"Wet Goddess" Can bestiality Ever Be OK?

[Checkmite]

Not sure if this this a distinction without a difference. What special implications are there which are different from what I spelled out?

The idea is that we can both recognize a child's future capacity as giving them value and entitlement to protection now and recognize that they're not there yet, so they don't have rights to drive or make contracts and so forth right now. There's no reason it has to be all or nothing.

This view falls squarely in line with the point of view that children are treated in a manner consistent with their mental characteristics at present. I like to call it the "potential people have potential rights" argument. It makes a lot of intuitive sense too: a child might be a potential voter, but has no right to vote right now; they might be potential sex partners, but can't consent at present; they might be potential corpses, but is definitely prudent to treat them as beings who suffer and have a first-person point of view right now; they will eventually become moral agents, but a child lacks culpability required to be charged with arson for playing with matches.

Its a very useful point of view, squares up nicely with how we relate to children in our moral community. They might not be moral agents, but they are moral patients who can suffer, and should be valued for that much alone. Now, the thing about this view is that it rejects potential personhood as being relevant.

That's where you stop describing the point of view I'm exploring here and start adding things I don't necessarily agree with. I've never brought up the capacity to suffer; I've strictly been discussing the capacity for reason as defining a person.

I do not like this "potential person" designation. I think human children in general count as persons because to me their "lack of reasoning" is a strictly transitory condition, much the same way as a sleeping adult human with an otherwise developed mental capacity is still a person even though right this second he is fully unable to reason (by dint of being unconscious).

Its inclusive to the class of humans are not and will never come rational adults. Its hard to rationalize treating infants in a manner consistent with the actual moral characteristics with the view that children only matter because they're potential persons.

It is inclusive; but again it doesn't bother me because humans who by natural processes will never become fully functioning adults are anomalies (for lack of a better term) and as I already said, I think there aren't enough of them to impact the overarching question of whether it's okay to kill and eat humans in general.

I think this point of view needs to be fleshed out. Its very clear that your ethic requires rationality to be included into your sphere of moral consideration, so your view excludes non-rational humans by definition. I think the attempt to equate "potential rational humans" and "actual rational humans" is a false equivalence on the basis that killing them has drastically different moral implications, unless you are comfortable with the view that there's no moral distinction between killing actual rational humans and preventing rational humans from coming into existence in the first place.

As I said, it does not exclude them; where humans being "non-rational" is a transitory and circumstantial condition.

Think of it as the same way in which dog breeds are characterized - by their adult features. A Dalmatian puppy has no spots and absolutely none of the body proportions of an adult Dalmatian; yet for every possible purpose, it is a Dalmatian - that's just what it is. There's no such thing as a "potential Dalmatian".

 

[000063]

Yeah but kids are different from animals.

Well, even the smartest animals known are only about as smart as a child.

We try to protect kids.

We also try to protect animals from inhumane treatment. Such as humans having sex with them.

You can't keep kids in a cage until it's time to kill them and eat them.

Can't do that with homosexuals either. Trust me.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

We also try to protect animals from inhumane treatment. Such as humans having sex with them.

What makes sex with animals inherently inhumane? What distinguishes sex from any of the other uses animals are put to?

 

[quadraginta]

The cats are letting you know what they want (or no longer want). Babies likewise signal that they want or don't want. In each case, it's all about them.

Consent is something you give allowing someone else to do something they want, which involves you in some way. Babies may turn their head to avoid eating anything more; but they don't know or comprehend that you want to feed them. They're unaware of what you want - it never even enters their minds.

As for cats - they don't care what you want. The cat stretching out under your hand (and later batting it away) isn't "consent", it's a command. "Pet now!" and "you may pet" are not the same thing.

Sometimes I want to pet them. When they are doing something else. Or even nothing else.

Sometimes they let me. Consent.

Sometimes they don't. Refusal to consent.

