Plekhanov wrote:Broomstick wrote:I'd say one big ethical issue with bestiality is the asymmetrical power dynamics. Just as parent-child incest is arguably more problematic than sibling incest because the child is in no position to either refuse or give meaningful consent, a domestic animal is not really in a position to refuse sex, or give meaningful consent when trained to obey human commands without question. If you take that position then bestiality between humans and wild animals might be ethically neutral (assuming no coercion) but not between humans and their chattel.
Do horses consent to having saddles strapped on their backs, having metal bits shoved in their moves and having people ride them? Do horses consent to being made to jump over fences at the risk of breaking a leg and then being shot?
If riding a 'chattel' horse is moral then why isn't having sex with a chattel horse?
Oh, I see, you think I actually am arguing from personal conviction here. Someone asked what a possible basis for bestiality being immoral was, and I suggested one. Go back and re-read what I wrote where do I say that it is
my personal view of how the world works?
As far as the horses, though - I have seen training where a completely unlearned foal is guided to having something on its back, something in its mouth, up to having a person get on its back, without the animal being traumatized or physically restrained. As far as jumping fences - horses will do that on their own, also risking breaking a leg. Oh, noes! Making a horse
run, something it is biologically inclined to do even when safe, well-fed, and happy. As opposed to having sex outside its own species, which is not something I've ever heard of a wild horse doing, or even a domestic horse doing of its own volition as its own original idea.
Broomstick wrote:If you offer a child candy in exchange for said child taking off his/her clothes while you stand 10 feet away and masturbate, does the fact the child is enjoying the candy make all that OK?
People habitually do things to animals that it is almost universally seen as deeply wrong to do to children.
That doesn't mean people don't see it as wrong to do to animals. It is seen as bad whether you're beating an animal or a child, starving an animal or a child, etc.
The other problem with training an animal to engage in sex with humans is that the animal is likely to not understand that only a minority of humans desire that form of contact, setting up a situation where an animal unwittingly attempts to perform acts upon people who are not zoophilliac and who regard such things as an icky, disgusting, unwanted intrusion upon their person. Increasing the likelihood of such an occurrence is not a moral good.
You are really reaching here, lock the animal up problem solved.
Given how few people see capable of locking their animals up for any reason, much less because their dog might actually fuck the neighbor instead of just the neighbor's leg, I don't see that as "solved".
Broomstick wrote:But you do kill them for fun, you don't need to eat meat, people can survive perfectly well without doing so. You eat meat not because you need to but because you like the taste of meat, because you enjoy eating it.
Actually, given that I am allergic to most legumes, surviving in a healthful manner without meat might in fact be nearly impossible for me. And meat/animal products are the only natural source of B12, lack of which ranges from very bad to fatal in results. The only reason people can survive a lifetime without eating meat or milk (and milk is just as exploitative as meat) is because modern technology enables us to find an alternate source of B12. Yes, we eat more meat than we
have to, but arguably
some consumption of animals is necessary for healthy human life.
If it's moral to kill an animal because you enjoy the taste of it's flesh then why is it immoral to have sex with it?
The same reason it's immoral to slowly beat an animal to death even if it is moral to eat meat. It's not moral to cause avoidable suffering.
"
- PeZook
