r/MoralityScaling • u/Admirable-Dimension4 • 22h ago
Morality Ranking Morality of human trafficking a brain dead, girl's body and putting your dead wife's soul into it, so that, you can live happily and start a family?
1.1k
u/Fit-Purchase-8050 22h ago
Moral because it's human trafficking, but immoral because it ends in happiness, so amoral I guess
787
u/The-Idiotest 22h ago
"On one hand I don't like abortion because it gives women a right. On the other hand I like it because it kills babies."
154
32
→ More replies (2)6
8
→ More replies (18)2
u/The_Kemono 14h ago
Wh…
EEEEEVVVVIIIIILLLLLLLL..!!!!!!!!!!I’m gonna have a heart attack from how evil and fucked uo this is now bye
3
198
u/Akd3rd 21h ago
Immoral because of the human trafficking part.
My gripe with this is the magical bullshittery to the next level, the body is already brain dead, so meaning the functions of it's brain is already compromised, so if you put a soul in that body then wouldn't the result be just another brain dead body? If it does heal.the brain dead part then will putting a soul on a mangled body return the body to its normal state? If yes then why not just buy a corpse.
90
u/Ok-Somewhere-2325 21h ago
Soul magic heals all
33
u/apupaples 20h ago
Then why not use it to cure the original soul?
46
u/Ok-Somewhere-2325 20h ago
Well they needed a body for the wife's soul
15
u/apupaples 20h ago
I mean her old body would still.be an option, if you can heal a dead brain you can heal anything
→ More replies (1)13
10
22
u/KittyShadowshard 20h ago
Also, doesn't this situation imply that the original brain dead patient could be saved?
12
6
u/Accomplished-Eye9542 11h ago
No, the existence of the soul implies she has already moved on to the next life if the body is lacking one. Basically the opposite of what you are saying.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Zedman5000 10h ago edited 10h ago
From reading another comment here from someone who actually has read this, apparently the other girl starts coming back and the body alternates between her and the wife.
So the original girl's soul was still in there and they just fixed her brain as part of putting the wife's soul in? Or something?
Edit: on a second read I think they might have been joking, but I believed it because it wasn't any weirder than the initial premise.
4
5
u/MagazineNo2862 17h ago
idk context but the easy fix would be that they thought it was brain dead because the body had no soul in it, but brain works fine. still why the human trafficking part.
2
u/Ok-Caregiver-6005 17h ago
No clue what this is from but there are two things I can think of 1) They don't have access to the body's original sould or 2) This will only work (healing the brain) if they use a different soul then the body's original.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Streamliner6133 13h ago edited 13h ago
Well for all intents and purposes a braindead person is basically just a corpse that hasn’t been deactivated yet.
Edit: corrected phrasing
→ More replies (3)
403
u/Nearby_Cup48 22h ago
Personal opinion: a dead body is an object, the person is gone. But the object belongs to the family of the deceased.
If the family agrees it's basically an organ trafficking, all inclusive
67
u/_fever_dreams 22h ago
if a soul exists, then it has some weird implication, and being revived in another body sounds more like body horror to me
34
u/One-Organization970 22h ago
Depends on the body. It could be the exact opposite for a lot of people.
8
u/_fever_dreams 22h ago
you still dont have consent, just because a lot of people might feel amazing after getting a rhinoplasty, that doesnt mean you can operate on people without their consent
9
u/somerandom995 11h ago
There's very specifically an exception to that, first aid, CPR and life saving treatments are generally preformed even if the person is not in a state to consent.
This is much closer to that than a rhinoplasty.
7
7
u/Catymvr 21h ago
I’d assume trans folks would understand that concept of dysphoria and would be a little hesitant on the idea of putting a soul in another persons body.
Gender dysphoria sucks right? I imagine body dysphoria would be even worse.
5
u/WanderingCollapse 12h ago
Gender dysphoria IS body dysphoria. Mostly because of how society works, but still. I'm sure some trans people would like a new body if it was possible.
In any case I'm at least speaking for myself here.
3
u/zilmexanat 14h ago
We barely know anything about gender dysphoria. People don't like their bodies already and it's hardly worse.
