Ethical Beastiality?

[marketandchurch]

I have phrased the Secular barometer of morality in the following way:

• 1.) Is there consent between participants,
  2.) Is it healthy(A huge secular value), and
  3.) does it, or can it, cause physical harm to the participants involved.

If I am wrong, please reframe it correctly, not for you the individual, but for the collective secular whole. Given that definition, now consider the possible scenario with the above secular premise:

• What if you could scientifically minimize every possible risk with having sex with an animal, prove that it was enjoying it too, and that there were no harm to either groups, would beastiality be moral then? And if not, why exactly? What is your secular reasoning? It's unnatural? WHo cares? What in nature hasn't broken a few rules... What if the animal's brain waves registers pleasure mid-act and develops a liking to the process?
  
  There are many ways to make it safe, both parties consent to it, and neither are hurt psychologically or physically. We'll use the example of a Dog since it likes to mount every possible object it can, but any domesticated animal can also work.

Would beastiality then be okay? I am asking this because in a world with the bible in retreat, what is the secular reasoning, for or against it, over the morality of the act? And by what barometer of morality would you promote or condemn the behavior with? I'm also tired of one-line brush-offs and lazy answers that don't fully answer the question. So this question has political ramifications. What is our case against it? What is our case against a person marrying an animal, or making love to an animal? From both Theists and Atheists alike.

[Nickman]

[Replying to post 1 by marketandchurch]

Why does it have to come to this stretch. Don't have sex with siblings and don't have sex with animals. Atheists refrain from both. Whats the problem?

[kayky]

But, what if He loves his horse?

I am not talking about erotic love. If he really loves the horse, he will not abuse the horse.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 1 by marketandchurch]

Why does it have to come to this stretch. Don't have sex with siblings and don't have sex with animals. Atheists refrain from both. Whats the problem?

How can you say that? Is there an atheist Pope?

[bluethread]

But, what if He loves his horse?

I am not talking about erotic love. If he really loves the horse, he will not abuse the horse.

Do You believe that sexual relations is abuse?

[kayky]

Do You believe that sexual relations is abuse?

This is a silly question. If the sex is not consensual, of course it is abuse. We have established that animals are not capable of informed consent.

[LiamOS]

Why does it have to come to this stretch. Don't have sex with siblings and don't have sex with animals. Atheists refrain from both. Whats the problem?

Given the pervasive opinion that general use of animals to do our bidding in many ways is okay, it makes an interesting topic of discussion, since -- at least to me -- there is no obvious objective reason to object to their sexual use. Obviously I find the idea pretty repulsive, but this demonstrates to me something contradictory in my opinions.

[kayky]

Given the pervasive opinion that general use of animals to do our bidding in many ways is okay, it makes an interesting topic of discussion, since -- at least to me -- there is no obvious objective reason to object to their sexual use. Obviously I find the idea pretty repulsive, but this demonstrates to me something contradictory in my opinions.

I don't think the domestication of animals is inherently immoral although it can certainly lead to abuse. And we are omnivores after all. As a matter of fact, I think it can be argued that domestication actually improved the lives of some animals.

[Haven]

It would still be immoral because a non-human animal cannot give informed consent. Informed consent is a necessary condition for ethical sexual activity.

Inanimate sex toys cannot give informed consent either.

This is irrelevant because inanimate objects are not sentient (defined as capable of having subjective experience) and therefore have no rights; the same thing cannot be said of sentient animals.

I think -- if working in this line of reasoning -- that it's necessary to determine whether consent is possible in any meaningful sense. If something is not capable of consent either way, how do we determine whether any activity -- sexual or otherwise -- is acceptable or not?

Children are also not capable of consent in any meaningful sense, yet no one in his/her right mind would say that sex with them is acceptable. The relevant factor here isn't ability to consent, but sentience and harm potential.

charles_hamm also raises an interesting point; why do we consider consent in the case of sexual interaction, but not ownership or death, etc.

We should consider consent in the case of death. I'm a vegan precisely for this reason -- we have no right to decide that another sentient creature must die.

As for ownership, I think the child analogy works here as well. Kids are "owned" by their parents (they must live with them, they have to obey, they can't vote / participate in politics / sue, etc.) without consent, yet no reasonable person would call this unjust. I think the same principle could be applied to domestic "pet" animals like cats and dogs.

Also, hello Haven! It's been a while since I've seen you 'round.

Thanks Liam ! I've been away finishing my master's thesis, now that it's finally complete I'll have more time to participate here (at least until I start on my doctoral dissertation).

[bluethread]

Do You believe that sexual relations is abuse?

This is a silly question. If the sex is not consensual, of course it is abuse. We have established that animals are not capable of informed consent.

So, are you opposed to animal husbandry? Is artificial insemination also abusive without consent?

LiamOS wrote:


Given the pervasive opinion that general use of animals to do our bidding in many ways is okay, it makes an interesting topic of discussion, since -- at least to me -- there is no obvious objective reason to object to their sexual use. Obviously I find the idea pretty repulsive, but this demonstrates to me something contradictory in my opinions.

I don't think the domestication of animals is inherently immoral although it can certainly lead to abuse. And we are omnivores after all. As a matter of fact, I think it can be argued that domestication actually improved the lives of some animals.

This is rather confusing. According to your principle of "love", it is not abusive to raise animals for the purpose of killing them to eat, because a life in bondage is an improvement over life in the wild. However, if one provides that same animal with sexual pleasure, one is being abusive. Mind you I have my own reasons for not doing these things, but those reasons have been thrown out in favor of your principle of "love". What is to be said to the man who has great affection for his horse and among other things, provides his horse with sexual pleasure?

[kayky]

So, are you opposed to animal husbandry? Is artificial insemination also abusive without consent?

Of course not. This is not a sexual act.

This is rather confusing. According to your principle of "love", it is not abusive to raise animals for the purpose of killing them to eat, because a life in bondage is an improvement over life in the wild. However, if one provides that same animal with sexual pleasure, one is being abusive. Mind you I have my own reasons for not doing these things, but those reasons have been thrown out in favor of your principle of "love". What is to be said to the man who has great affection for his horse and among other things, provides his horse with sexual pleasure?

It isn't confusing at all. A child who is molested may experience a certain degree of pleasure (often adding to his guilt and confusion). It is still abuse.