Why should we care about dead people?

[Jack Jack]

One thing thought. We need to dispose of corpses in a way that they can fertilise the crops. Otherwise, in a not so far future, many people will die.

Also, a relationship is between people, not bodies. I like to think I love people, not their bodies. Harming the body harms the person, when it's alive, but harming the corpse does nothing.

 

[AlmondEyes]

Why should I give a shit about what will happen to my body or the world in general after my death? I'll be dead by then man ! Since people should not care about what happen to their body after death, why should we ?

Well, nobody knows what happens after death. So for all we know, we could still feel pain whilst we are dead! Irrational, I know, but it should still matter. Also, wouldn't it be of slight comfort that if you develop a terminal illness, such as cancer, that people will respect your wishes even when you are gone? For some things, (I don't know if this goes into a will, but it serves as a good enough example) such as what will happen to young children and other close family members when you do pass. You would want them to be happy, and to go to a family member (or family friend) that they actually do like. And say you have some kind of family treasure that means the world to you, you wouldn't want it auctioned off to some randomer and the money to go to the council, would you? And using bodies and the like for bio-fuel, and for the love of god, food, is simply barbaric!

 

[Fatecrashers]

One thing thought. We need to dispose of corpses in a way that they can fertilise the crops. Otherwise, in a not so far future, many people will die.

Some people choose to be buried in cardboard coffins for that very purpose, so they can naturally rot and fertilise the earth, perhaps the world would indeed be better off if more people chose that option.

Also, a relationship is between people, not bodies. I like to think I love people, not their bodies. Harming the body harms the person, when it's alive, but harming the corpse does nothing.

Again this is a cold logical way of looking at it. But the thing is, after experiencing the death of a loved one the majority of people tend to be overcome with emotion. Religion obviously plays a bit part in respecting the corpse, but even non-religious people will tend to treat the corpse well.
No matter what people need closure, the attachment and memory we have of a person does not go away after they die and we tend to transfer these things to their body even though its logically just a cold slab of meat.
People who can detach themselves from all emotion when a loved one dies would either be classed as in denial or completely sociopathic.

 

[Jack Jack]

As long as I'm alive, I have wishes. Once I'm dead, I'm dead. I cease to exist. My sons could all die and I would certainly not be saddened by it : I'd be dead.

 

[AlmondEyes]

As long as I'm alive, I have wishes. Once I'm dead, I'm dead. I cease to exist. My sons could all die and I would certainly not be saddened by it : I'd be dead.

That is a very cold, yet rational way to think. But while you actually are dying, you would (well I would anyway) feel terrible about what you are leaving for your loved ones. And if there is some kind of heaven or anything else similar to that after death, I certainly wouldn't want to watch loved ones suffer, as you couldn't 'rest in peace' knowing what has happened to family. Especially when you know that it could have been avoided if people had listened to your last wishes.

 

[cantab]

One pragmatic reason for conventional burial (over cremation, burial at sea, cardboard coffin, etc): the person might be murdered and suspicion doesn't arise until some time after the dead. If the body can be exhumed that might yield the evidence to put a killer behind bars.

 

[TheAmazingFlygon]

Your body is part of yourself; it is you. Therefore, you cannot when you have a relation with someone, not only have it with their ''minds'', but with their body also (I am not implying any sexual stuff).

 

[Synre]

I think you're looking for a more rational explanation with the OP than you're likely to find in a response. I think if I were to try to explain it using that school of thought, it would be mostly that people - and their bodies, after death - are symbols in addition to being merely themselves. This is something that usually gets brought up in reference to the president in newbie government classes, but I'd say it trickles down to "normal" people for those that care about them, too. In a spiritual/religious sense people aren't really their bodies by most definitions, but even after they've breathed their last breath there is still power in the body to people who cared about the person in life. I think the whoever mentioned the closure process was right on the money in that regard; seeing the body after death and getting that chance to say goodbye and accept a person's death, and to grieve with others at the funeral, has a very real and impactful psychological effect on survivors. It's "about" the person who died, but it's for the survivors, I think.

What it boils down to, though, is that deaths are traumatic to all parties involved, and as such tend to be something treated with more emotion than rationality. That's OK sometimes. People have all sorts of funny ways of dealing with death. Most never really want to let go of people they care about, and struggling to do so and move on is just part of the process for most people. Again, more about the survivors. Can you imagine the backlash surviving friends and family would have if people actually did some of the ridiculous shit mentioned in this topic to the dead? There'd end up with more than one body to worry about. I guarantee it.

In regards to wills, as mentioned it's already a legal contract and would be incredibly easy to dodge if laws were changed to prevent them anyway, barring a fairly major overhaul about transfer of possessions. There's already a cap on monetary inheritance, and frankly I think those who earn wealth deserve to see how it is distributed after they pass on - it's not like they couldn't have done so in life.

