Abstract
The paper argues that grave reuse cannot be ethically evaluated simply by adverting to cognate issues, such as archaeological and medical ethics, since grave reuse comprises a very specific type of disturbance. Whilst there is no general ethical prohibition against disturbing the dead, a more detailed analysis is required in the case of English Victorian ‘perpetuity graves’. It is argued that, even granted that posthumous harms exist, on a proper understanding of what motivated purchase of perpetuity graves, their reuse does not constitute a prohibitive posthumous harm. Objections to grave reuse on the grounds of the well-being of the living are then considered. Repugnance towards grave reuse is grounded in solicitous attitudes towards the dead and ontological anxiety about the fate of our own and our loved ones’ bodies. Nonetheless, repugnance should not be a weighty consideration in the policy debate. Finally, major pragmatic considerations in favour of grave reuse are reiterated. In sum, arguments against grave reuse are weak, and pragmatic arguments for grave reuse are strong; so, reusing graves is ethically permissible.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.