Bestiality and Ethics

[Eran of Arcadia]

I have discovered throughout the course of my time in OT that many people, who are far more liberal than me when it comes to sexual morality, consider a number of sexual acts to be morally and ethically acceptable. However, many of them exclude bestiality from this list. This strikes me more as an irrational "taboo" response than as an inherently consistent part of their sexual morality.

For example, in the endless discussions of homosexuality, many have said that homosexual attraction and behavior is perfectly natural. I agree with this. They also say that it is morally acceptable and not in any way condemnable. I disagree with this, but tend not to make an issue of it. However, a lot of the same people will say that bestiality is immoral, as the animal involved does not consent to the act.

I think that it is clearly distinct from rape and pedophilia, in which a human is coerced - humans will suffer not just phycially but psychologically as a result of the act, and most ethical systems differentiate between humans and other animals that are said to lack self-awareness.

And as a result of this, most people are willing to do nonconsensual things to animals that they wouldn't to to humans - such as killing and eating them. I do not see how it is any worse for an animal to have sex with a human, albeit nonconsentually, than to be killed and eaten.

I suspect that those who thus condemn bestiality do so more because they find it disgusting. It is also labelled "unnatural" - but what does the term mean, and how is it determined if an act is natural or not? I do not see bestiality as any different from some of the more uncommon paraphilias.

So, discuss. Is there an argument that bestiality is ethically wrong, other than those that stem from an individual's sexual morality? (Such as mine; I should point out that I myself find it immoral.)

And please, let's stay within the bounds of good taste, so this doesn't get locked.

 

[GinandTonic]

The animal is unable to give consent. However much the Welsh/ New Zeelanders/ members-of-province-of-your-own-country-where-sheep-are-over-represented may claim otherwise.

And for the record, ewwww.

 

[Fifty]

Peter Singer, who is like the animal rights guy, condones "mutually satisfying" bestiality as morally permissible.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

The animal is unable to give consent. However much the Welsh/ New Zeelanders/ members-of-province-of-your-own-country-where-sheep-are-over-represented may claim otherwise.

And for the record, ewwww.

But that's my point. Sure, the animal doesn't give consent; likewise, the animal doesn;t give consent to be slaughtered and eaten, or to have scientific research doen on it, or to have its woll sheared off and made into sweaters. Why are some nonconsentual activities worse than others?

I think your second answer may be more revealing. We think it is disgusting, hence we figure it must be wrong.

Peter Singer, who is like the animal rights guy, condones "mutually satisfying" bestiality as morally permissible.

That's exactly the sort of thing he would say, too . . .

 

[Mulholland]

The animal is unable to give consent. However much the Welsh/ New Zeelanders/ members-of-province-of-your-own-country-where-sheep-are-over-represented may claim otherwise.

Good point Eran. But we need sustinance to live, it's a necessary evil. However sex with animals is pretty low on the hierarchy of needs.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Maybe so; but we do not need to eat nearly as much meat, to live, as we do.

 

[skadistic]

Pyrobeastialnecrophillia is the only sinful sex.

While I wouldn't hump other animals my self I see nothing wrong with it. As for it being unnatural I've seen dogs, horses, ferrets, goats, and a few other farm animals do each other. Most animals don't care. If the mode strikes them they hump what evers near be it the same or difffrent animals or even inanimate objects.

Humans are the only ones who put restrictions on sexuality.

 

[Mulholland]

@ Eran. True, but who are we to police people's eating behaviour. Give 'em the information and let 'em make thier own decision. And meat protien is unrivaled in both it's utility and tastiness.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Sure, but a lot more animals are killed than have carnal relations with humans. And it is a rather more involved act on the animal's part.

 

[Mulholland]

Well honestly I dont care if you want to have sex with animals Eran. Call me old fasioned I just don't think it should be encouraged. Just remeber to wear a condom.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Hey, I am just playing devil's advocate. I won't have sex with most humans, animals are right out.

What I am saying is that it is not consistent to condemn some acts and allow others on arbitrary grounds.

 

[GinandTonic]

1 - There are laws against animal cruilty.

2 - Raping a ewe would fall under this catagory.

3 - The ewe is both unable to give concent and unable to confurm such consent retrospectivly to interested authoraties.

4 - As such the small minority of ewes who were up for it have their rights curtailed to protect the majority.

5 - Ewwwww.

 

[Mulholland]

Yes, like most people even liberals are somtimes inconsistent in thier moral framework. I think more than anything it's just the ewe factor, and no one wants to be heard condoning having 'sexual realtions with that wombat'.

 

[GinandTonic]

I think more than anything it's just the ewe factor

Yes but is it the Ewe factor or the ewwww factor?

 

[Phlegmak]

I have discovered throughout the course of my time in OT that many people, who are far more liberal than me when it comes to sexual morality, consider a number of sexual acts to be morally and ethically acceptable. However, many of them exclude bestiality from this list. This strikes me more as an irrational "taboo" response than as an inherently consistent part of their sexual morality.

For example, in the endless discussions of homosexuality, many have said that homosexual attraction and behavior is perfectly natural. I agree with this. They also say that it is morally acceptable and not in any way condemnable. I disagree with this, but tend not to make an issue of it. However, a lot of the same people will say that bestiality is immoral, as the animal involved does not consent to the act.

I think that it is clearly distinct from rape and pedophilia, in which a human is coerced - humans will suffer not just phycially but psychologically as a result of the act, and most ethical systems differentiate between humans and other animals that are said to lack self-awareness.

And as a result of this, most people are willing to do nonconsensual things to animals that they wouldn't to to humans - such as killing and eating them. I do not see how it is any worse for an animal to have sex with a human, albeit nonconsentually, than to be killed and eaten.

I suspect that those who thus condemn bestiality do so more because they find it disgusting. It is also labelled "unnatural" - but what does the term mean, and how is it determined if an act is natural or not? I do not see bestiality as any different from some of the more uncommon paraphilias.

So, discuss. Is there an argument that bestiality is ethically wrong, other than those that stem from an individual's sexual morality? (Such as mine; I should point out that I myself find it immoral.)

And please, let's stay within the bounds of good taste, so this doesn't get locked.

The reason for these apparent contradictions is that morality isn't absolute.

 

[IglooDame]

Peter Singer, who is like the animal rights guy, condones "mutually satisfying" bestiality as morally permissible.

That's pretty much my take.

Animals in some ways get the same legal protections as minors, given that they can't properly consent. But where sex is concerned, I'd argue that they can consent because there's no reason to assume they don't know what they're getting into.

Where there's no consent, it's pretty much in the same boundaries as animal cruelty.

 

[IglooDame]

4 - As such the small minority of ewes who were up for it have their rights curtailed to protect the majority.

How do we know it's a small minority?

 

[GinandTonic]

How do we know it's a small minority?

Well the having to put their feet in wellington boots and making them face a cliff would be an indicator they werent that into it.

Aparently, from what I hear. Alegedly

 

[Truronian]

Hey, I am just playing devil's advocate. I won't have sex with most humans, animals are right out.

What I am saying is that it is not consistent to condemn some acts and allow others on arbitrary grounds.

So we should either condone or condemn all sex acts? I think you'll be hard-pressed to find someone who believes either of these to be the right path.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well, I am not saying that one "must" recognize as moral acts such as bestiality. I am just saying, as long as one admits that it is inconsistent, or whatever, the go for it.

And minors have more laws protecting them than do animals. I mean, last time I killed and ate my neighbor's baby, you never heard such whining!

The reason for these apparent contradictions is that morality isn't absolute.

Do you see the problems this raises? Where and how do we draw the line?