Killing a mite produces pain and disables a Qualia\ kills a sentient being. f*ing a corpse is ethically use of an object -notwithstanding "property rights" ,ie; relative's feelings. but that's accessory and not intrinsic to the fact (For example having a T-shirt of a panda isn't immoral but if you wear it to a PTSD therapy group of panda survivors, it can be considered an Accessory Argument for immortality of that same action) .So, ethically speaking f*ing corpse is ,in itself, merely an erogenous use of an inert item, however killing a mite is actively using violence and pain-inducing measures to kill a sentient being with no value produced, not even hedonic value (which can presumably be obtained through erogenous stimulation)Therefore choosing to use a razor to cut lice or mite infested hair ,thereby cutting to death hundreds of lice\mite, etc, is ethically more grievous than fornicating with a corpse -human or otherwise, at any given stage of decomposition-This argument means necrocannibalism (eating a corpse that died due to causes totally external to your caloric needs) causes 0 Negative Hedonic Points and harms 0 Qualia. However killing an ant to eat it for it's protein value, means you squashed to death an insect which didn't have any immediate reason compelling it to die; therefore you killed \"erased" one Qualia and causes a non-0 degree of suffering to a sentient being--therefore eating human corpses is ethically better than causing even the most minute pain to a Qualia ie; squashing one ant.
Ahh, German philosophers making posts beyond my comprehension.
>>23821604Read about Bentham’s mugging. You aren’t the first person to break utilitarianism but your post was interesting to read.
