Is Bestiality Wrong?

Very like a reverend... These accusations, of course, are not universally true. Even where they are true, inconsistency does not refute a moral argument; it may damage a political argument or a debate score, but those are other arenas. Taz, mirror; mirror, Taz. So a carnivore must grant moral carte blanche to any treatment of animals? All life feeds on life: it is the great necessary contract of our being, vegan, carnivore, and omnivore alike. That necessity does not blot out all other moral concerns.Competition for good employment means I hope the young lady fails in her attempt to gain the job I want for myself--it's a jungle out here, baby, and I'm an implacable competitor. That I mean to see that she can't pay her rent doesn't mean I can also have sex with her without her consent.And moral inconsistency is, alas, also a hallmark of our existence; it does not of itself refute any particular argument.Do you mean to argue that only moral paragons may present valid moral arguments? Many of your posts seem to suggest that you believe the mere detection of inconsistency vitiates a person's moral arguments--do you explicity believe that?Hypocrisy gets up my nose, too, a nose that is hypersensitive to it. But when we narrow the focus to a particular moral issue, charges of hypocrisy are irrelevant to the meat of the matter. Your focus on what you see as hypocrisy or inconsistency is essentially an ad hominem fallacy.

---

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

n_j, I would appreciate a response. EvC Forum: Is Bestiality Wrong?

---

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

Absolutely not.But it does blot out 'consent' as a concern. If you don't ask consent to kill something, how can you ask consent to fuck it?

I have been reading this thread with interest and have supplemented my reading with stuff outside this forum. I have come to the conclusion that consent cannot be the only issue, but it is definitely a factor.You'll notice that I never said bestiality should be illegal, but to be honest that is probably what I was feeling subconsciously when I was typing my post at the beginning of this thread because I was still thinking on the terms of animal-human marriage (too many gay marriage threads I guess ) I still feel that animal-human marriage should be outlawed on the basis of informed consent because the animal will have no way to escape or speak out against any abuse incurred in such a marriage or even if it just doesn't "consent" anymore.I don't think bestiality in general should be outlawed unless the animal is subjected to harm or cruelty or forced into it (that one may be tricky, though). I do find it distasteful, but I wouldn't want it to be illegal just because I find it "icky." I also don't think I would discriminate against someone or stop being their friend or loving them if I discovered s/he was a zoophile, but I would probably have to work hard not to be a little bit put-off. I'm sure that with more exposure I wouldn't give it a second thought. I haven't thought about it much before now.You'll also notice that I said I was a vegetarian. If my decision was all about "consent" I would have to become a strict vegan in order to be consistent. However, it is not. It is mostly about cruelty, but consent also plays into it in the form that I don't feel I have the right to take an animal's life when I can be sustained (quite enjoyably, I might add) through other means. If it ever happens that I cannot be sustained through other means, then I will take that animal's life without hesitating. Eating eggs and using milk (I don't drink milk, but only because I don't like the taste) does use an animal without their consent, but when done in a humane manner it does not harm them. I don't use either very much, but when I do I use free range/organic products. Factory farming is atrocious not only for the animals, but for us and the environment as well.Anyway, I'm starting to drift off-topic, so I will leave it at that.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

Oh no, don't get me wrong. I'm not accusing anyone of hypocrisy at all. I'm just questioning this animal consent thing that so many people suddenly became so gungho about. Like I said before, people have never considered whether the chicken they're eating now consented to being slaughtered and supermarketed. Why on earth is animal consent suddenly THE ISSUE?But to avoid appearance of accusation of hypocrisy, let me ask this question. Are the people that are so gungho about animal consent in this issue willing to ask animal for consent in other issues, like being slaughtered for human consumption or being enslaved? What Jack said. Can someone else with a higher IQ than mine explain what Omni meant by this comparison? Gee, I didn't mean to use it as a refutation of anyone's argument. I simply question their motivation behind being so gungho about animal consent all of a sudden. They've claimed to be rational about this. Well, explain to me how it is rational to all of the sudden making animal consent THE ISSUE after all these years of never once considered to ask for the animal to consent being slaughtered or chained or caged or sold or be ridden on etc...If people really believe that consent is THE ISSUE, are they willing to accept the moral implications that come with this argument, or are we cherry picking moral arguments here?

---

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!

