Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Bestiality Wrong?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 46 of 170 (415115)
08-08-2007 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Stile
08-08-2007 10:10 AM


Re: Rationality doesn't go on vacation
Rationally I agree with everything you say.
If we move along to "you continue to be absolutely fucking ashamed, shocked and devastated" year after year while your daughter continues a wonderfully productive life that happens to include loving and having sex with animals... then such a thing would be wrong, yes.
But I cannot help but think that I would continue to feel pretty darn negative about the the whole situation. Rightly or wrongly and even allowing for some softening due to familiarity.
But, well, I abide by this principle:
"Every being should be given equal respect with regards to their rights to life and pursuit of happiness".
Absolutely. I could not agree more. I have stated the same sort of principle in other morality related threads and arguments many times.
Which is why I find myself unable to reconcile that which I know to be rationally right with that which I feel to be wrong.
Really do you honestly think you would be OK with it if it were your children? Are you able to override your emotional response with rationality so completely?
The reason I started this thread was to explore the best example I can think of where my own rational moral arguments seem completely at odds with my instinctive beliefs. I am asking the question because I am interested in others opinions not because I am out to prove any particular activity as either moral or immoral.
In short, I get all your rational arguments and agree with them but am still not sure I could apply them in practice.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Stile, posted 08-08-2007 10:10 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Stile, posted 08-08-2007 11:12 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 48 of 170 (415128)
08-08-2007 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Stile
08-08-2007 11:12 AM


Re: Learning with time
I don't see how I could give up on my child.
That ultimately would be the driving force for change.
But I suspect that any such change would be made regardless of whether or not I could morally rationalise the action in question or not.
But I do agree with your overrall assessment and reasoning.
Fortunately (well hopefully) this is not an issue I am likely to face...........

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Stile, posted 08-08-2007 11:12 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Stile, posted 08-08-2007 12:31 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 53 of 170 (415146)
08-08-2007 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Stile
08-08-2007 12:31 PM


Re: What are we capable of?
That is, I like to think about what I'd do in these "tough" situations as much as I can. What I should do, what I would do, and what I can do in order to bring the two as close together as possible.
Yep, me too. That is why I asked the original question.
Yes. What if this wasn't there, though? Would we be able to adjust to a good friend being involved with bestiality? An indifferent neighbour? A stranger in a country on the other side of the world?
I wouldn't need to persecute anyone so the more distant they are from my life frankly the more indifferent I would be to begin with. It is only the closer associations such as children and other family that would actually test my rational conclusions to any meaningful extent.
Personally, I welcome the challenge of testing my humanity.
Well I think you are braver than me in that respect

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Stile, posted 08-08-2007 12:31 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 60 of 170 (415204)
08-08-2007 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Taz
08-08-2007 4:01 PM


Re: Lines of Acceptability
Good post.
I have already had a similar discussion with Stiles and concluded that, out of love for my daughter, I would deal with the situation and learn to live with it.
But I have little doubt that those negative feelings would remain.
Your post is a good response to the conflict involved in dealing with any extreme situation where rational acceptance is required in the face of a very opposite intense natural emotional reaction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Taz, posted 08-08-2007 4:01 PM Taz has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 62 of 170 (415208)
08-08-2007 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Hyroglyphx
08-08-2007 6:29 PM


Why is Bestiality Disgusting?
Anyone else have any satisfying answers?
The general consensus amongst the majority of relatavists here (myself included) seems to be that bestiality should NOT be considered immoral by any rational standard.
As I have explained a few time I am finding it hard to reconcile my feelings about the subject with my rational conclusions.
So personally I am not sure I do have any satisfying answers.
Others (Taz, Stiles etc.) seem much more consistent in their approach than me.
We all somehow have this innate sense that its not merely taboo, but reprehensible as well. Why is this?
This is a good question.
Despite the general consensus that rationally speaking there is no reason to object to bestiality we also all profess to finding the act totally disgusting.
Why is bestiality so universally condemned as disgusting?
Even if we decide not to base our rational conclusions on our feelings of disgust the question as to why bestiality is considered so disgusting is worth asking.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-08-2007 6:29 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Dr Jack, posted 08-08-2007 7:22 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 73 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-08-2007 10:19 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 78 by anastasia, posted 08-08-2007 11:25 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 65 of 170 (415211)
08-08-2007 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Archer Opteryx
08-08-2007 6:04 PM


