Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Bestiality Wrong?
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 40 of 170 (415101)
08-08-2007 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
08-06-2007 2:36 PM


Respecting your wishes
What do others of a non-absolutist moral disposition think?
Does this mean you would only like for relativists to respond to your thread?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2007 2:36 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 9:22 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 170 (415198)
08-08-2007 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Straggler
08-08-2007 9:22 AM


Re: Respecting your wishes
Just lets avoid any... justified comparisons to consenting humans. No need for that debate all over again.
Fair enough.
I would say that Anastasia has already touched on it quite well in another thread, followed up by Taz in, I believe, message 3.
In moral terms, the argument seems to be on the end of the animal rather than the human-- i.e., that its immoral to put an animal through that because it cannot consent.
But as Ana and Taz already aggrandized, we don't get animals consent to slaughter them either, or make them our pets (slaves), or milk them etc. One could make a much larger argument in defense of hardline veganism, which posits that milk is rape, and meat is murder.
That inevitably brings the moral question inward towards humans. That's not to say that you couldn't make a moral argument in defense of the animal, but I find it somewhat silly if we did given that we kill and eat them.
So then, is it morally wrong for us to engage in sexual relations with animals? We all somehow have this innate sense that its not merely taboo, but reprehensible as well. Why is this?
Since I have been asked not invoke the Bible, one has to find a satisfying argument on why it would be considered immoral. Without invoking the Bible or God, there seems to be no real reason that I can come up with. I know the argument spawns from a perspective of nature, and that God's perfect will would have us follow His plan through. But aside from that, I see no other reason.
Anyone else have any satisfying answers?

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 9:22 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 7:18 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 72 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-08-2007 10:02 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 170 (415239)
08-08-2007 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Straggler
08-08-2007 7:18 PM


Re: Why is Bestiality Disgusting?
he general consensus amongst the majority of relatavists here (myself included) seems to be that bestiality should NOT be considered immoral by any rational standard.
But intrinsic, nonetheless?
So personally I am not sure I do have any satisfying answers.
Without invoking God with argument from nature, I see no other justification on my end to find one either.

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 7:18 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 170 (415242)
08-08-2007 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Archer Opteryx
08-08-2007 10:02 PM


Re: rationality, morality
quote:
In moral terms, the argument seems to be on the end of the animal rather than the human-- i.e., that its immoral to put an animal through that because it cannot consent.
Mistaken assessment. It isn't really correct to say the moral argument so far is 'on the end of the animal.'
Your word 'immoral' describes which party?
I would wholeheartedly agree if it weren't for the fact that in a previous thread, the sentiment expressed on what precisely makes it immoral is the fact that animals cannot give consent-- which invariably places emphasis back on the animals rights, not the human(s) perpetrating the act.
The human, yes? Animals bear no moral responsibility.
I would agree that animals are not bestowed with any sort of moral code. If this be the case, that the alleged moral crime is on the part of the human, what makes it so? And if there is no set moral standard concerning it, why then are our feelings about the perversity of it so pervasive?

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-08-2007 10:02 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 170 (415370)
08-09-2007 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Taz
08-09-2007 2:34 PM


Re: Rat is right
you get a memo from god that says beastiality is wrong and I'll stop arguing.
Quick question: Would you condone your son, daughter, or wife having sex with animals? If not, why? If yes, why?
I think what we tend to do is look at morality from an objective, far off stance, which, in and of itself is not a terrible thing to do. But when you place the proponent in a personal situation, you tend to see those supposed amoralities becoming more and more relevant to them.

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Taz, posted 08-09-2007 2:34 PM Taz has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Dr Jack, posted 08-10-2007 6:34 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 170 (415486)
08-10-2007 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Dr Jack
08-10-2007 6:34 AM


Overcoming cultural norms
quote:
I think what we tend to do is look at morality from an objective, far off stance, which, in and of itself is not a terrible thing to do. But when you place the proponent in a personal situation, you tend to see those supposed amoralities becoming more and more relevant to them.
No, what you see is your own ingrained prejudices, and those of those around you brought to the fore.
I think that is overrated. I can't remember many times where the subject of beastiality has ever come up in part of the discussion. But when it did, everyone seemed disgusted by it, and wondered just how disturbed the (wo)man must be in order to bring themselves to do it.
If you, on the other hand, are assured that its merely a cultural influence, would you allow for you wife, son, or daughter to have sex with animals?

