Is Bestiality Wrong?

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.More importantly, it appears everyone has strayed away from the idea that it is possible to treat ourselves inhumanely. Morality is not simply or only about what we do to others, although in modern culture it is usually portrayed that way. More so, morality is about what we consider to be good for US. Surely we can say that any form of sexual gratification that we enjoy is good for us, but what does it say about our dignity? What does it say about our level of respect for our own bodie?

Stile, you must understand that 'some people like to have sex with animals', and 'some people think it is not becoming to human dignity' are not arguments that go any way towards 'is this action moral or immoral'?If your greatest standard is that we do no harm to others, then for you it is moral.For me it is immoral. I already told you. Humans are meant to have sex with humans.Now, get busy and tell me you have some way of knowing I am wrong. If you can't prove that we should have sex with animals, I can feel free to believe that we should not. I can be free to believe that since others are also human, they should not have sex with animals either. I can't stop them, but I have no problem saying it is wrong, any more than you have saying it is right.That's the problem with relativity. No one knows who is right or wrong, but they want to act like they do.

Fair enoughI 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 upIF 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 daysEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.

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 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?

Professionals in the field of abnormal psychology. An interview with a professional psychologist if the person was a minor? Circular question. Take away the passive voice (which obscures the subject of the sentence) and you can see.You've asked this:

Isn't that which society considers mad and that which society considers acceptable deviation from the norm dependant on the prevailing culture of that society?

The answer is yes. But that tells us nothing about mental illness. It's a tautology. We've said society is as society does.What society 'considers' anything to be is dependent on the prevailing culture of that society. It defines that culture.You can do this with anything. You might as well ask:

Isn't that which society considers a brain tumour and that which society considers an acceptable deviation from the norm wholly dependant on the prevailing culture of that society?

Or this:

Isn't that which society considers a tornado and that which society considers an acceptable deviation from the norm wholly dependant on the prevailing culture of that society?

Or this:

Isn't that which society considers a rational number and that which society considers an irrational number wholly dependant on the prevailing culture of that society?

Or this:

Isn't that which society considers an element and that which society considers a compound wholly dependant on the prevailing culture of that society?

The answer to all these questions (if anyone was wondering) is yes.Society is always the expert on what society thinks. If you want to know what it 'considers' something, ask it.To the extent, though, that a society's 'prevailing culture' values empirical inquiry, research data, and clear categories with established criteria, it will look for its final decisions to something other than popular hearsay. It will look to specialists who have regular access to relevant data and who understand better than most people how to interpret it.That's why, in our society, you don't survey ballet dancers and systems engineers to interpret a brain X-ray. You talk to a neurologist.If you need to know why the sky looks different today, you ask a meteorologist.If you need a functioning definition of rational numbers, you ask a mathematician.If you need a functioning definition of a chemical element, you ask a chemist.And if you need a functioning definition of psychological disorder, you ask a psychologist.____Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

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 reply is towards both of your posts.You may notice that all of these threads are the same discussion over and again. The relative/absolute threads are the same as the homosexuality threads, are the same as the bestiality threads. It is such simple stuff.Lesson 1. You can't judge a fellow human's morality. He or she may honestly believe they are doing nothing wrong.Lesson 2. Believing something is harmless does not mean it is harmless. It does mean the person is guiltless of intentional harmful motive.Lesson 3. Absolutism does not mean doing the same darn thing in every situation.Here is an example, likewise far-fetched as an analogy.Pesticides can not be consumed by humans. If a 3 year old dumps a pesticide in mama's lemonade, he is blameless, but mama gets ill or dies. If mama dumps a pesticide in the child's milk, she is evil, and child gets ill or dies. IOW, same cause, same result, different verdict. Is poisoning someone moral? No. Relativism say 'yes' it may be moral in some places and some cultures and times. Absolutism says it is always immoral, always will be, always was. Neither absolutism nor relativism deal with guilt for a crime committed, but strictly with the definition of 'crime'. No one seems to be getting that concept.

Because I'm arguing that my answer is irrelevant. 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. My girlfriends feeling on the matter? I agree. 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. I'd still be concerned about someone getting it on with the family dog though because of the links in dog society between sex and dominance. I've already stated my position that consent is irrelevant with respect to human-animal sexual relations. For the reasons you state. Wrong. 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. 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. 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.

I am truly and deeply puzzled by your continuing insistence on this point.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. Sometimes an act that appears clearly immoral may be judged otherwise when context and motive are considered; sometimes an act of apparent kindness may turn out to be cruelly immoral.So in the specific case you discuss here, it is not that an event of rape must be examined carefully to determine its rightness or wrongness, but that an event of sexual intercourse is so examined.You are merely reciting tautologies:Wrongful sex is wrong.
Wrongful killing is wrong.You can continue in this vein forever without error, but you will have said nothing useful. So let me totally agree with your tautologies:Rape is wrong.
Murder is wrong.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?Exactly.It is more accurate to say that the relativist disagrees with the absolutist on why rape and murder are wrong. You find the ground of your morality in the moral dictates of a divine absolute; I find mine in the values and relations of the human community and the commonality of life.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.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."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.