You're trying to make this a lot more esoteric than is needful. Sure there are situations where the nature or existence of consent is more problematic. But they don't all have to be. And they aren't.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

So useful rape is good. This is starting to sound catholic.

Yes, sufficiently useful rape is good. I'm not a Kantian.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Snipped out libertarian blather where possible, I'm not in the mood for that today.

Without it, you get no succor from others...if things don't go your way. See gay marriage, which many, if not most, find "icky". And, contrary to what is said just above, is hardly the widespread thing.

Still there are a LOT of people who would obviously have a lot to gain from it (for whatever reason people value "getting married to someone I love" highly), and we know that the people who are against it will stop caring pretty quickly from experience. Total utility increases.

Indeed, assuming 10% vs., say, 0.01%, why is one of sufficient size that it is "safe" from legal assault, and the other, not? The dividing line is arbitrary and both are clearly something a power hungry demagogue could take advantage of, with no arguments other than "We are the majority and we decide it's icky and thus forbid it!"

Have you been in a "town", that you can safely say is a "town", as opposed to a city? Have you been in a city, that you can safely say is a "city", and not a town? But how can you say that this is a town and that is a city, if you can't draw an exact, precise line that differentiates all "towns" from all "cities"?

The same utterly boring game can be played with whether a rock is "big" or "small".

At any rate, 10% are so many that their utility is something to consider. Furthermore very small minority doing some fringe activity happening to be illegal is entirely difference from a large minority wanting to do something that the majority is able to do, but isn't able to, to great utility for them.


FURTHER, on the issue, paraphilia and homosexuality are fundamentally different. The effects of legally allowing a particular paraphilia is not the same as those of legalizing a particular sexuality.

 

[Mycroft]

Not surprisingly you google "how do you **** a dolphin" and click the first link

That's the "I'm feeling lucky" button.

 

[Halfcentaur]

Being the actual product of bestiality myself, I am feeling a lot of shame about the things you guys are saying here because it applies to my favorite parent.

Anyways, I decided to try it with a dolphin last night and called in an old favor with my friend who is a late night zoo security guard. After an hour of awkward small talk I never managed to impress any of them. I am thinking of trying again.

 

[dafydd]

According to the Kinsey report, 1 in 6 men in Iowa had had sex with a chicken.

http://browneyesandlenses.wordpress.com/tag/kinsey-report/

 

[Madalch]

According to the Kinsey report, 1 in 6 men in Iowa had had sex with a chicken.

That poor hen.

 

[dafydd]

That poor hen.

But she had as much chickenfeed as she could eat.

 

[Kahalachan]

Because they have sex with beings which cannot consent.

It's so cute how people like to pretend that's the only reason. Nothing

Okay, how about homosexual rape? Is that okay?

Animals can't consent? Really?

So then every single act of mating is rape?

We study animal behavior, communication, and their biological needs. Cats purr and dogs wag their tails. I can tell if either animal likes the way I pet it.

Dogs hump your legs, cats in heat make it obvious they want sex, etc. I think humans are capable of knowing if an animal likes the action the human is performing. Either as harmless petting or as some form of sexual pleasure.

I have yet to see a legitimate reason why beastiality is immoral other than icky.

 

[Puppycow]

Kids are animals, but animals aren't kids.

This.

The comparison with pedophilia does not hold.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

What's so problematic about having laws that are not necessarily logically consistent?

I'm not sure that a logically consistent legal corpus would actually resemble the legal corpus that people actually desire.

I'll put my hand up as having a moral problem with sending armed officers of the law around to fine or imprison people in logically inconsistent ways. I think if we're going to do that to people, we ought to be consistent about it.

I get the feeling you've got some weird version of "consistency" in mind that would require us to treat meaningfully different cases as if they were the same, because otherwise I can't see why you'd want inconsistent laws.

 

[Puppycow]

Because they have sex with beings which cannot consent.

Is your position against bestiality part of a broader position in favor of equal rights for animals in general, or are you only against bestiality but still see animals as having less rights than human beings?