EDIT: To extrapolate a bit, there is an almost overwhelming amount of posts in Cong lately by people who are trying to follow rationalization and logic to an extreme at the expense of practicality. I think you'd find in trying to employ it that practicality will trump that sort of naïve idealism almost every time. There is little that is functionally rational about any extreme.

 

[lati0s]

I understand the emotional reasons for respecting corpses but I still think that it is wrong for us to have only voluntary organ donorship when there are thousands of people waiting in hospitals for transplants and not all of them will make it with our limited number of donors. peoples lives should be more important than respecting a corpse.

 

[Morm]

agreed with the above. Though some religions do state that you must be buried whole to rise again whole, so their relatives will flip out. People flip out about death like that to rationalize it.

 

[cantab]

I think belief in the importance of burial for the afterlife went after the First World War. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers dying in battle and not being properly buried (frequently being blown to pieces by explosions), and similar civilian deaths. It's just not tenable to believe all those people would be denied the afterlife.

 

[R S E FR LG]

I didn't really read the thread, but I think that it's more of a symbolic reason. Burying the body after they die shows that people care about them and that people loved them in their life and that the person meant something. If they just dumped the body, that would show, in most people's eyes, that they didn't care about the person, and that they aren't worthy of anything but "dumping in the woods". Also, it's much easier to visit a cemetery than the middle of the woods, lol.

 

[vonFiedler]

It always amazes me how Data can be so believable in his lack of emotion, and yet he understands things the most utilitarian of people do not.

And before anyone comments, the emptiness he talks about is logically explained in a different episode.

 

[Morm]

I think belief in the importance of burial for the afterlife went after the First World War. Hundreds of thousands of soldiers dying in battle and not being properly buried (frequently being blown to pieces by explosions), and similar civilian deaths. It's just not tenable to believe all those people would be denied the afterlife.

How about during various severe plagues in the mass graves?

 

[cantab]

Well, even during the Black Death people could still be buried. By "properly buried" I think it was mainly thought to mean bodily intact burial. I'm not certain on the details.

 

[X-Act]

Do you have anybody you care about? If no, then that explains your question.

If yes, then I'm sure you'll care about his or her corprse when he or she dies.

 

[Morm]

there is one stunning example of suspected vampirism where a woman was preserved with the brick in her mouth. I'd say that's pretty open and shut for disrespecting a body, also any war pretty much means burial before disease spreads.

 

[UncleSam]

To anyone who wishes to just use people's organs without their permission before they die:If it were your father/mother/sibling/someone you care about, would you want to hold a closed-casket funeral for them? Would you want them to just be "dumped in the woods" or otherwise just "thrown out"? If you would honestly want to see your loved ones become crop fertilizer when they die, fine. If not, don't argue that other people's loved ones should be forced to.

 

[lati0s]

organs can be removed cleanly and the body sewn back up and clothed so that a closed casket funeral would not necessarily be necessary. But even if organ donation required that there be no funeral at all I would feel better about someone close to me giving life to someone through their death than I would about knowing that my selfishness about keeping their body was removing the possibility of others being helped.

 

[Morm]

keeping you organs after death is selfish. Crying about religious impacts is selfish rationalization. Family memebrs upset about forced removal of organs is selfish and the opposite of utilitarian thinking, something that should be imposed upon those that deny its logic in cases like this. If the shoe was on the other foot and they needed an organ but were denied for such shallow reasons I'm sure they'd be singing a very different tune. Bluntness: its a beautiful thing.

 

[Aqueos]

Have you ever had anyone close to you die? If someone you actually love dies your weeping about it, and wish to hold on to the memories. Seeing a family member turned into fertilizer is not a nice experience. Burial helps to ease the pain later and make sure you never forget. You seem to be basing this on all logic. Solving problems with pure logic is not how things work, if everything in this world was based on pure logic, the whole world should be communist. Why? Well in theory if you control everything, you can have the most efficient system possible. Well look how that worked out. In my opinion its all for the sake of emotional ties. If you don't care about your dead body oh well, but someone who loves you probably will.

 

[TheAmazingFlygon]

Have you ever had anyone close to you die? If someone you actually love dies your weeping about it, and wish to hold on to the memories. Seeing a family member turned into fertilizer is not a nice experience. Burial helps to ease the pain later and make sure you never forget. You seem to be basing this on all logic. Solving problems with pure logic is not how things work, if everything in this world was based on pure logic, the whole world should be communist. Why? Well in theory if you control everything, you can have the most efficient system possible. Obviously for the sake of emotional ties. If you don't care about your dead body oh well, but someone who loves you probably will.

No; logically the best system would be anarchy.

I agree with you for the most part; we cannot always think rationally, there is an emotional factor also and we cannot disregard it.

 

[vonFiedler]

No; logically the best system would be anarchy.

Logically, no.

 

[TheAmazingFlygon]

Logically, no.

Logically, yes. If everyone was thinking logically and was just and etc. it would be arguably the best system. However, people being people, it is not.

 

[Aqueos]

LOl your right. If everyone was completely logical we wouldn't need a government. Therefore logically we shouldn't waste resources on government.