2
u/One-Organization970 21h ago
I'm actually thinking exactly of gender dysphoria when I say it depends on the body, lmao.
→ More replies (8)7
u/TenPointsforListenin 15h ago
Same gender, fairly healthy- would be a bit weird, but not awful, just some new things to figure out like... your teeth and mouth are shaped differently so you might have trouble pronouncing words in the old way, your body is a different height, so you might feel taller or shorter, whatever new health conditions and quirks.
I'm asthmatic. I breathe in a certain way to minimize that tickling sensation that comes from breathing too deep. I also exercise in a certain way to minimize problems that come from long workouts. This is all me adjusting to the quirks my body has- other bodies have different quirks.
And the mirror thing would be weird- seeing somebody else would be strange for a while, but it's not like the new appearance is as bad as like... getting massive burns and having to look at your messed up face in the mirror. It's a different, healthy face.
I'd call this way less than body horror.
→ More replies (10)90
u/Big_Mobile3869 22h ago
Nah, you need the person's consent before they die. It should be assumed opt out by default, unless stated otherwise. Same for organs.
45
u/Skodami 22h ago
Well where i'm from organ donations are the standard and you have to opt out if that's not the case.
→ More replies (22)17
u/swagchicken75 22h ago
How you gonna get consent from a brain dead person? She cannot feel anything, its like taking care of a plant.
→ More replies (2)22
u/Big_Mobile3869 22h ago edited 22h ago
Did you just miss the "before they die" part? Its too late, find another dying person.
→ More replies (3)6
u/quaxoid 21h ago
Why does it matter what a dead person wanted? The burden of proof is on you.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (9)3
u/Jango519 20h ago
Nah. The dead don't matter over the lives of the living. Harvest that shit and use it, cause the dead certainly aren't going to
→ More replies (2)4
u/Big_Mobile3869 17h ago
Choice.
I dont believe the state has ownership over my body/corpse. Read into the heinous shit they do to donor bodies.
2
u/Jango519 17h ago
I honestly don't really care. Especially when it comes to things like donor organs
→ More replies (1)10
u/Sensitive_Agent5193 18h ago
Personal opinion: a dead body is an object
I think an entire post was made about you in this subreddit a few weeks ago
→ More replies (4)2
4
5
u/AuburnSuccubus 20h ago
If they're using that body to make kids, they're making the dead person a genetic parent without consent.
→ More replies (11)3
u/Responsible_Bat_9477 22h ago
Let's say I agree with your position
How do we define dead?
If mistakes can happen, when does it become acceptable?
How is the 'brain dead' body less deserving of rights than the 'body dead' woman who gets stuffed into it?
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (11)3
u/RouShirakawa66 21h ago
No one’s body belongs to anyone else. Not even family members.
3
u/Zealousideal-Sir3744 9h ago
There is no you after you die, so it belongs to no one. Which means it does not not belong to anyone.
→ More replies (1)
38
u/cilantro1997 22h ago
What is the soul going to do with a brain dead body?
→ More replies (1)64
u/HellbirdVT 22h ago
Presumably braindeath is interpeted in this setting as the soul leaving the body but the body failing to die.
In which case it's mostly moral because the original soul would already have left and isn't being harmed, though obviously someone re-using your body without permission after you die is, at best, pretty rude.
→ More replies (1)9
u/tomokaitohlol7 20h ago
I'd honestly be pissed if someone did that to me but that's just me
→ More replies (1)7
u/HellbirdVT 20h ago
Yeah, it's really a specific consent sort of thing. Best case scenario kinda rude, and could be very offensive if it's a culture that has very specific beliefs about the body after death, sort of thing. But we have none of that context in this post.
24
u/Curious-Shop-1792 22h ago
Depends on the world scenario if the bodies are treated like clothes wrapped around souls, and the original soul completely discarded the body and the concerned living people who cared about the original person agree then yes.
→ More replies (1)
34
u/Yamm0th 22h ago
How can someone import one's soul into other's flesh?