---

Real things always push back.
-William James Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

I tend to think the absolute/relative distinction is actual quite poor. While there are true moral relativists and moral absolutionists out there the majority of discussions are actually between camps that might be better described as moral objectivists and moral subjectivists.

Then what is your answer despite the supposed irrelevancy? 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? More yours than hers, being that we already know her feeling on the hypothetical situation. Why would sex with an animal be any more dangerous to public health than humans having sex with other humans? 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.

---

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?

---

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

For the last time: it's irrelevant so I'm not giving an answer. If I wasn't worried about the soundness of any moral judgement I make then I'd be a very poor moral teacher on any subject. I didn't say I couldn't voice my opinion. What I said is that disgust is not a good basis for moral judgement. Really? Do you? And how exactly do you know that? Where do you get off telling me how someone you've never met feels? Go back and read the thread of questions and answers that led to my response and reconsider because, frankly, your response is remarkably rude. Because of the increased risks of facilitating the cross species transfer of new diseases. I don't know how big a risk that is. [qs]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]I have no idea what you're trying to say here, please elaborate. I refer you to this article from Wikipedia.Some exerts:

quote:

---

The Sagaholm is a Swedish barrow with zoosexual carvings that dates to the early Nordic Bronze Age.

​

Plutarch and Virgil state of Greece, that: "it commits very frequently and in many places great outrages, disorders and scandals against nature, in the matter of this pleasure of love; for there are men who have loved she-goats, sows and mares," (Discourse on the Reason of Beasts, xvii) Pliny states that Semiramis prostituted herself to her horse, and Venette says that "there is nothing more common in Egypt than that young women have intercourse with bucks."

​

Among the Maasai, it was customary for older boys to have sexual relations with she-asses. Young Riffian boys (a Morrocan tribe) also had sexual liaisons with female asses (Ford and Beach, 1951, pp. 147-148).

---

Your culture is not all cultures.

I know, and you still haven't answered my question about that discussion:What if the professional's opinion was simply that nothing was going on, nothing was wrong, and your teenager only enjoyed having sex with a Great Dane?Or, do you assume that a clinically sane, socially productive person, who also has a sexual desire towards animals cannot possibly be part of "a real life situation"? Sweeping dismissal of what? You still haven't offered any area that I'm lacking reasons in. All you've said is: And to that I still question:What if the professional's opinion was simply that nothing was going on, nothing was wrong, and your teenager only enjoyed having sex with a Great Dane?If you would like to point out the irrationalities I'm making, I'd like to know about them. It will help me better sturcture my thoughts about the issue.Personally, I find bringing someone into a professional to seek help a bit out of the ordinary. Especially if having sex with a cow is the only motive for thinking they're crazy. Just like with the dirty underwear on the outside. That alone isn't much of a reason to think someone's crazy. Sure, it's a good starter, then you have a chat with them. If they're jumping around from idea to idea, seem incredibly paranoid, cannot focus, and seem very out-of-touch with reality... then yes, bringing them into a professional would be a good idea.But it's also quite possible that they're down-to-earth, very calm, very intelligent, very productive and seem just as sane as everyone else. In this situation, why would we think a professional is even needed? Isn't it simply possible that different people find different things sexually desirable? It would seem by the obvious large variety of sexual fetishes out there... that yes, it's quite possible that perfectly sane people are capable of having differing sexual attractions.If someone seems just as capable as any other socically productive person, what's the reason for questioning their sanity?Or should we bring anyone into a professional and make sure they're sane just because Archer Opterix doesn't approve of what they do in their bedroom?Regardless though, say we do bring them in, and the professional finds that they're completely sane. Do you accept your daughter now? Or do you keep searching for a 2nd, 3rd.. 48th opinion until someone agress with you?If that's your plan, I'm not sure if it's your daughter who needs the professional help.

Yes, I totally agree with this. Sorry, that's not what I meant.I understand that you find bestiality wrong for you. And I've never argued against that. In fact, I've attempted to agree with it over and over again.I'm no longer discussing if it's simply "right" or "wrong". That, really, doesn't mean very much. What I'm discussing is whether or not we should stop others from engaging in bestiality. But, I do not say "it's right". Here, let's try this:We're walking down a road, and inside a house there's a light on. Through the window, we can tell a man is having sex with a cow. They both seem to be enjoying themselves.Me -> "Meh, I'm glad he's having fun, let's continue our walk."Not Me -> Go and bang on his door "Hey, you! Keep up the good work! Sex with cows is awesome!!"See the difference? I'm not advocating it. I'm just not preventing it.You A -> "Meh, I wish he wouldn't do that, that's so wrong, let's continue our walk."You B -> Go and bang on his door "Hey, you! You shouldn't have sex with that cow! It's wrong!!"Now, if you are "A", I have no problem, and I think you are being a very good person as well. It's when you cross that line into "B" where I think you're wrong, and being a bad person.I really have no problems with differing opinions. In fact, I believe that different opionions is exactly why life is so amazing. The only thing I have a problem with is when people try to force their views on others simply to restrict another's freedom.