|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Bestiality Wrong? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
given our passed record on whats moral it could be any thing .. however i do think more people "love" in the sense like /respect /care for animals, more that thoswho want to have sex with them , and those views will continue to make it morally wrong .. Ok. But does that mean morality is (or should be) a majority decision?If enough people believe that something is right does that make it morally acceptable? Sureley there is (or should be) some rational basis for what is considered moral and what is not? In the UK capaital punishment (for example) is illegal and considered by many to be morally wrong (myself included).BUT it may be considered to be morally right by many more than consider it morally wrong. Should the law be changed on that basis or is there a rationale to morality that supersedes notions of 'majority rule'?? Lets not change topic to capital punishment this is just an example of majority vs morality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Because the animal cannot say one way or the other whether or not he desires to be a part of the act. We do lots of things to animals without their consent. I appreciate that your vegetarianism and general animal rights awareness makes you less of a hypocrite than most (including myself) in this respect. But still we do take the eggs of hens without their consent. We do force animals into lives of domesticity and hard labour work without asking their opinion first. We do effectively imprison animals in farms and zoos and homes to the point where they are institutionalised and can no longer survive in natural environments. We treat animals in ways that we would never ever treat humans.Even the most animal rights aware of us indisputably do this. If consent is the only issue as regards morality then is keeping a pet rabbit, hamster or goat (against it's will) just as immoral as sexual intercourse with a sheep? I fully support the consent argument as regards inter-human sexual preferences.BUT I think there are major problems applying this consent based approach consistently when discussing the morality of bestiality as compared to the other ways in which we treat animals. I don't know what the answers are. I ask the questions because I do not know the answers not because I have a point to prove.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ikabod Member (Idle past 4521 days) Posts: 365 From: UK Joined: |
Ok. But does that mean morality is (or should be) a majority decision? If enough people believe that something is right does that make it morally acceptable? Sureley there is (or should be) some rational basis for what is considered moral and what is not? i think a active working moral system has to be at a minimum the compromise the majority accepts .. which is why i cannot see beastiality becoming morally ok ... as to a rational base for morality .. im not sure people are that rational when it really comes down to it ..but the origins of a moral code are another topic...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Do you personally think bestiality is immoral? On what is your answer based?
A majority decision is after all just a collection of personal views..Surely the personal view regards the morality of a given activity should be a rational decision rather than one based on disgust or other such subjective criteria?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
I used to be into sado-masochism, necrophilia and bestiality.
I gave it up because I was flogging a dead horse.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
i think a active working moral system has to be at a minimum the compromise the majority accepts .. which is why i cannot see beastiality becoming morally ok ... Well, an active, working moral system is what it is -- it certainly isn't going to be determined by "compromise". A person is either going to feel that something is wrong or she isn't. I don't think a person's deep feelings about something is going to change because of a "compromise". The moral system of a society is going to be determined by a rather complex interaction between the personal beliefs and feelings of its members. In fact, it may be hard to determine in some cases just what the "moral system" of a society (as opposed to its legal system) allows as proper. You may be talking about how a society determines what actions are strictly prohibited and what actions are allowed despite its morality -- but in this case we have to be careful that we aren't talking about different things under that same word "morality". The problem of equivocation and all that. I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Go away.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
I agree with Taz that I don't think a line should be drawn anywhere.
Straggler writes:
Yes.
Should bestial porn be as freely available as other sorts of porn?Should prime time TV be allowed to show human/beast affection of a non-graphic but obviously sexual variety as perfectly acceptable?
Yes.
Should a pair of self confessed bestial orgyists be allowed to adopt children?
Yes.
Would you feel comfortable answering the question of your children as to why the nice man next door seems sooooo fond of his sheep?
Yes.
Is there a line?
Yes.
Is it the same line we would apply to the freedom of expression for other human sexual practices?
