Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

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


Message 31 of 170 (415061)
08-08-2007 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Omnivorous
08-07-2007 11:58 PM


Re: Rat is right
Life isn't risk-free, therefore we cannot legitimately manage risk as a society: is that about it?
I'm just curious about how one chooses which risks we are going to manage and which we accept as life not being risk-free. Spanish Influenza wiped out about 40 million people in about a year, small pox was a scourge for centuries, and you have already brought up SARS and Bird Flu. Yet plopping a steak on the grill is just part of the way life isn't risk-free, but a visit to the goat brothel presents a risk that needs to be managed.

I've done everything the Bible says, even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! -- Ned Flanders

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Omnivorous, posted 08-07-2007 11:58 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Omnivorous, posted 08-08-2007 7:03 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 32 of 170 (415067)
08-08-2007 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Omnivorous
08-07-2007 11:48 PM


Re: Rat is right
Omnivorous writes:
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.
It's not that those of us who didn't treat rat's argument seriously didn't treat the issue seriously. His argument disguised in the form of a question reminded me of an interview I heard on the radio over the weekend.
On NPR, they were talking about a Muslim community in the US trying to raise public awareness of their belief in peace and coexistence rather than the war-like images we see everyday on the major news networks. There was one interview of a Non-Muslim in this particular town that had a proportionally large Muslim community. The person being interviewed said that the Muslims in town do a lot of things that would make people suspect and worry. When he made that statement, I said in my head "like what?" Right enough, the reporter asked that man, "can you give us a few examples?" Then there came a long silence. After about a minute or two of silence (there were some background noises of people talking and cars driving by), the man said "well, I can't think of any off the tip of my tongue, but they do do a lot of suspicious things that concern a lot of us."
Rat's question-argument was based on his prejudice. Does anyone here actually want to stand up and say that you believe Rat thought this through thoroughly before giving us that single sentence argument?
Now, onto your (real) argument.
There's a big difference between introducing your girlfriend to herpes and introducing your species to a plague.
Well... I'll explain why I would disagree as well as agree with this statement as I go along.
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.
You are quite right, of course. But this is no different than interactions between human populations throughout history. The colonization of the Americas was mostly due to old world diseases wiping out almost the entire population of the Americas. Even having promiscuous sex life endangers yourself and everyone around you, not to mention personal hygiene and such. Taking a monthly bath was a big improvement from not taking any bath at all. Taking a weekly bath was a big improvement from the monthly bath. Taking a shower/bath everyday was an even bigger improvement from the weekly bath.
We've introduced condom, anti-biotics, and whatnot to help reduce the risks of person to person infections of the various diseases. All of these improvements that I have mentioned came from public health policies and encouragements that evolved as societies became more and more intermingled with one another.
It doesn't require an interspecies disease to cause another pandemic.
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.
And a great deal of cultural knowledge has been embedded in moral strictures concerning personal hygiene as well as person to person contact. Why do you think a lot of the Jews were spared of the black plague? Circumcision also comes to mind that greatly reduced infection. The old testament also had a whole series of laws concerning cleanliness and uncleanliness.
I don't think it's fair that you are only mentioning the cultural taboos regarding person to animal contact when there are an even greater amount of cultural taboos regarding person to person contact.
It's fun watching a bunch of moral relativists (I'm one, too) argue about whether something should be immoral. Think about it.
For the record, I'm not a relativist. I'm a moral absolutist. Don't ask. Long story. {Added by edit: Why do you think I've stayed clear of the moral relativism thread?}
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.
No comment here.
Is there a risk of introducing a dangerous pathogen to our species through bestiality? Clearly, the answer is yes.
Is there a risk of introducing a dangerous pathogen to our community through contact with another community? Clearly, the answer is yes. But what is more important is the risk of introducing a dangerous pathogen to our community from another is even higher than the risk of introducing a dangerous pathogen to our species through beastiality. Why? Because the pathogens from another community have already been adapted to human physiology. The same thing cannot be said of most pathogens from other species.
The most notable pandemics in history have always been the works of pathogens that had been plaguing man kind since the beginning of time. Compared to smallpox or the guinea worm disease, SARS was just a walk in the park.
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.
How can you possibly say this when clearly the most devastating pandemics in history have always been those caused by pathogens that have already been in the human populations for eons?
But there are good, rational arguments against bestiality, quite aside from such feelings.
I beg to differ.
Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Omnivorous, posted 08-07-2007 11:48 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Omnivorous, posted 08-08-2007 7:40 PM Taz has replied
 Message 71 by riVeRraT, posted 08-08-2007 9:53 PM Taz has not replied

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


Message 33 of 170 (415068)
08-08-2007 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Archer Opteryx
08-07-2007 5:11 PM


Re: Lines of Acceptability
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?
Feelings undoubtably are given a role in practice. I am not sure most people think about 'why'. That is why if asked we end up trying to rationalise things which are not rational.
As to whether they should have a role or not - I don't know.
That is what this thread is exploring at root.
What do you think in answer to your own questions?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-07-2007 5:11 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