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Dr Jack, posted 08-10-2007 6:34 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by Dr Jack, posted 08-10-2007 1:00 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 170 (415496)
08-10-2007 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Dr Jack
08-10-2007 1:00 PM


Re: Overcoming cultural norms
What difference does it make that I wouldn't or wouldn't? All that would tell you is whether or not I'm prejudiced.
Or you refuse to answer the question because you understand fully the implications involved. Why not just answer the question, instead of answering a question with a question, which is no answer at all?
As it happens, my girlfriend does engage in sexual practices I find pretty disgusting (not bestiality!).
I noticed you stated this emphatically and with an exclamation point, no less. You seemed to make a point of letting us all know that your illustration was not about beastiality. What are you concerned about if it is not immoral?
Bestiality is an issue of animal welfare and public health - nothing more.
Ever seen a dog humping a persons leg? Suppose a female human allows for a male dog to copulate with her. Is the issue really about the welfare of the animal, since he seems more than willing, of his own volition, to do so?
Do you acquire consent from an animal right before you eat it? Do you acquire consent from a cow before you drink her milk? Do acquire consent from her when you wear leather?
Probably not. Therefore, the issue is not with the well-being of the animal. There is something inherent in man that says such practices are taboo. I never learned that through prejudice, because no one ever had to inform me that beastiality is squalid. I figured that out without any help from anyone else.
Why then is it so universally unaccepted?

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Dr Jack, posted 08-10-2007 1:00 PM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by AdminPD, posted 08-10-2007 5:12 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 129 by Dr Jack, posted 08-12-2007 5:29 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 170 (415565)
08-10-2007 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by AdminPD
08-10-2007 5:12 PM


Re: Argue Position
delete content
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by AdminPD, posted 08-10-2007 5:12 PM AdminPD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Straggler, posted 08-11-2007 8:43 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 170 (415789)
08-12-2007 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Straggler
08-11-2007 8:43 PM


Re: Absolutism
As an absolutist do youn find any moral ambiguity in this (admittedly far fetched) scenario?
What are your views as to where this meets or transgresses your absolute moral stance?
To make it vaguely on topic - Where does consent lie, if at all, in the absolutist scheme of things?
I myself believe that moral absolutes and relative absolutes can coexist. My contention is that relativists assert that no moral absolutes exist, not that they state that some morals are relative to circumstance. My only real objection is when somebody states that no moral absolutes exist.
Is it right to have sex with someone without consent? The absolutist would say, no. The relativist may also say no, but based on their philosophy, rape is not actually wrong, but rather, there are utilitarian or pragmatic reasons why it is so. But it isn't written in stone.
I say that rape is never okay, independent of circumstance. What I notice that many, and indeed, if not all relativists end up doing, is arguing over what constitutes rape to begin with. THIS is the relative portion. But rape is never okay. So if it is established that rape has occurred, can anyone say that it is only wrong based on the culture? Is it not absolutely wrong?
Consent is obviously important. However, it is not the definer. Should I gather my child's consent to scold him for hitting his sister? Obviously not. So consent is not an all-encompassing qualifier.
Now again, I agree that I am incapable of pointing out which morals are absolute. The best I can do is point out to the universality of them.
My argument is that they must exist, philosophically, in order for anyone to even bring up morals. How can you even raise the question without first having some basic guideline for what is moral and what isn't otherwise?
I hope I aggrandized my position well. Let me know if there are some uncertainties.

