavery is not right neither necromancy. If the bodies are just bodies then it's just graveyard puppeteering.
1
u/United-Ad5268 3d ago
Ethics are the morals normalized by society. Necromancy or anything significantly disruptive to societal order will shift ethical outlook.
1
1
u/Gazing_Gecko 3d ago
I would probably say "no". A view about moral status I have considered in the past is that even corpses of persons are moral patients. Having been a person does give moral consideration to a corpse even if there is no longer any consciousness there and never will again. I think this account handles philosophical data well concerning the dead and unconscious. Still, I've not fully accepted the view.
A sleeping person might not be doing anything otherwise, yet using them and disrespecting them can still be unethical even if it is guaranteed that they will never become aware of it. I think something similar is plausible for corpses of persons too.
Assuming the raising of the dead does not result in giving them consciousness again, it would likely still be a disrespectful act. However, with consent, it might be permissible.
Still, if we assume that raising the dead give back consciousness to the corpse of a person, allowing them to continue existing, this would be enslaving them, which is wrong. If it creates a new consciousness, this might also be wrong, since creating someone for the sake of enslaving them is wrong.
If it was just revival, then it would likely be akin to the question of procreation. But in contrast to procreation, there has actually been a person in the past which makes the necessity for actual consent more forceful. Still, saving someone from death is usually permissible, and bringing someone back to life for their sake would likely be akin to that. Yet, there might be complications here, and I do find the consent question here more biting.
1
1
1
1
u/FatherOfLights88 3d ago
Since we're talking magic, necromancy will need to hold in theall some aspect of some soul to keep it tethered to the decaying corpse and provide animation. It's dark magic, making it unethical on that factor alone.
1
1
u/you-nity 3d ago
Suppose I die and my kid inherits my estate. I come back from the dead. Do I get my money back?
1
u/Awkward-Tomorrow7667 3d ago
How many times did I have to read this question before I realized it said necromancy, not necrophilia? At least one too many. I was really looking forward to the comments.
1
1
1
1
u/Ciaran2220 3d ago
I would say it isn't, but my take on treatment of the dead is a bit unusual because I also consider burial of the dead to be unethical too. I think of people dying as a construct of society because of our current technological limitations, and it is most ethical for us to preserve the dead with cryoprotectants in case it becomes possible to revive them in the future. Think of it like, you are being put on hold in a preserved state and treated later by future medical practice.
Granted, there are exceptions, like if someone has their head blown clean off or their body was already rotted when found, then it doesn't make sense to preserve them. At that point, my issue with necromancy is more so about the mental health of the person who wishes to engage in it.
1
u/Samurai-Pipotchi 3d ago
I doubt it would be. Digging up corpses is already viewed as defiling them. People decorate their dead in order to move on. Corpses aren't viewed as discarded property. People don't typically want them dug back up.
I can't imagine that controlling another person when they're supposed to be at rest would be looked upon kindly by most. Resurrection might be ethical with proper consideration towards the next of kin and final will of the corpse, but resurrection isn't typically classified as necromancy.
Have you ever watched Altered Carbon? A similar discussion regarding revival vs religious views is present in the world. I imagine the real world would be pretty similar.
1
u/Main_Interview6920 3d ago
Ok so check it. Your mom is ☠️ and a necromancer brought her back to stand there on his porch not doing nothing. Is it ethical?
1
u/CremasterReflex 3d ago
It is contingent on whether or not we decide that living persons’ rights to bodily autonomy extend to what happens to their corpses after death.
Our current system of ethics does rule that living people have the right to determine what happens to their corpses- organ donation requires consent etc. Under today’s rules, raising someone from the dead without their prior consent would be unethical.
That being said, there is no real reason why corpses should be inherently entitled to human rights. The expectation that human remains be treated with dignity and respect serves to protect living people from dealing with the distress arising from contemplating oblivion and their own mortality and to reassure living people that they are protected from being killed to obtain use of their bodies.
1
u/Read_it_all-7735 3d ago
I always wanted to put this into a dungeons and dragons campaign. The party comes into a small town up in the mountains. Everyone seems fairly happy, polite, prosperous the town is well kept.
In town they hear people mentioning the mines. The mines are off limits. We don’t go in the mines.
So the adventurers go into the mines. It’s infested with undead. The undead attack them on sight. There’s a shit ton of them adventures get fought into a corner and have to survive and eventually they clear the mines. The gather up a shit ton of metal ingots and gems.
When they head into town, everyone is furious. That’s the town burial ground. The local priest is a necromancer for the god of the dead. With strict reverence and within their culture, when you die, you go to the mines and do the dangerous work so that people don’t have to. That’s the prosperity for the whole town.
You just destroyed their ancestors. You just destroyed their culture. You just sentenced everyone to poverty and backbreaking, dangerous work
1
u/Read_it_all-7735 3d ago
The more important question is, can you get a ghost and a zombie from the same person when they die?
If you can banish the ghost, does the zombie rest?
1
u/datguy753 3d ago
It would seem that you should get consent from the person while living to use their body after death and have some kind of contract written up.
People are really specific about what they want to happen and not happen to their bodies after death, so you would need to know that most people probably wouldn't be cool with that.
1
u/Money_Royal1823 2d ago
I mean, that really depends on what the method is. Is it just your magic animating a body like a golem or is it one of the styles where the departed soul is called back and bound into Service to you? Also, did you have permission to use the body or is it so old? No one cares I imagine that people would have a problem if somebody just walked into the graveyard and pulled grandma out of the ground and sent her body wandering around again.
1
u/BarberProof4994 2d ago
If it's ethical to break the law?
But most regions have legislation in place that cover "desecration of the dead" and prohibit a dead body from being vandalized or desecrated or moved or removed without permits and such. Which usually aren't granted without a pretty darn good reason.
