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.

[charles_hamm]

You two are hitting the heart of the issue.

On what moral basis does one have to declare the act immoral? And what difference does it make whether or not one has the ability to make moral decisions? What if the woman was drunk and her judgement impaired? What if the dog gets a kick out of it and does it routinely? In what way is this sexual exploitation? There is nothing inately abusive about this if it isn't sexual exploitation, so why is this sexual exploitation? Even if, as you say: "We know better," 1.) according to who and, 2.) who cares?

And why should one care for the consent of the Dog, who is obviously willing to engage in it if the participant is willing, and on what moral grounds does one have to make these judgements? Is it a matter of opinion? Is there some universal moral law vis-a-vis animal-human relations that takes precedence in such a case? And how does this moral standard determine whether we can eat them, keep them as pets, or work them in the fields, but not allow us to lay with them... in every step of the way, there is no consent given by the animal. And especially in the case of Dogs, which have been breed to be human companions...

I guess to summarize this, what inherently makes this wrong? The heart & the mind, in my opinion, are not a great guide to ethics, because it will vary from person to person. Neither is reason or rationality.

These questions imply that we are not moral creatures by nature. When you say that our hearts and minds are not good guides to moral behavior, you imply that we need some outside reference to teach us right from wrong. Are you trying to say that we need to read the Bible to learn how to be good?

Actually these questions ask if we have a set of morals we are born with or do we get our morals as we age. I would say that we are taught that sex with animals is wrong. If you think about it we love our pets like members of the family many times so for a person to fall in love to the point of having sex with the animal does not seem to far out there to me. In other words, it seems like the question is not cut and dry.

I would say that the Bible is not always a good guide to moral behavior. Our true nature, which is one of love, is the perfect guide. The more we get in touch with our true nature, the more moral we become.

So if the person loves the animal then the act is acceptable? Love is a very subjective concept and differs for everyone.

Can you honestly say that sexually abusing an animal is an act of love? If not, it is immoral. And that's why you should care. Or do you only "care" with the threat of hell hanging over your head?

Please show proof it's abuse. The animal can't tell you, the human wanted it, so the only way to know is if you can read the animals mind. As I've already asked, according to whose morals? Is it according to the guy who has anti-social personality disorder?

[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, when animals have sex it is abuse? If animals can not consent, it is nonconsensual.

[charles_hamm]

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.

What we haven't established is if informed consent is even necessary here. We don't require it when we kill an animal for food nor do we require it when we plow a field with a beast of burden. I'm not sure why sexual relations would require it but taking the life of the animal does not.

[kayky]

I am not Christian, so no, I don't believe in original Sin. Adam's sin, is Adam's sin, you are only responsible for yourself, and your children up through the age of 12.

You claim to be Jewish, yet you go to great lengths to defend Church history, which has often been anti-Semitic. How do you explain this?

So the movement away from one's truer nature, which is based on love, is what brings about genocide? Considering the prevalence of cheating, stealing, raping, extorting the poor, war, gossip, slavery, etc, why are people so against their nature? What corrupts them?

The fear and ignorance that seems to be the natural outgrowth of our having evolved a self-reflective consciousness.

The bible says we were meant to be vegetarians, and that is biblically based.

How so? Not that it matters to my own thinking, but can you support this from the text?

I don't really get your line about moral understanding being true to one's nature, I'll think about it.

Once you realize that love is the basis of all moral decisions, it's not that difficult to grasp.

[kayky]

Some people are incapable of moral understanding as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocia ... y_disorder

If animals don't have equal rights with humans, then why would they have a right to give consent?

The people you refer to often end up in prison, but I'm not sure how it pertains to this discussion.

Just because animals do not have equal rights to humans does not mean they have no rights at all.

[charles_hamm]

Some people are incapable of moral understanding as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocia ... y_disorder

If animals don't have equal rights with humans, then why would they have a right to give consent?

The people you refer to often end up in prison, but I'm not sure how it pertains to this discussion.