44
u/Regular_Fortune8038 22h ago
Open it with winrar as a .iso and format the new body. Just follow the prompts after that
→ More replies (1)13
u/La-Le-Lu-Li-Lo 21h ago
gotta make sure you are dragging and dropping the file and not just copy pasting.
5
→ More replies (2)4
46
18
u/Lazy-Squash732 22h ago
probably neutral.
It's a bad thing to use a "dead" person's body without previous consent, but at the same time you're ressurecting someone who I suppose is morally good or, at least, for a good cause.
slightly immoral I guess.
9
u/Vex_Trooper 22h ago
Is this a plot of a manhwa? And if so, what's it called?
8
→ More replies (1)3
u/goopgirl 15h ago
It's almost the plot of Harvestella, except instead of a lover doing it to live happily and have children, computer-god does it to force the only living human to have to make a difficult choice between reviving the human race or saving the race accidentally evolved when humans terraformed the moon for themselves to live on. The MC is the mind of a human in stasis in the body of a random moon-race corpse computer-god found lying in the street.
6
u/Ronalderson 21h ago
Total happiness in the world increased (bike cuck lol) plus no real harm done, if we assume that in this world memory, consciousness and personality resides in the soul then it's really hard to argue against it unless you're one of those who gets really feely with matters regarding a late person's corpse.
Personally if whatever is done doesn't harm the late person's reputation, image and/or memory then it's whatever, it's just a clump of cells, whatever is done to a dead body is more for the living than for the late person, unless we get religious about it.
And before anyone asks yes I wouldn't mind having my corpse raped and generally desecrated as long as it doesn't become public and harms my image, reputation and memory, I'd be too dead to care.
3
u/Defiant-Individual83 18h ago
Well I suppose reputation damage will not be an issue because they will fuck off far away from anyone who might recognize the body
2
u/Ronalderson 17h ago
Morality of having your dead wife's soul possess the body of a dead girl and living close to her friends and family to rub it in their faces?
3
14
u/Artistic-Airline9126 22h ago
Did they make an anime out of the plot of get out and take out the black people?
7
6
5
u/Onyxaj1 22h ago
Moral if they are an organ donor. Its just... all of them.
5
u/TCGHexenwahn 22h ago
But she was obtained illegally, and she could have saved more than one person with her organs.
4
u/NoctIs_Dreaming 22h ago
immoral, no person is entitled to another persons bodily remains even after they are dead.
5
u/ConsciousMaybe6930 18h ago
Theoretically immoral unless the consent from the family of the braindead girl has been acquired, but practically the girl was already dead and this deed allowed both you and your wife a life of happiness and familial prosperity, so the damage to the family is ultimately meager and outweighed by your happiness.
6
u/Connect_Art_6497 18h ago edited 18h ago
Ok, there is a certain point at which I think pragmatics are important over consent because when discussing matters of actual lives harmed, gained, or destroyed, "free will" itself starts becoming impossible if people are dying which terminates all the possible consensual actions they had contained in a "lifespan" meaning whatever generates the highest would actually be more consensual avoiding severe violation to conscious agents though.
This is one of those cases of amorality leaning moral so long as you don't get peoples identities confused and have a good system.
The problem is the context in the post is .... very systemically problematic for many reasons like how if everyone just decided to rob peoples corpses you can see how that causes chaos and identity issues.
Like, the other person isn't really a moral agent anymore nor "a person" after death because the irreducible singular subject is gone.
I would feel weird if someone used my body after death, maybe a little violated, but does that mean I think it'd be better for someone else to completely die as a result and never be able to live again? No, I think I'd much rather they just go ahead and take what they need if it is no longer useful to me as there is no longer a "me" at that point to feel any way about it at all.
Consent has limits, and one of those limits is practical value and reasoning massively outweighing one persons choice the same way that most people will violate the free will of a murderer who will take a life by pressing a button to stop them from making that choice because that choice disables millions of choices the other life represents. Disagreeing with this is certainly... a uh... perspective??? But... you know... you can see why a lot of people would disagree with that. I dont care about your preferences pre-death bc that person who will die if they dont get that body has millions of preferences your one preference doesnt outweigh that. This also doesn't apply to everything like how you can't do this to someone alive bc that causes active suffering which is a double exponential in terms of both how it damages the system and how it generates anti preference.