Re: What could be more rational?
Archer where exactly do you stand on this issue?
Is it morally wrong?
If so, why exactly?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-08-2007 6:04 PM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-08-2007 9:49 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 82 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-09-2007 12:25 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 66 of 170 (415212)
08-08-2007 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Dr Jack
08-08-2007 7:22 PM


Re: Why is Bestiality Disgusting?
Er... I don't find bestiality disgusting.
I have to ask......
Are you speaking from experience?
Have you partaken.......?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Dr Jack, posted 08-08-2007 7:22 PM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Dr Jack, posted 08-09-2007 6:02 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 116 of 170 (415560)
08-10-2007 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Archer Opteryx
08-09-2007 12:25 AM


Re: What could be more rational?
That story was interesting and eloquently told.
I enjoyed it.
BUT I think your argument is flawed.
When does abnormality become a psychosis of some sort? Who decides?
There was a time not all that long ago where unmarried mothers and gay men would have met with exactly the sort of treatment you are espousing for bestialists.
Isn't that which is considered mad and that which is considered acceptable deviation from the norm wholly dependant on the prevailing culture of the time and place?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-09-2007 12:25 AM Archer Opteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-11-2007 10:02 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 118 of 170 (415654)
08-11-2007 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Taz
08-09-2007 3:09 PM


Bestiality IS Rationally Immoral - Conclusion
I have been pondering the question of bestiality and have come to the conclusion that rationally bestiality is immoral.
I realise that this is somewhat contradictory to many of my earlier posts where I have accepted the rational arguments that conclude that there is no rational basis for considering bestiality immoral (despite recognising some emotional misgivings)
I also realise that this new stance will trigger off a stream of derision from my fellow moral relativists. So let me explain myself.
Let’s go back to the root of the problem. On what rational basis should we consider something immoral?
I, and I think the majority of moral relativists, would consider anything that harms another person or stands in the way of others enjoying the same freedom to pursue happiness that we expect for ourselves to be immoral. This is pretty general and sweeping but the exact details are not important. The gist seems pretty universal amongst moral relativists.
From this we can derive that activities between consenting adults should not be considered immoral. No one is harmed and the general outcome is happiness for the individuals concerned. Gay sex, straight sex, oral sex, S & M etc. etc. are all examples of consenting sexual activities.
From the founding principle of harm we can also conclude that sexual activity with those unable to consent should be considered immoral. One person should not have the right to inflict themselves sexually on another who is incapable of determining whether or not they will be harmed by these actions. For this reason paedophilia should be considered immoral. By this criteria sex with a brain-dead or comatose individual should also be considered immoral.
Consent, and the ability to give it, is very much the KEY criteria when it comes to sex.
By these principles bestiality would very much fall into the category of immoral. Without question.
In response to this it has been quite rightly pointed out that we treat animals in all sorts of ways that we would not treat humans without ever considering the issue of consent or morality. This is indisputably true.
Rationally it would therefore seem hypocritical to suddenly treat sex any differently.
THEREFORE
We have rationally managed to determine that bestiality is rationally not immoral?
Rational thought also suggests that sex without consent or with those unable to give consent should be considered immoral
Animals cannot give consent so obviously there is some irrationality going on somewhere. The question is where?
This is the crux of the matter.
The questions boils down to WHY we treat animals differently? Why is it that the founding moral principles of harm and consent apply to persons but not to animals. Not just sexually but in every way.
Is this based on conscious thought? Self awareness?
No. We have already concluded that sex with a brain dead or comatose humans is immoral.
What about the potential for consciousness and self awareness?
Well would it be any more acceptable even if we knew the brain dead individual in question would definitely never recover? I don’t think it would.
The fact is that we treat animals in rationally unjustifiable ways.
By heaping rationality on top of this irrationality in order to abandon the founding concept of consent we are not coming to a rational conclusion regarding bestiality.
Rationally bestiality is wrong because animals cannot consent to sex.
Irrationally we disregard the founding principles of our morality when it comes to animals.
We are irrationally specieistic
For this argument to be wrong I think someone would have to demonstrate why it is rationally acceptable to disregard notions of harm and consent on animals whilst maintaining them in cases of humans incapable of consciousness.
Your thoughts appreciated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Taz, posted 08-09-2007 3:09 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Taz, posted 08-11-2007 1:00 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 121 by anastasia, posted 08-11-2007 6:04 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 136 by Stile, posted 08-13-2007 9:51 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 123 of 170 (415733)
08-11-2007 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Taz
08-11-2007 1:00 PM


