Any Good Arguments Against Bestiality?

[Dimmesdale]

I think Bestiality is wrong. I think it is arguable it is wrong, but only from a religious perspective.

This is because, without ethics grounded in religion, there aren't a whole lot of good arguments that can say it is wrong, even though most sane people, in my view at least, abhor it.

What are some good arguments sans religion that say it is wrong?

Let's start with what I think are the best:

1. It hurts people AND
2. It may hurt animals as well (I'm for the rights of animals -- they should not be abused or tortured).

Now, I will forego 2 because, it is possible I suppose, that some animals would still enjoy it (similar to a dog playing with a frisbee) or that it has no appreciable impact on their well-being. Fair enough. Number 1, then.

It hurts people.

Oh, but LOTS of things hurt people! Drugs, Gambling, Alcohol, Staying up too late. All those things disintegrate cultures as much as people. But they are PERMITTED.

And of course, who are you to say it is wrong? Bestiality may be no worse than other forms of sexuality we now see as licit culturally. I won't bring it homosexuality or polygamy, but whether you agree with such lifestyles or not, these are at least steppingstones down the slope. With the exception of pederasty which is not consensual and clearly has long term negative effects on people.

So... from the secular POV I don't see a whole lot to go by.

But with Religion you have.... Design arguments, arguments from the Sacred, arguments of Telos and the vision of the Creator God's will and such..... Those are realities which can really create a buffer.

But I'm afraid people like philosopher Peter Singer don't think too much of those types of things, and so he justifies Bestiality.

The question is,

Do You?

[boatsnguitars]

Well, it's icky.

But, I am intrigued to see what the responses are. I have to wonder if there will be people who argue against it because of consent, or that it harms the animal - then support killing and eating animals.

There's a bad joke in there somewhere...

But, Singer definitely challenges our long held beliefs. He isn't arguing FOR beastiality, he says, he can't see how it is worse than the harm humans do to animals, so he's perplexed why people worry about the animal, when they gladly make them suffer then kill them in other areas.

But, I am also intrigued how this might change our view of Cap. James Kirk and his well known tristes with aliens.

Or, how it impacts our view of God's rape of Mary?

[Purple Knight]

What are some good arguments sans religion that say it is wrong?

Informed consent.

Bestiality is almost always rape because even if the animal wants it, the animal does not understand that what it is doing, is not in the service of granting itself reproductive success, but the human does. The human is hijacking the animal's sex drive for its own pleasure, but the animal is not consenting to this arrangement, because it can't.

Find me an animal that understands that it, as well as the human, is just playing around, and the significance of this as it pertains to why it feels pleasure from sexual acts in the first place, and fine, that equals consent. If you get one of those sign-language-using gorillas and have an honest conversation about how the gorilla is not going to get a baby out of it (they actively want them) then fine. It's gross but that's one of only two clear points you can say, it is no longer wrong.

The other is, you can say that consent doesn't have to equal informed consent. But in that case, reproductive abuse (like poking holes in a condom to get someone pregnant when they didn't want) is no longer tenable as a crime. The fact that the animal probably wants reproductive success and you're teasing that by giving it pleasure, is the exact mirror crime of reproductive abuse.

Milking an animal for its semen, if you honestly plan to use it, is not rape, because the animal's primal understanding of what it is getting, equals what it is getting. And thus, its consent to the act, if it engages willingly, is effectively informed.

But, Singer definitely challenges our long held beliefs. He isn't arguing FOR beastiality, he says, he can't see how it is worse than the harm humans do to animals, so he's perplexed why people worry about the animal, when they gladly make them suffer then kill them in other areas.

But, I am also intrigued how this might change our view of Cap. James Kirk and his well known tristes with aliens.

Many of them, it turns out, can reproduce with humans, so if there's consent, then there's nothing wrong with any of it unless someone was actively lied to.

And as far as the predatory diversion, here's how I see it: Humanoids can't ask a stronger animal not to kill it and expect to be heeded. A right not to be killed, inter-species, has to be hammered out before it exists. It's fine to assume it by default and it happens to work really well when you meet a bunch of nice people who can mate with you and not make mules. But what happens with the vampire entity or the salt-sucker or the one that feeds on fear? Well, guess what? We don't have to say, "Excuse me sir, but you've broken a law by murdering and now must answer for that." and then try these things in a court of law, because there's not such a right, not by default. Maybe we can sit down and negotiate that, but it's not there to start with.

What's there by default, whether we're the predator or prey in the scenario, is that the predator is trying to eat, and the prey is trying not to get eaten. It's Nature and anything goes.

[Daniel Marsh]

Animals can not consent and it is illegal.
It violates the procreative intent of sex
It is rape