Let's say, that through many years of exploration and self-discovery, you eventually reach the conclusion that you are extremely sexually turned on by death. It's not that you want to fuck corpses, but something about that moment when a person takes their last breath, and the life force leaves their body, puts you into an intensely sexually charged state.
Naturally, this is going to be a problematic discovery. Although, you experience some sense of relief at finally figuring out what it is that really, truly, gets you off (I mean, that's a great feeling, right?). But you're not some sadistic sociopath, and the fact that people dying turns you on doesn't overrule your moral compass - which includes the belief that taking another person's life is deeply, fundamentally wrong.
So what do you do? How do you reconcile your desire for sexual pleasure with the knowledge that attaining it requires an ultimate, irreversible sacrifice from another? You could try to deny and avoid your sexual desires, and you may even have some success at this. You could re-dedicate your life to other pursuits, and chalk it up to the curse of fate.
Probably, this will earn you the most sympathy from anyone who discovers your sexual fetish - that is, if they're not the type to assume that you ARE a sadistic sociopath not in control of your actions. Is it the only possibility? Certainly not. But is it the only moral possibility? Well, resigning yourself to your fate and deciding to go out and become a career serial killer - because you want to get off, and fuck what anyone else thinks, you don't have to share their pain and misfortune - is obviously not a conscionable alternative. But is there a middle ground?
What about the sexually, morally enlightened person who feels that, yeah, it's a pretty damn unfortunate turn-on, but let's see what I can do with it? You resolve to hold yourself to a strict moral code in order NOT to become the sadistic sociopath, but at the same time giving yourself room to explore the options, refusing to feel ashamed of the feelings you didn't choose to have.
Imagine. You might look up what sort of material is already available. At your fingertips are, perhaps, stories (fiction or non-fiction) and movies about death that feature characters who die on-screen. None of these stories condones murder in real life - and certainly, neither do you - but they might serve your interest in getting off.
What if they're not enough, though? You're not sure about the legality, but you start to research real life death videos. You're not into snuff or anything like that - that's morally reprehensible, and your sexual fetish doesn't blind you to recognizing that. But, what if, by some nonsexual intention, a person's death (not caused for its own sake but incidental) happened to be caught on a recording? Isn't that just the sort of thing that you're looking for?
You grapple with the ethical questions. Is it exploitation to use these videos in your sexual practices? Assuming they are otherwise legal, there's no legal bar for you to be watching them, so what difference does it make what you're using them for? You don't see yourself as degrading those persons' whose death turns you on; if anything, you treat it like a gift, and are very grateful.
So you watch them. But you decide that, to avoid crossing a line into the dangerous territory of encouraging a market for death videos (which would probably influence certain unscrupulous and greedy entrepreneurs to attempt to commit some rather atrocious acts), you won't use videos that require payment, and you won't go around making requests for them, you will only search about and pick up the ones you can find quietly, without making the impression that you want to see more people being killed on camera.
You're not totally clear on the ethical ramifications of this decision, but you feel more than a little bit frustrated that other people can get their hands on these videos without criticism, and it's only because the use you have for them is sexual that people would get upset if they knew. It's not like you're funding murder or anything.
And anyway, people die all the time; sometimes their deaths are sanctioned by the state or the military. If this is the only way you can achieve sexual ecstasy - and you don't see how that possibly affects the person dying, especially if they don't know to what use you're putting their death - then truly, what's the harm?
So in your acceptance of your death fetish, over time, it becomes an aspect of your life (albeit a private one), and you develop many related interests. You start researching the ethics of suicide. Because you have something to gain from a person's death, you're willing to approach the issue from a slightly less biased perspective than most.
And you realize that, sometimes suicide is justified, even if it's still tragic. And you still wouldn't ever advise a person to commit suicide. That's a no-brainer. Your own sexual gratification isn't worth the life of another. But your position lends you the capability of seeing the rational value in a person having the agency to decide whether to live or die. You will always hope that they choose to live, but you recognize that sometimes, in some cases, it's more humane to let them die if they've really thought it through.
Naturally, arguing this controversal point will win you few friends, and will cause most to assume qualities you don't have. Indeed, in the course of arguing, they will apply certain beliefs to you, by assumption, that you just don't hold. Like a disregard for human life.