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Straggler, posted 08-11-2007 8:43 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Omnivorous, posted 08-12-2007 5:32 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 152 by Omnivorous, posted 08-15-2007 6:16 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 170 (415936)
08-12-2007 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Dr Jack
08-12-2007 5:29 PM


Re: Overcoming cultural norms
Because I'm arguing that my answer is irrelevant.
Then what is your answer despite the supposed irrelevancy?
Whether I, personally, would be disgusted by my (hypothetical) wife, son or daughter getting it on with an animal is entirely irrelevant to the morality of the act. My position is that personal disgust is an unsound basis for moral judgement.
Then you have effectively emasculated yourself as a husband and a father. If you can't voice your opinion to your own family for fear of unsound basis for moral judgements, then when can you?
My girlfriends feeling on the matter?
More yours than hers, being that we already know her feeling on the hypothetical situation.
As I said it is an animal welfare and public health issue - if no harm is done on these grounds then it is not immoral.
Why would sex with an animal be any more dangerous to public health than humans having sex with other humans?
The issue of consent does not come into issues of animal welfare. You can still expect standards of care without expecting consent. This is, in fact, how are animal welfare laws (as weak as they are) are drafted. You have a duty of care; not a duty to obtain consent.
Are you aware that you are making definitive moral statements about the welfare of the animal, all the while denying another? You're running in to the same problem.
quote:
There is something inherent in man that says such practices are taboo. I never learned that through prejudice, because no one ever had to inform me that beastiality is squalid. I figured that out without any help from anyone else.
There's no evidence for that, in fact the reverse is true: disgust seems very much to be learned reaction (with exceptions - humans do seem have an inate disgust for parasites, puss and deformation). I see no reason to believe that disgust of bestiality is not culturally acquired.
That's absurd Mr. Jack and I'm having a really hard time believing that you yourself believe it. Crazy goat herders do their deed under the cloak of night. There isn't some large scale zoophile movement in the world. But even supposing there was, it wouldn't change the moral factor.
quote:
Why then is it so universally unaccepted?
It isn't. There are cultures in which human-animal sexual contact was normal; even religious or ceremonial in nature. Your apparent 'universality' is simply an result of the fact that we all live in a broadly similar culture - one which has had two thousand years of Christian teaching.
Show me specific cultures that embrace zoophilia en masse for me to even begin to entertain the notion.

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Dr Jack, posted 08-12-2007 5:29 PM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Dr Jack, posted 08-13-2007 4:54 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 170 (416454)
08-15-2007 8:23 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Omnivorous
08-12-2007 5:32 PM


Re: Absolutism
The relativist position--as I understand and embrace it--is that an act must be examined in context before it can be declared morally wrong or right.
Well, of course, since there must be some reason to assume something was moral, immoral, or a amoral. But here's the thing. The law is understood when it is written prior to the action of the individual. There was a reason why, beforehand, that something is referred to as immoral.
You are merely reciting tautologies... Now assume there are cases of sexual activity and killing to consider--right here, right now. Tell me your verdict: Is it rape and murder?
What? You don't know yet? You have to ask for facts and circumstances?
Indeed, your refutation of the supposed tautology is a tautology in itself. The only question I've ever asked was if murder is absolutely wrong. What qualifies as a murder is vastly different, and indeed, is the relative portion of the investigation.
Think of it this way: The law was written as an absolute standard of conduct to follow before the crime has taken place, right? If the proscription is the set standard before the commencement of a crime, how then can you say that its relative? The relative question is, was that absolute law broken in the first place? But it says nothing about how one reaches the understanding of why it is immoral in the first place.
When you say "based on their philosophy, rape is not actually wrong" you are merely acting out your rejection of relativist foundations in an offensive manner. It's fine to reject those foundations, but saying it in this particular manner is a canard.
Then be offended by Nietzsche or Plato, because I am simply borrowing from their understanding. Aside from which, its a logical deduction. If there is nothing concrete, then morality is just a figment, erected by society. But no one person has the title to say that which is right and wrong. Therefore, its simply a matter of opinion.
One also has to ask how there is even such a concept bestowed upon humans in the first place.
Surely you understand the difference between saying 'relativists condemn wrongful acts but I find the foundations of their moral philosophy untenable' and "based on their philosophy, rape is not actually wrong."
What could be tenable in a purely relative world?
I--and other moral relativists in this forum and elsewhere--find rape and murder as wrong and morally obscene as you do.
Please stop suggesting otherwise.
I've never suggested otherwise. I realize that you feel the same. My central question is how it is supposed to have any meaning for you, all the while saying it doesn't have any meaning.
If life has only tidbits of meaning supplied by us, but the overarching scheme of life is purposeless and meaningless, then the meaning we provide is no meaning at all.

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Omnivorous, posted 08-12-2007 5:32 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024