3 ms·
If that's the case, then why is it a good thing that humans are being used for compost? Seems inconsistent. Either humans are more sacred than other animals,
by yters 7y ago
If that's the case, then why is it a good thing that humans are being used for compost? Seems inconsistent. Either humans are more sacred than other animals, and should be treated specially, even when dead. Or, if they don't need to be treated specially when dead, then why treat them specially at any other point?
I guess this legislation is a way to rationally erode the obsolete emotional reasons for treating the human body as something special.
- mises 7y agoI'm not sure what you're arguing here. I believe humans are sacred and ought to be treated as such, even when dead.
- yters 7y agoI'm pointing out the legislation is incompatible with the view the human body is sacred.
- ncallaway 7y ago> Either humans are more sacred than other animals, and should be treated specially, even when dead This legislation doesn't force anyone to be composted after their death. It gives a families and loved ones a new option, without taking away any options. As such we haven't taken away anyone's options to treat humans specially, or however they wanted to be treated. As long as it's safe and doesn't introduce significant negative externalities, I fail to see why not granting more choices would be a bad idea.
- yters 7y agoYes, that's my point. The legislation treats this as an emotional, opinion issue. Not an issue where there is a truth of the matter.