Makes sense.

Lol, couldn't I be either and have it still be a genuine question? I haven't been diagnosed with autism, but I could have it, and I've also been called a pedant at times. All told, the question is genuine all the same.

What is A in this case (that which is definitively known)? The fact one has a subjective experience of some kind of perceived reality and in this reality we see other people that tell us they're real and say they have separate minds to us? And then is B the proposition "reality is real to a degree insofar as other minds that appear to exist do indeed exist and are sentient and hold opinions"? Because I agree A doesn't necessarily entail B in that case, it is something that I'm assuming for sake of argument as a basis for further reasoning.

But if we presuppose both A and B are true (let's call them AB), then it seems like the information and observed, even anecdotal/firsthand experience we can obtain from reality (and especially if we trust secondhand sources, but even if not) appears to (uncertainly) create the grounds for a case to be made that, using reasoning and empirical observations (a combination of a priori and a posteriori), we can deduce that if a large number of people care about a wide variety of diverse interests (which seems to be deducible by AB + an average experience of life where you meet a significant number of people who aren't lying to you (=C)), then there is a high likelihood of at least one of them caring about a given subject or phenomenon?

So this is assuming some things, such as A (apparently known, so maybe not assumed), in addition to B & C, but if ABC, then is it really an invalid form of reasoning to conclude or speculate that D (someone cares) is likely? Is any form of argument which isn't entirely certain unequivocally invalid? Because then you can't really consider anything valid (aside from A, or things which are known beyond a shadow of doubt, even if you acknowledge their uncertainty), right? This is why certain elements of Descartes' philosophy seem absurd to me... in addition to the intuitively contradictory idea that "All that we can know is I think therefore I am, but also God exists and is an evil demon that has created a false reality(?)"...

Thank you!

What if the tree looked exactly like your face and you failed to recognise it so I obsessively photographed it from all angles & made you gaze at the photos until you agreed with me and said "Huh. Something's up with that".?

"Only from our direct experience can we claim any knowledge about the world."

My direct experiences tell me that there are a lot of diverse humans, and even other sentient beings/non-human animals who could potentially care about something. For example, if I wear a blue shirt and want to tell everyone about it, I might find (or perhaps never know for certain, but have reason to believe based on perceived observances of behavior/expression) that a cow given the name Samantha is the only one who actually appreciates it. Or maybe no one does, it's possible, but it seems like we can infer that's unlikely given how varied the individuals on the planet are, and even other relevant information about them, such as the observation that blue is a popular favorite color. But even though we can reason the likelihood of that based on certain presuppositions (such as reality being real, rather than a simulation, but even then you could argue it still exists on some level if not physically, & solipsism being doubtful due to the verisimilitude of life, but even granting it trivially, establishing some truth of reality & in particular the existence of other minds than my own as a basis for reasoning), it's still not entirely certain, and yet neither is the claim that no one cares. It seems like "someone (other than myself) cares" and "no one (other than myself) cares" are both technically unprovable claims, but if we agree on reality being real & other functional minds existing and establish common ground there, we should be able to grant some degree of credence via the observations we experience in this "reality" to the notion or theory that there is a stronger likelihood of at least some other mind being one who would or may care (even if they don't currently, possibly due to lack of awareness of the thing to care about), than to the idea that no one would care, no?

Very true, I agree with your points. Just like procuring a file of CSAM, procuring a shrunken head or even something like an elephant's tusk would be imo contributing to a demand for more to be made, as well as perpetuating a culture where those things are desired or even accepted to a degree, which could in turn lead to even more morally unsound methods of producing/acquiring them.

However I would also add that I think even in the hypothetical where accessing or even storing/viewing some CSAM files somehow didn't contribute to any more being produced or shared by anyone, it would still be fundamentally unethical to access it/store it/view it, because while the most clearly abusive component has already happened, continuing to view or use the product of those actions is further violating the child's right to not have themselves commodified or exploited like that, and disrespecting their right to privacy... for the same reason that a peeping tom is violating someone's right by spying on them in their privacy, even if the person doesn't know it happened (except in this case, it's a violation on top of another violation - the child has been exploited, and then people are further violating the child's rights by viewing it).

This aspect of something being fundamentally unethical even if it doesn't contribute to more bad things happening in a measurable/utilitarian sense but in more of a deontological way where the action itself is violating certain moral duties by disrespecting their bodily autonomy, is where I'm coming from by thinking that using/displaying the dismembered body part of a person is unethical regardless of whether doing so contributes to more of that product being created.

So is necrophilia acceptable if the person doesn't experience it and no one is around to see it?

If not I don't really see why necrophilia is unacceptable but using a person's distorted and preserved body as a display item is acceptable.

Doesn't the consideration of what a person would have wanted/not wanted to happen to their body after their death matter? While someone is alive, even when unconscious (asleep), it is a violation to exploit or violate their body in some way without their consent. Why is it that as soon as someone dies and loses physical control of their body, we should no longer respect their bodily autonomy and it's now fair game to do what we want with it? That's still their body that they may have felt uncomfortable with people doing things to.

Yeah but it's less brutal, violent and visceral than vultures tearing your body apart and leaving a skeleton. I agree cremation seems nicer actually but the fact remains that burying and cremation are the 2 most common ways of disposing a body, which the person (usually) had an opportunity to object to in their life if they preferred a different option, and generally seen as the most respectful & least invasive. So it can't be perfect but not violating/desecrating/defiling or exploiting/using a body for something or disposing of it in an unconventional and gnarly way seems like a reasonable thing to do.

And keeping someone's head preserved and distorted and using it for display purposes for all time seems way more disrespectful and exploitative of their bodily autonomy than really any form of just disposing of the body/laying it to rest normally.

Sure, if you look at it from a utilitarian perspective I suppose.

Human rights describes the individuals that the rights pertain to, no? So those human rights could either be based in legality or in morality, which wouldn't always align. People may also have different beliefs about which human rights are morally justified and which ones aren't. If there's a third kind of human right that isn't based on what's legal or what's believed to be (or, fundamentally is) moral, then what's it based in?

Inherent to the human condition is interesting, but isn't that still a moral stance/belief? Even if you argue that it's objectively moral (and if you don't believe in moral subjectivism/moral relativism) or objectively the right thing for humans to have rights based on the kind of beings that they are, how is that separate from morality? As far as I know when someone says "this is a human right" they're usually asserting that they believe it's morally correct for humans to have a certain right, and that it would be wrong to violate that right. Occasionally someone says "this is a legally protected human right" to emphasise that it's a legal right enforced by law. I'm not sure by what metric rights could be ascribed or theorised conceptually to apply to certain individuals, if not law or ethics.

For example, you could say that the law did violate the enslaved's moral human rights, by assigning other humans a legal right to own them, which many at the time would have also believed was their moral right, even if we don't agree with that today or assert as being objectively immoral. If their human right to not be enslaved wasn't legal or moral, I don't see what the third option could be.

Buttfucking could have homophobic interpretations when used as an insult potentially, similar to "butthurt"