You seem to have said, "That's right, it doesn't," then, "Yes, it does."Could you tell me more about the mechanism by which the fact that life feeds on life blots out concerns about consent in other matters? If I eat meat, I must consent to the most atrocious treatment of animals? If I eat wings, I must accept Johnny's torture of bluebirds without demurral?If the banker doesn't ask consent to foreclose on the widow's farm, why can't he just rape her at will? If the soldier doesn't need consent to shoot enemy soldiers, why can't he bugger them once they are prisoners?No act of predation is consensual. That is what I suggested by "the great necessary contract of our being": to live in this world is to be fair game to other life for the necessity of their being.It is their life-need--and ours--that raises this commonalilty beyond moral questions of consent.The apparent "blot out" you refer to is a psychological twitch, a blind spot of human cognition, not a moral tenet. "If you don't ask consent to kill something, how can you ask consent to fuck it?" is an emotional question, not a moral one.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!
---------------------------------------

If you reject the force of hypocrisy and/or inconsistency here, you have no argument at all. Jack said jack. See my reply. To question the motivation of the argument is an ad hominem argument--usually resorted to when there is no good refutation. Further, your audience includes vegans and animal rights activists--in fact, you have no idea how those grounds of inconsistency or hypocrisy apply to anyone in this thread: you make them out of the blue. Your notion of "cherry picking" moral arguments is a prime example of why I titled my reply, "Inconsistency does not cancel out." There is a great deal of wrong in the world, and none of us is pure: nonetheless, we may make moral assertions.Edited by Omnivorous, : spleling

---

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

Well, I think most of us do subconsciously want it illegal. When I started participating in this particular argument, I knew it was an uphill battle for me simply because it always is so damn hard to argue for something that (1) the majority is disgusted with, (2) I, myself, is digusted with, (3) is part of mainstream social taboo, and (4) is so easy for one to be against.In real life, people have labeled me a loon for simply believe that I should mind my own business when it comes to someone else having sex with his dog. The usually response I've heard goes something like "he ought to be shot". In the case of marriage, in particular, I think it's only a matter of time before society has redefined the word enough to exclude consent.For now, in regard to marriage I'm sticking with "2 consenting adults". Personally, I don't have any problem with polygamy or polyandry. If those people want more than 1 husband or wife, why not? If a man wants to marry his dog, well... I think it's a bit of a stretch, but since this issue hasn't come up yet, I haven't put much thought into it. So, I'm undecided with human-animal marriage.For those that wants to point out hypocrisy, note that I said UNDECIDED, not AGAINST. I simply haven't thought about it much. Well, part of the argument against animal cruelty (that I have heard) is that the mentality it takes to torture animal reinforces the lack of, or underdeveloped, conscience in a person. I once read a study that a very high percentage of psychopathic serial killers, something like 80% or so, started out torturing little animal they could catch. Personally, I know some parents that never said anything when they see their kids torture little animal and I don't know why they continue to allow the kids to do those things without worrying what kinds of people they'll turn out to be...But anyway, sorry for the ramble.

---

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!

You're right, I have no argument if you want to put it that way.My question remains. Are people who are so gungho about animal consent when it comes to bestiality willing to take this argument to its logical conclusion about other acts against animal? Are these vegans going around telling people to stop eating meat?You will notice that I have been saying from the beginning that people can hate bestiality all they want. They can consider it as wrong as they want. It's trying to stop other people from doing it that I'm arguing against.So, again, if you don't think vegans have any right to try to prevent the rest of us from eating meat, what on Earth makes you think they have any right to stop the rest of us from having sex with animal? When I pointed out the inconsistency, I suspected that someone would inevitably point this out.So, are you willing to admit that it is not logically consistent to use consent as an argument against bestiality? Because if yes, I am willing to leave it at "I agree to disagree".I can't really argue against arguments that are inconsistent when compared with each other. Personally, I try to make myself as consistent as I can. But I guess different people have different standards.

---

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!