But what they don't know is that you have a strong moral code against taking another person's life (and - by your logic, it follows - persuading another to take their own life), you just realize the importance of allowing a person to make choices about their own life, and believe that that's a higher moral value than forcing other people to live the way you want them to. (This stance is, in no small part, further influenced by your own devation from the norms).
But, of course, being shot down simply for arguing a person's own right to choose whether to live or die doesn't leave you in a very good position to argue further, that you think there are certain conditions under which producing "death material" for sexual gratification might actually be ethical.
You understand that consent is an issue of primary importance. Dead people, as the argument goes, cannot consent to being exploited, and that would, reasonably, extend to whatever recording may have been captured of their deaths. This reveals the very crux of your previous guilt about watching death videos. You say to yourself, who knows what they would have wanted, if they can't comunicate now, that doesn't necessarily mean that they wouldn't have consented if asked.
Even that, you realize, is morally ambiguous, and anyway, most people would say, "better safe than sorry". Then again, most people conceptualize your fetish as violation, rather than ecstasy - which you see it as. But, to be safe anyway, isn't it possible that some people might actually consent if given the opportunity?
You think about it, and you figure, there must be some people out there who see it your way, or at least don't see it as that big a deal. After all, how many people are willing to be carved up for science? There have to be at least a FEW who don't mind a disadvantaged minority being able to find rare happiness - and, if they don't have any serious beliefs about the sanctity of the body after death, it's practically of no cost to them!
You think about it further, and you realize that you yourself would have no problem with someone else doing the same thing to you. You determine to try, at least as much as possible, to ensure that your own death is recorded for the express benefit of others like you. Now, at least, you won't have to worry about feeling like a hypocrite.
But one thing does cross your mind. In your enthusiasm to be death porn for others, you want to be sure that noone gets overenthusiastic about speeding up the arrival of your own death. You value the ecstasy that comes with death, but that doesn't mean you don't still value life. You don't see the ethical problem in enjoying another person's death, so long as you've had no hand in causing or encouraging it.
And that's the basis of your philosophy on death porn. It's not like there aren't people out there salivating over a living person's organs, or the fortune that's been dedicated in their will. But we still don't go around killing people just because there is something to be gained from their deaths. That would be downright antisocial. And your motivation being sexual doesn't make you any different from someone whose motivation is medical, or monetary, or what have you.
Inevitably, you end up getting into some discussions about these issues, mostly on anonymous forums. You think your ideas are pretty reasonable and well-thought out, but there are always people willing to distort your views, and assume you're that sadistic sociopath that you long ago determined you weren't going to be. It's frustrating, but they can't really understand your position because they haven't been through the long process you have.
Still, you don't appreciate being reduced to a caricature and a stereotype, of the antisocial pervert who gets off on killing people. That's not you at all! You see death as beauty, and what you get up to is entirely ethical. Yet people criticize you as a heartless, immoral bastard because you didn't have the humanity to choose to give up your pursuit of sexual satisfaction after determining the required conditions for your arousal.
Your efforts all this time have only been to find a middle ground, a compromise between your sexual needs and the fundamental civil rights of others. Your journey, the one that got you to this point, was to figure out how to indulge your sexual desires WITHOUT betraying another person's rights. But again, they don't see that. They see it only in black and white. You get off on death? Something is wrong with you! And most importantly, you are a danger to society!
Even the more reasonable ones, who relent and admit that you have some good points, will argue that even though you may have found an ethical alternative, it will only encourage others to follow in your footsteps, and not all of them will be as responsible as you. Saying that a person can indulge in death porn and still be moral can only be interpreted as a stamp of approval on killing for sexual gratification.
Your opinion is that, some might see it that way, and certainly, serial killers might adopt some of your views and use them as excuses to commit the acts they want to commit. But you're not responsible for their actions. You're not responsible for their decisions. If not this, they will find some other excuses. Anyway, isn't one of your main tenets the importance of ethics? Avoiding a violation of consent? Whoever follows your views, the moment they violate those principles, they are violating the very basis of your beliefs and are no longer following your path. If you say that you can enjoy death porn ethically, then how can that be construed as a defense for viewing death porn unethically? Only from a black and white perspective. A perspective that shuts down debate, and ignores the rationality of points that conflict with their heavily-ingrained beliefs.