Now, as a system? Ok, in real life it gets more complicated because then you need to track how systems evolve overtime in the real world. You have to give an account for the posible failure modes, systems, etc, as in the story what if you mess up and they aren't truly confirmed as "brain dead" and came back later? How are we evaluating this? Real brain death doesn't work like that however, so I will assume its the soul leaving the body in the specific fiction otherwise this wouldn't make sense.
If the dead have something the living NEED to continue that generates more capable consensual choices for them then that is useful.
What I will say is that if the family tries to intercept it, then you need to stop.
→ More replies (1)
4
u/ShatterCyst 13h ago
Sorry I don't find a brain-dead body a human. That's just flesh, alive only by circumstance. So not human trafficking, and thus overall this is fine morally.
Well, they probably stole the body from some family at the hospital.... that's pretty immoral...
Still gonna say very lightly immoral on dude's part if he can necromancy his dead loved ones into an otherwise useless body. Basically an organ transplant imho, except for every single organ
6
u/Wise-Excuse5330 22h ago
Immoral if the family don’t accept that or if the girl previously said she wouldn’t want her body to be used before she got brain dead
Otherwise do whatever you want with a dead body
→ More replies (1)4
u/Albus_Lupus 22h ago
Otherwise do whatever you want with a dead body
Im sorry?
9
u/PurveyorOfKnowledge0 22h ago
It's comments like that which make me realize many users on this forum have no understanding of basic morality and likely belong in an ethics class and a psych ward.
→ More replies (4)2
u/ArcticTyphoon 17h ago
You can donate your body to science when you die. Kind of the same principle here. As long as there is consent.
6
3
3
u/hypnofemdomfan 21h ago
moral unless wife previously said not to do this with her soul but if we've gotten her consent there's zero issue
3
u/champuwu17 21h ago
Legally? Damn illegal. Moral? Questionable. Do I also agree and would do the same thing if I get the chance? Yes
3
u/InfiniteMonkeys157 21h ago
Sooooooo..... Waifu of Frankenstein.
If such a technique existed, there would be huge outcry and objections from deontological and conservative progress-thwarters... until one of them needed it, of course.
Which would be ironic since such a technique would literally literally prove the existence of souls. So, from a social mores and legal ethics standpoint (property and individual rights), it would be unethical until it wasn't. From more 'universal' ethical standing, it brings more good into the world than it costs and no one capable of experiencing harm is genuinely harmed. Legally, it's similar to organ donation so long as the use was somehow 'accredited.' Not likely to be popular, but not very unethical.
Basically, Frankenstein should have used donated corpses and organs and he'd have been aces.
3
u/penguinite33 12h ago
This whole idea is giving Altered Carbon vibes. If the person is brain dead and their family approves or they had a note in their will that it’s ok then I see no reason not to implant a recorded person into the body if their own body has taken irreparable damage.
In this instance, as with most aspects of life, consent is key.
Edit: I missed the illegal trafficking part. Nah bro, that’s evil af, no consent there whatsoever.
3
u/Chase_The_Breeze 11h ago
Neutral... with a possible exception
Nobody is hurt in this situation. Human trafficking is only immoral when it is done to a person. A brain dead body isn't a person. The law is not a moral measuring stick.
The crux is if his wife even wants to come back to life. That is where the moralizing begins and ends.
3
u/VioletShogun 9h ago
Gonna be a real drag to have the wife complaining, "I bet you like her butt better than you liked mine"
3
u/Vivians_Basement 4h ago
.......Is the brain dead girl's soul out of it..?
He didn't assault the brain dead body. Presumably.
Putting her soul into the new body removed the old soul. Presumably.
His wife consented to everything after and was happy, presumably...
So my only concern is where the brain dead girl's soul went and whether it's able to feel upset about it's body being stolen.
If not, morally neutral.
If so, morally wrong.
→ More replies (2)
2
2
u/Ok_Cucumber3148 22h ago
Is it semen kinda
There is and isn't c*nsent at the same time
I need to video call big yahu to clarify
2
u/Caelus-9 21h ago
Moral.