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


Message 34 of 170 (415069)
08-08-2007 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by AnswersInGenitals
08-07-2007 8:35 PM


Re: Need a reason for it to be immoral
For those who are concerned by the consent issue, would sex with an anatomically correct inflatable sheep doll address that concern?
Did I accidentally leave my webcam on again?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 08-07-2007 8:35 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

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


Message 35 of 170 (415070)
08-08-2007 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Omnivorous
08-07-2007 11:48 PM


Re: Rat is right
If it makes it safer and therefore more acceptable a law could be passed allowing only protected sex with animals. Maybe even 'bestial brothels' with only clean livestock.
Does that help?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Omnivorous, posted 08-07-2007 11:48 PM Omnivorous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Omnivorous, posted 08-11-2007 12:19 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 36 of 170 (415071)
08-08-2007 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Archer Opteryx
08-07-2007 5:11 PM


Re: Lines of Acceptability
Archer writes:
Is the process of setting a boundary one that depends wholly on reason? Do feelings have a say?
We're not Vulcans. Of course feelings have a say when it comes to decision making. Most people come upon their decision of whatever issue they are tackling through their feelings before trying to come up with a logical and, hopefully, consistent reason.
This is not to say that we should stick with our feeling-derived decision till death do us part. We all should be careful when we are presented with another argument that counters our previous view. And we all should be prepared to change our minds when the other argument makes more sense. This, I think, is the hardest part and is in most cases against human nature.
When I first stumbled upon the issue of beastiality, I reacted like most people. I condemned it outright because it disgusted me. But then as I thought it through, I found that my disgust for beatiality was very similar to my disgust to homosexuality before the Great Change. Sure, we all are disgusted by one thing or other. But in the end, we need to listen to our as well as others' rational side.
If so, what is their rightful role?
The rightful role of our feelings is to be there when we don't have much time to react. Our feelings are important because they act as a quick decision making tool in times of need. I can't really see myself trying to tell a soldier when being shot at to think it through whether the enemy deserved being shot back at or not.
But beyond that, our rational side should have priority over our feelings.
If not, why do we so often give them one?
Well... we are all human. Even Spock had a hard time trying to be feeling-free. Even Data couldn't be completely free of feelings. Heck, even the Doctor (Star Trek Voyager), aka Joe, went insane in one episode when he had a conflict between his feelings and his rational side. Captain Janeway had to wipe that portion of his memory matrix for him to be sane again. Oops, I let my trekkie side got out again.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-07-2007 5:11 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 9:39 AM Taz has replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4493 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 37 of 170 (415085)
08-08-2007 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Straggler
08-07-2007 12:54 PM


as i said i belive given the current moral stance , at least in the UK , with which i am familiar ..Yes ...bestiality is immoral?
personaly i lack the knowleged to make a true responce .. i do not know and understand the motiviation's behind it ... partly the problem is its a cover-all term , for those who "love" a individual animal , to those who have "sex" with animals ...
i think i can consider it from a objective point and avoid the colouring of disgust .. and i can see the rationals behind the lack of concent , and at the same time our lack of concent when we farm and eat and kep as pets the animals .
i guess im unsure IF it is a moral question ...or a matter of personal taste , vs animal protection issues
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?
.. in an idea world yes ..but to oftern personal gets over writern by desire to conform , to be one of the crowd , to be NOT seen as siding with the questionable ... and morality is one of those areas where the ones who "shout" often carry the majority with them .. reason get pushed down the list of factors effecdting decision making ....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Straggler, posted 08-07-2007 12:54 PM Straggler has not replied

  
ikabod
Member (Idle past 4493 days)
Posts: 365
From: UK
Joined: 03-13-2006


Message 38 of 170 (415086)
08-08-2007 4:03 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Chiroptera
08-07-2007 1:48 PM


by compromise i was meaning its made up of those fadctors which upset the majority the least , while at the same time what a major faction of that majority will put up with , but is set by those few who "shout" loadest ..
and yes i fully agree seperating current moral code from the legal pressures is near impossible ...
and again i agree .. what each of us view as "the moral system" does often vary .. and we do need to compare notes to insure we are talking the same language .....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Chiroptera, posted 08-07-2007 1:48 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 39 of 170 (415098)
08-08-2007 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
08-06-2007 2:36 PM


Genetics make no difference. We already know that people are strongly genetically influenced to commit crimes such as murder and rape - we don't, and shouldn't, consider these to be mitigating factors.
In my opinion Bestiality should be considered purely a animal welfare and public health and safety issue. Someone humping a chicken, for example, will demonstrate pretty clear evidence of harm - a women getting it on with a dog on the other hand? Well, the big issues are disease transfer and issues of human-dog hierarchy and the resulting canine control issues.
As for bestial porn, no reason it shouldn't be treated similarly to other forms of pornography provided it meets suitable levels of animal welfare standards.
Regarding animal welfare: I take the view that many of the ways animals are treated in our society are obscene and should be dealt with. And, frankly, I'm speaking specifically of farming.
Consent is bordering on a non-sequitur when it comes to animals.