Yes. In fact, it's the same line we would apply to the freedom of expression for other human practices. (Not only restricted to sexual practices). That is, generally, if it's not hurting anyone then it's a matter of personal opinion and therefore morally acceptable. I've found questions of "is this morally acceptable?" more easily answered when rephrased to be "does this stop anyone from pursuing their right to life and happiness?" And here, the answer is clear that restricting beastiality would obviously restrict those people's pursuit of their happiness. Basically, if you can't come up with a reasonable reason why it shouldn't be allowed other than "I don't like it". Then it probably should be allowed. Here's one proposed reason:
riVeRraT writes:
And my answer would be "No, I can't". But, I also don't see how this is any reason why beastiality should be avoided. In fact, we know that human-human sex certainly does cause disease which is threatening to the human population. AIDS and other STDs. This doesn't seem to make human-human sex immoral in any way. Can you prove that bestiality would not ever cause a disease to be threatening to the human population, or be a threat to anyone? If people avoided any action that they couldn't "prove" would never "be a threat to anyone", we'ed never do anything. If we followed this reasoning driving your car would be very immoral. So, since the reasoning why we shouldn't do it... isn't really reasoning at all. Then, by definition, there's no reason why we shouldn't do it. Therefore, it's okay to do, and you'll simply have to learn to live with your personal aversion to the idea. You can be thankful, however, that it's immoral for someone to force beastiality upon you Edited by Stile, : Spellsing. And I changed the title while I was editing anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3625 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Rationally I agree with what you say. Feeling wise it still seems more 'wrong' somehow. .... Is there a line? If so where is it? Is the process of setting a boundary one that depends wholly on reason? Do feelings have a say? If so, what is their rightful role? If not, why do we so often give them one? ___ Edited by Archer Opterix, : clarity. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AnswersInGenitals Member (Idle past 178 days) Posts: 673 Joined: |
Stiles writes: riVeRraT writes:
And my answer would be "No, I can't". But, I also don't see how this is any reason why beastiality should be avoided. In fact, we know that human-human sex certainly does cause disease which is threatening to the human population. AIDS and other STDs. This doesn't seem to make human-human sex immoral in any way. Can you prove that bestiality would not ever cause a disease to be threatening to the human population, or be a threat to anyone? Human-human sex will have no threat of causing (sexually transmitted) disease if the humans are virgins when they first mate and remain monogamous. But, of course, this also applies to human-nonhuman intercourse. One argument presented for the 'naturalness' of homosexuality is that it is observed in a great variety of species. Has cross species sexuality ever been observed between two nonhuman species? I'm not suggesting that such an observation, or lack of observation really bears on the morality issue. It just might be an interesting side point. For those who are concerned by the consent issue, would sex with an anatomically correct inflatable sheep doll address that concern?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 444 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
What does disease have to do with immorality? Nothing, and everything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1371 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Human-human sex will have no threat of causing (sexually transmitted) disease if the humans are virgins when they first mate and remain monogamous. STDs are tramsitted in lots of other ways, too, you know. like needles. or birth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3990 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
For what it's worth, Rat, I don't think your argument against bestiality based on interspecies disease transmission is being treated seriously enough--it's one of the best. There's a big difference between introducing your girlfriend to herpes and introducing your species to a plague.
Consider that we already know that the butchering and handling of animal carcasses likely played a significant role in the movement of pathogens from other species to ours: SARS (open air meat markets in Asia), and HIV (the popularity of game meat, including monkey and chimp in Africa). For millennia, close proximity between people and domesticated animals facilitated the movement of pathogens: pigs and flu, cow and pox. Removing the cows and pigs from the house was a major public health advance: moving them into the boudoir would be a retreat. A great deal of cultural knowledge has been embedded in moral strictures concerning animals. For example, dietary prohibitions (pork, shellfish) almost certainly reflect ancient discoveries of associated health risks. A western Native American culture (?Navajo) abandoned a residence if a particular species of mouse was seen; that seemed like superstition until a few years ago, when it was identified as a primary vector for a deadly disease. It's fun watching a bunch of moral relativists (I'm one, too) argue about whether something should be immoral. Think about it. Maybe a better discussion would be about whether bestiality can be reasonably and coherently held to be immoral. In a society that abhors any killing (Buddhist) or any other deliberate cause of suffering, the answer seems to be, yes, of course. At any rate, many of the questions being asked in this thread are more in the arena of law and public policy than that of morality. Is there a risk of introducing a dangerous pathogen to our species through bestiality? Clearly, the answer is yes. Is the public policy interest in preventing this stronger than the liberty interest in letting a few men screw their dogs? I'd say so. Personally, I find bestiality abhorrent because I do not believe animals are unthinking, unfeeling automatons to abuse for our sport and pleasure. But there are good, rational arguments against bestiality, quite aside from such feelings. Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given. Real things always push back. -William James Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC! ---------------------------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Is there a risk of introducing a dangerous pathogen to our species through bestiality? Clearly, the answer is yes. Why should we outlaw or prohibit an activity that might, perhaps, maybe introduce some plague into our society when we are allowing at this time an activity that we know have been and is a source of plagues? Because chicken nuggets are yummy but bestiality is icky? I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3990 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Chiroptera, that was really funny but even more silly.
Why should we ban driving at 100 mph just because it might, perhaps, maybe, cause a few deaths? I mean, we allow mass deaths through wars and starvation, so why can't Legend rip up the shire to his heart's content? Life isn't risk-free, therefore we cannot legitimately manage risk as a society: is that about it? Well, okay--I'll make an exception for bats. Bats you can fuck to death. Knock yourself out. Real things always push back. -William James Save lives! Click here!Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC! ---------------------------------------
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024