East of Eden wrote:
Haven wrote:
It would still be immoral because a non-human animal cannot give informed consent. Informed consent is a necessary condition for ethical sexual activity.
They don't give consent when a horse is used to plow a field, or when we slaughter animals for human consumption. What's the difference? It would seem in the absence of eternal moral standards it comes down to might makes right.
I find it incredibly difficult to understand how objective moral standards can come from the dictates of a god not bound by them. The claim attributed to Yahweh is "thou shalt not" but it leaves no reason at all as to why that thing is intrinsically bad. All believers have to offer is the claim that omnipotent might makes right.
One cannot arrive at a sound, consistent, objective standard of ethics by subscribing to Divine Command Theory, or by appealing to authority. When believers do this, as they sit back and laugh at us trying to work through difficult topics, do they not realize they're worse off than we are? At least we are thinking through the issue; others prefer blind, unthinking obedience -- without caring whether or not their actions or values are intrinsically good or not.
The argument against utilizing animals for labor and food on the basis of taking advantage of their lack of ability to consent is an argument for vegetarianism and an argument for technology to replace the need for Oxen and mules -- which it already has throughout much of the world. This is not an argument for Old Testament ethos.
If you want to employ a utilitarian argument: sexually abusing animals is a form of cruelty that is not necessary for the survival of human beings.
If you want to use the argument of consent, animals, whether they want something or not, not unlike children, cannot rationalize what they feel. A person who allows a minor or an animal to initiate sex, cannot appeal to the desire of their victims who cannot understand what they are doing.
Matters of consent do not apply to inanimate objects. There is no consciousness to abuse. There is no violence and no victim when a man has sex with a blowup doll. You cannot initiate violence against objects.
And it's very difficult to apply a standard of morality onto creatures that don't have the capability to rationalize their actions; they simply cannot be held to blame for their behavior.
And it may be best to think of this not in terms of the victims, be the children or animals, but in terms of the behavior. The initiation (not the use) of force is immoral.
Now if you want to approach this from a different point of view, and you don't believe in any sort of free will (which is not the same as the failure to understand or control your actions or desires) - in which case reasoning creatures cannot be held responsible for their actions -- then you have to think in terms of safeguarding and respecting the livelihood of those who can be taken advantage of. And regardless of whether or not we have free will, ideas can influence behavior. And a society brought up in an environment of rape is NOT one in which people will be more peaceful and respectful of each other.
Some things, which can be shown to be true, but that do not exist in nature, like mathematics or ethics, are useful for creating prosperous, advanced, and peaceful societies.
Of course the layman does not think on this level. I think it is important to consider the role empathy plays in this issue. I think a big part of the reason why bestiality and pedophilia are considered taboo across a wide range of cultures has to do with the role empathy plays within human beings. Most, apart from those who have a deficiency or trauma that has inhibited their capacity for compassion, are able to empathize with frailer, weaker creatures.
Obviously, as beneficial as this particular human trait seems to be -- and as much role it has played in the establishment of law and social contracts, emotion cannot be a rational basis for ethics alone. Many people feel anger and revenge just as easily as others feel compassion, but obviously the former can render destructive harmful results.
If you take the consequentialist approach, you can reasonably conclude that a culture that preaches tolerance for rare cases of "consensual" sex involving minors or animals (even if one could somehow conclude that consent was not violated or did not matter) -- such an atmosphere would make it so very easy for people to abuse those who cannot speak for themselves, without any sort of social ostracism or legal punishment. The adult could always claim "consent" and threaten or brainwash his victim to confess the same.
Conversely, if you advocate the non-aggression principle in all circumstances, and advocate a respect for the weak without using state -- then you are not only using empathy and reason, but you're doing so without using the initiation of force (as opposed to methods of forceful retaliation [self-defense, and defense on the behalf of others], or reasoned persuasion). Certainly you can meet the threat posed to the innocent who intends to force themselves on those who can easily be taken advantage of.
By that I mean you don't need the law to spread an idea. The law is just a dictate and it cannot stop anyone. Persuasion can minimize the hold bad ideas have on society, but of course you can't reason with people who lack the ability to do so.
Interestingly enough, if more people practiced the NAP, then there would be less child abuse as forms of punishment and consequently, less animal cruelty and less sexual abuse involving them or human minors.
And while I certainly cannot label this obviously beneficial positive outcome as "moral" as if it were written in the fabric of the universe, I can say with objectivity that such a society would be preferable to our own (not only in the interests of myself and my future kids, but also in the interests of many others, including animals). And unless you can claim that rape is a virtue, or that anything is both a moral good and an unwanted evil at the same time, then you really can't argue against my point. To use Molyneux's point -- you cant have two people rape each other at the same time. If rape involves the lack of consent, and if it is a moral good to rape, then it is impossible to achieve goodness by raping someone who intends to do the same to you -- because then you both want to rape each other -- and that's not rape, thats BDSM.
However, two people can respect each other at the same time. So it is clear that there are certain objective facts about ethics. What is preferable for an individual living in a society -- and what is preferable for society? That the whole world be full of rape, or not?
Perhaps there are some fallacies in my argument -- but keep in mind I used different approaches throughout this post. Yet, if I arrived to the conclusion that rape is good, then I'm not reasoning correctly.
But it's very hard for me to even begin to imagine that my failure to come to a rock solid conclusion on this issue means we should all take advice from the Old Testament -- not much moral superiority going on there, where you burn the flesh of animals to please a god -- where animals are created for your exploitation -- I mean come on. What kind of morality is that? What kind of solid rock do you guys have to stand on -- the all powerful will of the most high almighty? Doesn't make it moral. And it's not as though god's subjective and contradictory/situational dictates have the best of intentions for humanity either; according to the Bible trillions of people are in hell -- most of humanity. Yahweh's laws benefit no one but himself -- yet this is the source of morality with which we ascertain what's right from wrong? Really? You'd rather have absolute answers and commandments with no explanation or self-evident morality than think for yourself about what things are wrong and what things are right?