Re: Bestiality IS Rationally Immoral - Conclusion
I will respond to everyone in another couple days or so. I'm giving ample time for some people to calm down
Fair enough
I addressed my post to you as you are the main proponent of rational bestiality. However I would like to make the following clear.
1) I have no desire to get between a man and his goat, either physically or metaphorically.
2) Despite my last post nor do I belive that anyone else has the right to get between a man and his goat
3) If asked to adjudicate a case of bestiality I would claim that the action was immoral and wrong as per my previous post but (in my best messianic voice) request -
"Let he has not eaten the flesh of animal cast the first stone. Let he who has treated animals with the same respect, dignity and care as their fellow afflicted human cast the first stone. Let he who can rationally justify the maltreatment of our fellow creatures on this planet Earth cast the first stone"
At that point the cannibal in the jury would righteaously declare "it's all meat to me" and land a boulder on the sick sheep shagging bastard
I realise that my last post would also suggest that on any practical level the way we treat animals is equally as immoral as bestiality. Whether it be eating them, imprisoning them, stealing their babies, castrating them, enslaving them etc. etc. This is understood and agreed.
From this point my argument is purely an academic one.
I think there is a logical flaw in your rational argument and I intend to exploit it to see where we end up
IF we accept the irrational specieism inherent in the arguemnt
WHY should we then apply rationality to individual actions beyond that?
i.e. IF I accept the irrational position that animals do not deserve the same treatment as humans with equievelent or less intelligence, awareness or consciousness then why should I apply rational thought to what I consider acceptable behaviour towards animals in terms of eating, shagging or any other individual action?
See you in a couple of days
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Taz, posted 08-11-2007 1:00 PM Taz has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 124 of 170 (415736)
08-11-2007 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by anastasia
08-11-2007 6:04 PM


Re: Bestiality IS Rationally Immoral - Conclusion
Call me old fashioned, but I think there is nothing wrong with using an animal for food, even thought it is sad on the mass market level. It is immoral to treat an animal inhumanely, however. I think that it borders on the inhumane to impose sex upon animals.
Should bestiality be considered on a moral par with hunting animals for sport then?
I accept your argument re personal dignity but presumably (honest I would not know. Really. Honestly. Truly. Please believe me ) real bestialists would not consider themselves persoanlly compromised in this way. AND if they did they would no doubt blame a prejuduced society rather than themselves!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by anastasia, posted 08-11-2007 6:04 PM anastasia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by anastasia, posted 04-16-2003 6:36 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 125 of 170 (415744)
08-11-2007 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Hyroglyphx
08-10-2007 9:05 PM


Absolutism
This is arguably off topic but I am not sure where else to ask -
Moral absolutists consider the following scenario -
A couple have a car crash
They are married
She ends up in a vegatative state from which there is no recovery
He is unharmed
She is physically fine. As is he.
He decides that despite the vegetative state of his wife he wishes to impregnate her so that they can produce child.
He requests that sexual intercourse is allowed between him and his vegetataive wife.
She is impregnated and he requests that he be granted full parental control of their child.
The child is born from the vegetative mother without her consent for either sexual intercourse or the resulting birth.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-10-2007 9:05 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-12-2007 3:19 AM Straggler 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