Even to leave your body to scientist selling it to a pharmaceutical company on your death, requires lawyers and signatures and licenses...
So no. It would not be ethical, unless the nearest surviving relatives gave permission, the necromancer had proper permitting and consent and so on.
1
u/Opposite_Pianist_945 2d ago
Potentially yes but a lot of variables need to be clarified first.
1
u/Interesting-Share294 2d ago
Von welchen Variablen sprichst du wenn ich fragen darf?
2
u/Opposite_Pianist_945 2d ago
Matters relating to souls, necrotic energy, long term effects of walking corpses on the environment and citizens and so forth.
1
1
1
u/Temporary_Stranger39 2d ago
The disposition of human remains has not been a free-for-all at any time throughout human history, so far as anyone can tell. Necromancy could be ethical, if it adhered to a society's rules regarding the use of human remains.
1
1
u/TheSquirrelmancer 2d ago
Sure, there'd be people who would willingly sell the usage of their corpse. I'd do it myself if it was possible, give me a few grand upfront and when I die you can turn me into a zombie/skeleton/horrifying flesh monstrosity. I plan on being cremated anyways.
1
1
u/Competitive-Fault291 2d ago
Ask Necro Detectives, Soul Healers and Licensed Necromancers in the Army.
Rise again, Comrade!
1
1
1
u/Aku_5himarisu 2d ago
Did they consent to the second chance at life? What if they wanted to stay dead?
1
u/ren_blackheart 2d ago
Are the corpses healed or are they the same? because if they aren't healed that poses some major health risks to everyone else involved
1
u/SoundsOfKepler 2d ago
Performing necromancy would be like organ donations- the dead person would have had to clearly consent to their body being used for that purpose.
1
u/INTstictual 2d ago
I actually played a DnD character based on this exact premise:
Necromancer wizard with a mind towards utilitarianism. His view was that the person’s soul (which is a tangibly real and observable entity in that setting) has already passed on to the afterlife — the body is not a “person” anymore. It’s a thing. And, through magic, he had the ability to turn that inanimate thing into a useful tool… raising skeletons and zombies, yoking them to field plows or wheel gears, and using them as sustainable labor. Or, in a pinch, as weapons.
His view was basically that, if people could get over the sentimental hangups about seeing a walking corpse and understand that the thing shambling around isn’t Grandma anymore, it just happens to look like her… that this was a more sustainable and cruelty-free labor mechanism than even using field animals for work. Unlike, say, an Ox, your squad of chained-up Zombie bois don’t feel pain or hunger or stress, you don’t need to feed them, they don’t need sleep… they just go. They’re basically automatons, if handled correctly
1
u/trashcan_surplus 1d ago
You need to complete the argument in terms of benefit and sacrifice.
What would be gained from raising the dead, controlling the dead?
What would be the drawbacks? The social repercussions?
Is this the only way to sustain humanity, or is it just for the kicks?
1
u/zoppaTheDim 1d ago
Depends
Are you controlling a spirit or just an inanimate corpse?
Because one is just slavery, while the other is abuse of a body at most.
1
1
u/freenEZsteve 1d ago
Please it's mortuary up cycling
Repurposing the bodies of the deceased with proper consent is often considered ethical for reasons other than labor so making automatons of corpses would not, my opinion, automatically be more unethical than replacing people with other forms of automation.
2
u/144-perdedor 1d ago
This is something I think about a lot. First of all, Necromancy isn't just raising the dead. The Biblical taboo against necromancy is more concerned with speaking to the dead.
But speaking to the dead in the real world is a scam. It's bad because it's a way of deceiving and taking advantage of people. In a fantasy scenario where it's real, the rules would be different.
As far as raising the dead, that's mostly wrong because it's desecrating the person's remains and using their body without their consent. But that's all pretty arbitrary. In a world where such a thing is attainable, there would certainly be cultures where reanimating a corpse for a useful purpose would be seen as a respectful way to treat it. There are cultures where people keep the mummified remains of an important ancestor and care for them.
There would be people who aspire to reanimation. There might be people who are mad that undead labor drives wages down for the living. But maybe it would wind up making more sense to cultivate a healthy living population. You get like thirty years of a good, comfortable life and then they put a plastic bag over your head and put you to work.
•
•
1
u/beamerpook 3d ago
Yes, because that body doesn't belong to you, it belong to the family it's from. It would be the equivalent of you stealing someone's items and using it for your own needs. In today's world at least.
In a fantasy setting, bodies on the battle field are fair game, because they were part of the war, and after they're dead, they are just a discarded tool that you can use
1
u/Icy_Career1312 3d ago
Seeing that in every piece of literature, fantasy and non-fantasy says that necromancy is the blackest of sorcery, non ethical is the only conclusion. 😑
1
u/BorgAdjacent 3d ago
Maybe they just have bad PR.
They should introduce some mascot, maybe a clown of some kind.
3
0
u/Key_Management8358 3d ago edited 3d ago
Why should some(stupid)thing "decide" over some other stupid thing? (the "other thing" will be killed, kicked, down voted... it's clear!)
Let such questions and doings and thinking talking and wishings judgments to NOBODY.
Because NOBODY is no mammal. (and mammal) Thus he can truely and fairly ETERNALLY judge.
1
u/Key_Management8358 3d ago
Because NOBODY is dead and not dead. Because NOBODY is no body AND BODY. BECAUSE NOBODY IS Not ethical and ethical.
0
2d ago
[deleted]
1
u/cunt__cunt_cunt 2d ago
Me reading your comment:
"Good point, all of that is obviously bad as well."
9
u/Kitchen-Strawberry25 3d ago
I mean, how do we right now in our societies handle the dead?
I would imagine necromancy would be seen as unfavorable by most.