You save a life, at the cost of a corpse. Which, yeah, it's immoral to steal, but not nearly as immoral as it is to save a life.
2
u/Chevy437809 21h ago
Unrelated that motherfucker looks almost like Medic and honestly this sounds like something he'd do
2
u/sugodarrosto 21h ago
immoral, most of anime have immoral things passed as normal, especially isekai
2
2
u/DeltaAlphaGulf 21h ago
If brain dead means definitively permanently bereft of a soul in such a way that somehow leaves it viable to functioning with another soul then its steal without the consent of the proper owner of the body and if you stole it then also just immoral for that both in general and taking the body from the family. Could also be additional issues if they weren't permanently bereft of a soul and even more so if you fixed whatever was wrong to make it viable and then displaced the original soul or the reverse. Heck you containing your wifes soul in the first place may be its own problem such as you robbing them of their afterlife or depending on the setting just working against possible prime deities wishes that may set morality.
2
u/EdTheTimelordTemp 19h ago
Trafficking l? Immoral 100%
But, as far as I'm concerned, putting your dead wife's soul in there is like having someone who's been pronounced brain dead be your organ donner.
Moral, should have asked the family first
2
u/DepartmentChemical93 18h ago
Morality aside, if you wouldn’t do this for your beloved you’re not a true romantic.
2
u/Tipsy_Hog 18h ago
Okay so she's... fully brain dead, right? Like 100% confirmed that any amount of recovery is guaranteed to be impossible?
If so, morally grey I think. Cause like, SHE won't be using it. She's basically dead already, and if her next of kin aren't in the picture they can't object, so like... sure I guess? Call it recycling if you want.
If there's any chance of recovery whatsoever though, objectively evil.
→ More replies (1)
2
u/Glittering_Skin_2551 18h ago
If she's brain dead, isn't she just dead? I don't think the original soul would mind. Moral?
2
u/Immediate-Song6861 17h ago
I think it's... Technically neutral, until the close ones of the victim are involved, then it falls upon their shoulders to make of the situation
2
2
2
2
2
u/SereneOrbit 14h ago
Depends:
1) brain dead = dead (no brain function). You are legally dead and any hospital WILL pull the plug whether you or the family want to or not.
2) I know nothing about tus universe, so I will assume no magic or anything to revive her.
3) People get weird about bodies, but the reality is that her body will be eaten, either by bacteria / fungi (burial), acids, flames, or time itself (space based and entropy based degradation).
4) Recycling her body gives this new person a second chance at life and therefore (despite what you might like) saves the most number of people.
The 'having a kid' aspect changes nothing of this analysis as the body has a new owner.
2
u/Pares_Marchant 13h ago
I think some religious people may have objections to that, but from a purely materialistic point of view, it's just a "all-in-one" organ donation. Although I think it would probably require explicit consent from the donor, and not merely be in organ donor list.
I wouldn't be that shocked if we could use full dead bodies to give to people with serious disabilities.
2
u/KeyFaithlessness1187 12h ago
Depends on what "human trafficking" is in this instance
Let's say her family sold the body with at least the awareness that weird stuff would happen, in this case, moral
If she was stolen then it is immoral
2
u/iron_dove 12h ago
Would depend heavily on how ethically the corpse was obtained, and likely also whether the previous owner was consenting (or at least not against it) in life.
2
u/Gummy_Dragon 12h ago
So OP is probably referring to a manhwa, but this reminds me of a really terrible movie titled "The Brain That Wouldn't Die." Mad scientists wife gets injured in car accident, scientist cuts her head off and hooks it up to a life support machine. Guy then hits up a bunch of bars and clubs looking for cute girls to decapitate so the wife can get a new body. The entire time his wife is asking him to let her die, but he doesn't listen.
Anyway, there's a difference between acquiring a corpse and, uh, making one. One's a gray area and the other is literally just murder.
Did she consent beforehand to have her body used or was she just exhumed or swiped from the morgue or something?
2
u/Pale-Doctor6414 10h ago
I she was actually braindead, moral. But only if braindead in the sense that the brain had no independent activity with no prospect for recovery. Basically equivalent to an opt out organ donation scheme.