Part of your argument seems to be that we as humans should just know it's not morally right to do this. I am presenting people who lack morals and asking how they would know this.

Just because animals do not have equal rights to humans does not mean they have no rights at all.

Fair enough. What rights do they have and who determines these rights?

[kayky]

Actually these questions ask if we have a set of morals we are born with or do we get our morals as we age. I would say that we are taught that sex with animals is wrong. If you think about it we love our pets like members of the family many times so for a person to fall in love to the point of having sex with the animal does not seem to far out there to me. In other words, it seems like the question is not cut and dry.

We are taught moral "do's and don't's" by our families and our culture. The further we move away from our true nature (love), the more meaningless this teaching becomes. The closer we move to our true nature, the less it is needed. This is because love is the basis of all moral decisions.

It is ALWAYS immoral for a human being to have sex with an animal because it does not respect the animal's inability to provide informed consent. This lack of respect does not come from love. Therefore, the issue is "cut and dried."

So if the person loves the animal then the act is acceptable? Love is a very subjective concept and differs for everyone.

If the person truly loves the animal, he will know that the act is unacceptable. The kind of love I am talking about is not subjective at all. Although it might be impossible to be fully captured in words, I think the best description was written by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 13.

Please show proof it's abuse. The animal can't tell you, the human wanted it, so the only way to know is if you can read the animals mind. As I've already asked, according to whose morals? Is it according to the guy who has anti-social personality disorder?

The standard of love is the proof. Throwing a mentally ill person into the mix does nothing to change this.

[kayky]

So, when animals have sex it is abuse? If animals can not consent, it is nonconsensual.

Animals are not capable of moral judgments; therefore, their behavior cannot be judged to be either moral or immoral.

[charles_hamm]

Actually these questions ask if we have a set of morals we are born with or do we get our morals as we age. I would say that we are taught that sex with animals is wrong. If you think about it we love our pets like members of the family many times so for a person to fall in love to the point of having sex with the animal does not seem to far out there to me. In other words, it seems like the question is not cut and dry.

We are taught moral "do's and don't's" by our families and our culture. The further we move away from our true nature (love), the more meaningless this teaching becomes. The closer we move to our true nature, the less it is needed. This is because love is the basis of all moral decisions.

Can you provide objective proof that our true nature is love? Also can you provide some proof that love is the basis for all moral decisions?

It is ALWAYS immoral for a human being to have sex with an animal because it does not respect the animal's inability to provide informed consent. This lack of respect does not come from love. Therefore, the issue is "cut and dried."

We still haven't said consent is required so until that's shown to be the case how can we conclude this? I would say the issue is still open.

So if the person loves the animal then the act is acceptable? Love is a very subjective concept and differs for everyone.

If the person truly loves the animal, he will know that the act is unacceptable. The kind of love I am talking about is not subjective at all. Although it might be impossible to be fully captured in words, I think the best description was written by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 13.

Are you actually going to use the Bible to justify bestiality being wrong, but when I use it elsewhere to say homosexuality is wrong tell me not to use it? Wow.

Please show proof it's abuse. The animal can't tell you, the human wanted it, so the only way to know is if you can read the animals mind. As I've already asked, according to whose morals? Is it according to the guy who has anti-social personality disorder?

The standard of love is the proof. Throwing a mentally ill person into the mix does nothing to change this.

It proves love is not everyones nature. It also proves that some people have no morals.

[kayky]

What we haven't established is if informed consent is even necessary here. We don't require it when we kill an animal for food nor do we require it when we plow a field with a beast of burden. I'm not sure why sexual relations would require it but taking the life of the animal does not.

Of course it has been established. There is no meaningful outcome for having sex with an animal. It is either an act of cruelty or an act of self-gratification. It is never an act of love; therefore, it is ALWAYS immoral.

Domestication in and of itself is not abusive. Animals provide us with food. They perform tasks that otherwise would be very difficult for us (this is becoming less necessary with technology). They provide us with companionship and love. These are all meaningful outcomes.