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. 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. 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. What could be tenable in a purely relative world? 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

Omni, how many times do we have to repeat that you don't have to accept anything?You don't have to accept anything.You don't have to accept anything.Sure, I absolutely abhore the acts of torturing animal. It doesn't mean I have any right to stop people from doing them.There are ways you can protest ill treatments of animal. Stop eating meat is one way. Not buy any product those people make is another. You can even rally protests and try to get as many people to stop eating meat as you can.You don't have to accept anything. There are forms that we all have to sign before we take out a morgage. Those forms pretty much represent consent. [/qs] If the soldier doesn't need consent to shoot enemy soldiers, why can't he bugger them once they are prisoners?[/qs] Um... geneva convention? Last I checked, there are certain rules soldiers have to follow. These rules are there to make things a little less hellish for those involved. By signing up, or drafted, to be in the army, you've pretty much agreed to follow these rules.I don't see a valid comparison here. Of course not. Consent is purely a human invention. What's your point? And I've said this before, too. Bestiality isn't a moral issue. It's neither wrong nor right. And here are the reasons: go back to my previous messages.Emotional? Excuse me?It is a question of consistency or inconsistency. What's the point of debate if consistency isn't important?

---

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!

Yes, it is a battle mostly since I haven't thought about it much before this. It was always something I dismissed or thought was slightly amusing (in that weird sort of way). I'd never thought about the legality of it before coming on here. It just never came up except in the context of marriage (it's kinda hard to avoid that being gay and all). I don't really foresee myself having a conversation about this in real life anytime soon, but if it does I'm sure I will get a similar response. That's definitely one of the arguments, but not so much in relation to being a vegetarian. When I said it affects us, I was mostly speaking of the obscene amounts of anti-biotics and other chemicals that pass from the meat to us and the risk of spreading infectious agents. I suppose it takes a certain amount of immunity to compassion, a numbness if you will, to treat the animals in factory farms the way we do and that could theoretically be a danger to our society as a whole or in part, but so far that hasn't been shown and we can only speculate.

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

Okay, aside from the sillyness that this leads us into (such as me being free to steal your kids), let's try to walk through this.Do you agree that some freedoms must be restricted? I mean, if not, I'm free to steal your kids, right? So I'm going to assume you don't believe this ridiculous position that your quote implies.So, if some freedoms must be restricted, how do we rationally decide which ones? Since there is nothing to tell us if any person's subjective feelings are better than any other person's, I suggest that we should treat the situation as fairly as possible.I propose that everyone should be treated equally with respect to their freedom to life and pusuit of happiness.Do you propose that certain people's freedoms to life and happiness shouldn't be as important as others? Because your quote certainly strongly implies that you do. How do you decide who's subective view is better than anothers? Do you just selfishly decide that your subjective view should be taken over everyone elses? How do you rationally defend that?You can rationally defend that "what anastasia says" should be taken as morally right. But, well, you're pretty much forced to throw out any notion of human equality or fairness. Personally, I find such ideals to be very important.But this is starting to get away from "is bestiality okay." I have stated that I think it's okay because I think we should treat beings equally. I now seem to be defending why "treating beings equally" should actually be considered "good". Such a chat should probably be done elsewhere.

We all buy into it to some extent. Obviously, freedom has not always been taken for granted, but we are only free to do those things which society says are acceptable. We were 'free' to capture and control people for 1000's of years. Anyone can see that conplete freedom is not possible, and therefore freedom itself is not the greatest goal of morality. The greatest goal is in determining which actions we should be free to choose. If you use 'freedom' as both the ideal and the rational measuring stick, you get into these kinds of messes where you know you are contradicting yourself. I have no idea how my quote says this. It is you who is putting limits on my freedoms, in a purely hypothetical situation.I am not sure why you are mentioning the right to life. I certainly believe that everyone is 'endowed' with the right to the pursuit of happiness, but for the reasons already stated, no one has the right to pursue the 'wrong' kind of happiness. If your goal can be met by robbing rich widows, knocking off your benefactor, cheating on your spouse, OR having sex with beasts, that kind of happiness is not licit.Since you keep repeating yourself in ever regressing circles, I will ask you one more time to step out of your little box and realize that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness CAN NOT determine in totality which actions are legal, licit, moral, etc. You can keep trading in 'what ana says' for 'what Stile says' but you are meeting the same blockade every time. It's not about what anybody says, it is about what makes sense, and again, you have not been able to show me any reason why bestiality should be practiced by humans. The least you could do is show me some web link with our closest counterparts in the animal kingdom doing it.

Okay, I'll create another thread so we can go through this and not derail the focus of this topic.