The wishes of the dead seem ethically and morally significant, but it is hardly the case that we always respect the wishes of the dead.

For example, when art collector and philanthropist Albert Barnes died, his living trust made it explicit that the Barnes Foundation was to keep his collection exactly as he had left it. Years later, however, a court granted a request from the Barnes Foundation's Board of Trustees to move the collection to a new public gallery in Philadelphia, even though this disobeyed Albert's explicit instructions.

Nigel Warburton has discussed other historical cases in which museums and doctors failed to respect the wishes of the dead, such as the desire by one Charles Byrne not to be dissected as a specimen. As a man who stood 7' 7", he experienced plenty of objectification during his short life and feared it after his death.

One might wonder whether it is possible for the dead to be harmed or benefitted by our later actions. In his Letter to Menoeceus, the ancient philosopher Epicurus argues that they cannot be. Contemporary philosopher Walter Ott has questioned society's deferential conventions around death, arguing that the dead are not moral beings and therefore cannot be the source of any moral demands on the living.

By contrast, philosopher Dale Dorsey has attempted to find an adequate explanation for the moral weight our ordinary practices seem to confer on the wishes of the dead. He has argued that our duties to the dead are rooted in the relations of friendship we bear to them, not in the dead person's well-being or interests. Whether or not we can benefit or harm the dead with our actions is thus irrelevant.

Looking to debate?

Try reading these real world scenarios and discussing and debating the posthumous ethics involved:

Sperm of the dead

A grave dilemma