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 42 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 9:27 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
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

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


Message 41 of 170 (415105)
08-08-2007 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Hyroglyphx
08-08-2007 8:33 AM


Re: Respecting your wishes
Does this mean you would only like for relativists to respond to your thread?
Not necessarily.
I'm not sure that answers along the lines of 'bestiality is wrong because the bible says so' are going to be particularly helpful but discussion on the difficulties of rationalising morality against feelings of disgust etc. are welcome.
Just lets avoid any unjustified comparisons to consenting humans. No need for that debate all over again.
I have no doubt that watching a bunch of moral relatavists wrestle with the question of bestiality is quite a laugh from your absolutist position
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-08-2007 8:33 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-08-2007 6:29 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 42 of 170 (415106)
08-08-2007 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Dr Jack
08-08-2007 7:01 AM


Morally
I accept what you say regards health etc.
But where do you stand on it morally?
Well, the big issues are disease transfer and issues of human-dog hierarchy and the resulting canine control issues.
As long as we keep the mutts in their rightful place and condoms are used can I take it you have no actual moral objection?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Dr Jack, posted 08-08-2007 7:01 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Dr Jack, posted 08-08-2007 12:29 PM Straggler has not replied

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


Message 43 of 170 (415108)
08-08-2007 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by Taz
08-08-2007 2:23 AM


Re: Lines of Acceptability
How rational is rational?
If my little son turned out to be gay I really do not think I would have a significant personal difficulty with it.
If my little (hypothetical, as only the one sprog so far) daughter turned out to have a major thing for goats and horses I would be absolutely fucking ashamed, shocked and devastated.
If our decisions should be ultimately rational would my reaction be....wrong?
How would you react in the same situation and how would you reconcile any differences with your rational side and your emotional side?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Taz, posted 08-08-2007 2:23 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Stile, posted 08-08-2007 10:10 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 55 by Taz, posted 08-08-2007 4:01 PM Straggler has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 44 of 170 (415110)
08-08-2007 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Omnivorous
08-07-2007 11:48 PM


Still don't see a difference
Personally, I find bestiality abhorrent because I do not believe animals are unthinking, unfeeling automatons to abuse for our sport and pleasure.
I agree with your reasoning, but I don't see how it works against bestiality in any possible way.
I also don't believe animals are unthinking, unfeeling automatons to abuse for our sport and pleasure. And if someone was doing that to an animal, I'd also think it was immoral. But I don't think bestiality is immoral.
Just like human-human sex. If a human abuses another human for their sport and pleasure, I think it's immoral. But I don't think human-human sex is immoral.
There's a big difference between introducing your girlfriend to herpes and introducing your species to a plague.
I agree, yet the point is still irrelevant to bestiality being immoral. Even given your baseless fear, this is no reason for bestiality to be immoral. It is only a reason for bestiality to be taken seriously, and given the careful amount of respect it deserves.
Just like human-human sex. It is to be taken seriously and given the careful amount of respect it deserves. Obviously, if no one respected safe-sex practices, than human-human sex would easily introduce many different plagues to the species (it already has, even).
But this doesn't mean human-human sex is immoral, just that it should be taken seriously.
But there are good, rational arguments against bestiality, quite aside from such feelings.
I'm still waiting for any. You've provided plenty of reasons why we shouldn't take bestiality lightly, and I agree with them all. Yet no reason at all why bestiality should be considered immoral.
Bestiality is not "a man raping an animal". I would agree that such a thing is immoral. I'm not saying that "any sex between a human and an animal in any conceivable situation" is moral. I'm saying that human-non-human sex is moral. Of course it needs to be done safely, and respectfully, just as human-human sex needs to be in order to be considered moral. Sorry, I thought that was implied.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Omnivorous, posted 08-07-2007 11:48 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 45 of 170 (415112)
08-08-2007 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Straggler
08-08-2007 9:39 AM


Rationality doesn't go on vacation
Staggler writes:
How rational is rational?
Anything that isn't irrational, of course
If my little (hypothetical, as only the one sprog so far) daughter turned out to have a major thing for goats and horses I would be absolutely fucking ashamed, shocked and devastated.
If our decisions should be ultimately rational would my reaction be....wrong?
What "wrong" are you talking about? Morally wrong? That's easy, yes it is. Naturally wrong? No, that's practically impossible, we feel what we feel.
Of course, that's just your reaction. 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, well, I abide by this principle:
"Every being should be given equal respect with regards to their rights to life and pursuit of happiness".
If you think that statement is a bad way to live, I understand why you'd disagree. Otherwise, you're just wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 9:39 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 10:34 AM Stile has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024