Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 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 16 of 170 (414960)
08-07-2007 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by ikabod
08-07-2007 5:08 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by ikabod, posted 08-07-2007 5:08 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by ikabod, posted 08-07-2007 10:53 AM Straggler has replied

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


Message 17 of 170 (414962)
08-07-2007 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Jaderis
08-07-2007 3:04 AM


Consent
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Jaderis, posted 08-07-2007 3:04 AM Jaderis has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Modulous, posted 08-13-2007 11:34 AM Straggler has not replied

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


Message 18 of 170 (414967)
08-07-2007 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Straggler
08-07-2007 9:36 AM


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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Straggler, posted 08-07-2007 9:36 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Straggler, posted 08-07-2007 12:54 PM ikabod has replied
 Message 21 by Chiroptera, posted 08-07-2007 1:48 PM ikabod has replied

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


Message 19 of 170 (414973)
08-07-2007 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by ikabod
08-07-2007 10:53 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by ikabod, posted 08-07-2007 10:53 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by ikabod, posted 08-08-2007 3:56 AM Straggler has not replied

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


Message 20 of 170 (414975)
08-07-2007 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by cavediver
08-07-2007 8:57 AM


Re: Yuck
I used to be into sado-masochism, necrophilia and bestiality.
I gave it up because I was flogging a dead horse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by cavediver, posted 08-07-2007 8:57 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Chiroptera, posted 08-07-2007 1:49 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 170 (414982)
08-07-2007 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by ikabod
08-07-2007 10:53 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by ikabod, posted 08-07-2007 10:53 AM ikabod has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by ikabod, posted 08-08-2007 4:03 AM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 170 (414983)
08-07-2007 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Straggler
08-07-2007 12:57 PM


Re: Yuck
Go away.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Straggler, posted 08-07-2007 12:57 PM Straggler has not replied

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


Message 23 of 170 (414985)
08-07-2007 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Straggler
08-06-2007 3:36 PM


Need a reason for it to be immoral
I agree with Taz that I don't think a line should be drawn anywhere.
Straggler writes:
Should bestial porn be as freely available as other sorts of porn?
Yes.
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:
Can you prove that bestiality would not ever cause a disease to be threatening to the human population, or be a threat to anyone?
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2007 3:36 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by AnswersInGenitals, posted 08-07-2007 8:35 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 24 of 170 (415004)
08-07-2007 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Straggler
08-06-2007 3:36 PM


Re: Lines of Acceptability
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2007 3:36 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 2:06 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied
 Message 36 by Taz, posted 08-08-2007 2:23 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
AnswersInGenitals
Member (Idle past 151 days)
Posts: 673
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 25 of 170 (415036)
08-07-2007 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Stile
08-07-2007 2:25 PM


Re: Need a reason for it to be immoral
Stiles writes:
riVeRraT writes:
Can you prove that bestiality would not ever cause a disease to be threatening to the human population, or be a threat to anyone?
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.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Stile, posted 08-07-2007 2:25 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by arachnophilia, posted 08-07-2007 10:48 PM AnswersInGenitals has not replied
 Message 34 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 2:09 AM AnswersInGenitals has not replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 26 of 170 (415047)
08-07-2007 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Straggler
08-06-2007 7:32 PM


Re: Er No.
What does disease have to do with immorality?
Nothing, and everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Straggler, posted 08-06-2007 7:32 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Omnivorous, posted 08-07-2007 11:48 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 27 of 170 (415049)
08-07-2007 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by AnswersInGenitals
08-07-2007 8:35 PM


Re: Need a reason for it to be immoral
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.


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

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 28 of 170 (415054)
08-07-2007 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by riVeRraT
08-07-2007 10:28 PM


Rat is right
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!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by riVeRraT, posted 08-07-2007 10:28 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Chiroptera, posted 08-07-2007 11:52 PM Omnivorous has replied
 Message 32 by Taz, posted 08-08-2007 1:58 AM Omnivorous has replied
 Message 35 by Straggler, posted 08-08-2007 2:16 AM Omnivorous has replied
 Message 44 by Stile, posted 08-08-2007 9:58 AM Omnivorous has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 170 (415055)
08-07-2007 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Omnivorous
08-07-2007 11:48 PM


Re: Rat is right
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

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 30 by Omnivorous, posted 08-07-2007 11:58 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 30 of 170 (415057)
08-07-2007 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Chiroptera
08-07-2007 11:52 PM


Re: Rat is right
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!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Chiroptera, posted 08-07-2007 11:52 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Chiroptera, posted 08-08-2007 12:43 AM Omnivorous 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