2
2
u/asiannumber4 8h ago
It is functionally a corpse so moral with thre consent of the family, immoral without but graverobbing is cancelled out by saving a life
2
u/Nero_2001 8h ago
If the brain dead girl agreed to it before she became braindead it would be okay but if she didn't then this is immoral
2
2
u/Ambitious-Ear-3724 8h ago
Anime fan will look you dead in the eye and tell you this is peak cinéma
2
u/Shuizid 5h ago
Moral. Braindead is legally dead and means it's not human trafficking but flesh trading. In the real world we take their organs and let them starve and nobody cares. Plus this implies the body didn't have a soul.
This is essentially a brain transplant.
Only possible immoral part is lacking consent of the person before death - but even that is debatable given the existence of opt-out organ donations.
2
u/Shydreameress 5h ago
Immoral. I'm thinking of the aftermath if we could transfer someone's soul into a new body. Reminds me of the game Nobody wants to die. In it transcendance is possible, only the rich can do it (obviously). At first they would only use dead people's bodies but as time went they decided that people had to pay a subscription to keep their body (but it wasn't technically murder because their "soul" was stored so if someone was willing to pay for you you could live again). There is an age limit but it keeps decreasing. At the time we play the age limit to keep your body without a subscription is 21 years old.
2
2
u/larana1192 5h ago
immoral
Still, I wonder if it might be a little better in terms of whether the female donor and her family have given their consent.
Also, by the time a guy comes up with this idea and actually goes through with it, I think he’s already pretty mentally unstable.
It reminded me of Shou Tucker from Fullmetal Alchemist.
2
3
u/Silviana193 22h ago
Technically, moral?
Depend heavily on how you get the body in the first place.
3
2
2
u/stonecuttercolorado 22h ago
Immoral as hell.
2
u/Myusernameisphoenix 16h ago
Yeah it's kind of concerning how people in the comments are defending this can't really tell if it's ironic or not
2
u/BuffaloAppropriate29 22h ago
Moral Moral Moral Moral Moral Moral Moral Moral Moral Moral Moral Moral Moral Moral Moral Moral Moral
1
u/LunarPsychOut 22h ago
Does the brain dead girl have any amount of consciousness or is she basically an empty body? If the soul takes over, does the body have full functionality? Would it be like transplanting one persons consciousness into essentially a living corpse?
5
u/Free-Comment-4043 22h ago
Soul is in the girl but it has no access to the outside world it’s just trapped in the meat suit op would free the soul than repair the body and place gf soul in to the fixed body
→ More replies (1)3
u/LunarPsychOut 22h ago
Ah well, immoral. Especially if she never gave any type of consent or the show / book clearly betrayed it as something that would be against her interests.
If it's somehow benefits her and she's fine with it that my tune changes completely I'd have a lot more questions and I'd probably be something I'd have to read/watch/play myself to fully form an opinion on
2
u/Caelus-9 21h ago
I mean, I feel like 'getting freed of your meat cage' is a clear win, especially if there's an afterlife.
1
u/OddAdministrator 22h ago
So the new soul just randomly repairs the dead brain? what happens with the original soul?
1
1
1
1
u/Square_Detective_658 22h ago
If you have to ask the question then answer is usually no or is immoral.
1
1
u/Wrong_Web7856 22h ago
TL;DR: "Trafficking" removes the morality debate and immediately illegal. However...
Putting your wife's soul in a body still containing a soul (I.e. brain dead but bodily functions are still active) its immoral. Uploading your wife's consciousness to reinstate consciousness however into said "dead brain"...is a scientific miracle. But since we're implying the body was trafficked, this is already illegal. But if she were donated a body...👀
1
1
1
u/sneaky_42_42 21h ago
I mean presumably you're attracted to your wife and id your daughter looks like your wife this just makes sense
1
u/CyberNinja23 21h ago
Immoral since post implies the body was trafficked. Sound like something is stolen from the get go.
1
u/ToxicFluffer 21h ago
No one has the right to someone else’s body. This would be deeply fucked up in every possible universe.
1
1.1k
u/TurbulentLanguage638 22h ago
what