E.g., What is your position on slaughtering an animal for food? (obviously without the animal's consent).

 

[sarge]

Decent arguments all around, generally.

I'm stuck. I can "feel" that it is wrong to use an animal for sexual gratification. I can also see that we use animals in other fashions that are more damaging to the animal.

So - does it come down to whether we confer animals actual rights? it seems we do not, at present.

 

[truethat]

Sounds great on paper until the realization that kids are animals in the literal sense, and the arguments against beastiality regarding consent are word-for-word identical against the arguments against pedophilia. Either its ok to cage and slaughter kids, or we should protect animals in a similar manner to children. How could you rationalize doing anything else?

Kids are human animals. Non human animals are not human. Kids or not. I commend you for standing up for what you believe in, but you don't have to make BS statements to do it.

 

[Dessi]

Yeah but kids are different from animals. We try to protect kids. You can't keep kids in a cage until it's time to kill them and eat them.

Sounds great on paper until the realization that kids are animals in the literal sense, and the arguments against beastiality regarding consent are word-for-word identical against the arguments against pedophilia. Either its ok to cage and slaughter kids, or we should protect animals in a similar manner to children. How could you rationalize doing anything else?

Kids are human animals. Non human animals are not human. Kids or not. I commend you for standing up for what you believe in, but you don't have to make BS statements to do it.

Animals kept in cages and slaughtered for food have a first-person point of view, have a mental life, can form memories, have personalities, have experiences. Animals kept in cages are harmed in the exact same way, to the exact same extent, feel the same suffering, and experience death in the exact same way as a child would if they were put in the animals place.

We're both skeptics here, we both realize that there's no magical property about being a member of one species or another, the suffering and pain a being experiences for being harmed and killed depends only on its mental capacities and not its taxonomic classification. If there's an obvious moral distinction in the harm they suffer, you need to account for it somewhere, instead of just asserting so without without argument. Why do you think my comment is BS?

 

[000063]

Is your position against bestiality part of a broader position in favor of equal rights for animals in general, or are you only against bestiality but still see animals as having less rights than human beings?

I am against bestiality. I am also against other certain aspects of animal handling. I still maintain that animals should have less rights than human beings.

E.g., What is your position on slaughtering an animal for food? (obviously without the animal's consent).

It's delicious.

Joking aside, it is commonly claimed that in humans rape is "worse" than murder, for various reasons. While such a claim is subjective, once one maps it onto animals, it becomes "bestiality is worse than killing animals". Using that premise, then it becomes quite easy to understand. Of course, I don't necessarily agree with it, and it has very little to do with whether bestiality itself is wrong. I can say murder is wrong without comparing it to rape, and vice versa.

I note that you don't actually address the whole "consent" thing I mentioned. It really is quite vital.

 

[000063]

Animals can't consent? Really?

Animals can't consent to sex with a human. Human sex carries with it certain baggage it is literally impossible for an animal to understand, any more than it would be for a 4-year old to understand. Even the smartest animal is still not as intelligent as an average teenager. This is an objective fact, proven by studies. It is not "subjective". If it is wrong to have sex with kids, then it's wrong to have sex with animals. You don't get to change your definition of consent when facing an animal any more than one could with a child.

So then every single act of mating is rape?

We study animal behavior, communication, and their biological needs. Cats purr and dogs wag their tails. I can tell if either animal likes the way I pet it.

Dogs hump your legs, cats in heat make it obvious they want sex, etc. I think humans are capable of knowing if an animal likes the action the human is performing. Either as harmless petting or as some form of sexual pleasure.

I believe I already pointed out that leg-humping is about dominance, and not necessarily sexual.

I have yet to see a legitimate reason why beastiality is immoral other than icky.

Yes you have. You just conveniently misunderstand it. Which is why you're only really responding to one line of my post.

This.

The comparison with pedophilia does not hold.

Yes it does. You are having sex with a being incapable of giving informed consent.