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.

[marketandchurch]

[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?

The problem is justifying why you think others ought to refrain from it. Is it as simple as it's icky?

I cannot justify having sex with animals. I would advise not to because it is gross. Having sex with siblings creates problems within family relationships.

So you don't think beastiality should be banned, only discouraged?

Subjective Tastes:
You raise some good points vis-a-vis the icky not being sufficient a qualifier for banning something outright for others. The icky has been largely the stigma that has withheld incestuous relations from being more common, though it has still achieved the same "ends" as the original prohibition, even if it differs in its "means." If everything in life is a matter of opinion, because there are no Universal moral truths beyond survival of the species(to which we often could care less for), whose to say anything is wrong. And if that is the reality of it all... should we collectively try to form a charter, to which the majority of us can agree upon, regarding the ethics of something?


Human Life = Animal Life
Going forward into the future, I'm curious, do you fear or favor the equating of animal life, with human life? And I'm not speaking about the micro, like how you personally feel about it, so much as I am speaking about the societal level, with a society who puts animals and humans on the same pedestal. Which is fine if you do, to many levels, you can simply argue that we already have... considering the yearly 100 billion dollar pet industry in the US, and how that amount of money could have fed so many children, discovered cures for many diseases, and help fund research to move us to an even more efficient energy source, it seems that we have chosen otherwise, with our priorities.

[bluethread]

This is not an argument. This is dogma. The term, therefore, only applies if one accepts the premise. Please provide support for your contention that sex with an animal is either an act of cruelty or an act of self-gratification. If the animal is in heat and one relieves the animal of that stress, how is that only cruelty or self-gratification?

How can love be dogma? Love provides you with the answers to all the above questions; therefore, it is the best argument. Unless you are denying the existence of love?

It is dogma because it is presented as founding principle without justification. Please, show how "love" answers to all the above questions? Unless you are just saying that the letters l, o, v and e are somehow an explanation.

Sorry, animals do not provide us with food. We kill them. How many animals willingly die so that we can eat them?

And they are killed for food in the wild as well. All carnivores and omnivores kill for food. It is not a moral issue.

Interspecies sex happens in nature also. Does that mean that it is not a moral issue? Are you actually arguing that what happens in nature is not a moral issue when man does it?

Again, regarding performing tasks, there is no informed consent with regard to these tasks, so that is indentured servitude at best.

You speak as if animals have equal rights with humans. They do not. Domesticated animals usually lead longer and easier lives than they ever could have in the wild.

Well, you are the one who is speaking of beastiality as an act of cruelty. On what do you base that other than as an extension of human rights to animals.

They do provide us with companionship, but without informed consent how can one say they provide us with love? Either way, why can't sex be an expression of companionship and love?

Without informed consent, sex is not an act of love.

Yes, that is a legal description. However, on what is that based, Or is it just dogma? By the way, I don't recall receiving an answer with regard to communicative primates. Can they give informed consent?

[Tiberius47]

The way I see it, if a woman gets naked and down on all fours and a dog mounts her from behind and starts humping, then it's given consent for sex. After all, if the dog DIDN'T want to do it, then a woman on all fours underneath it is going to have a very hard time forcing it to stay there.

So it's safe to say that the dog is voluntarily participating. If the woman is also participating of her own free will, then I don't see the harm. Everyone involved is doing it because they want to, no one is being hurt.

[Bust Nak]

Subjective Tastes:
You raise some good points vis-a-vis the icky not being sufficient a qualifier for banning something outright for others. The icky has been largely the stigma that has withheld incestuous relations from being more common, though it has still achieved the same "ends" as the original prohibition, even if it differs in its "means."

Right, so we don't need to ban it, since most of us wouldn't do it anyway.

If everything in life is a matter of opinion, because there are no Universal moral truths beyond survival of the species(to which we often could care less for), whose to say anything is wrong. And if that is the reality of it all... should we collectively try to form a charter, to which the majority of us can agree upon, regarding the ethics of something?

Survival of the species is not a moral truth. Benefitial to society doesn't necessarily means good.

Human Life = Animal Life
Going forward into the future, I'm curious, do you fear or favor the equating of animal life, with human life? And I'm not speaking about the micro, like how you personally feel about it, so much as I am speaking about the societal level, with a society who puts animals and humans on the same pedestal. Which is fine if you do, to many levels, you can simply argue that we already have... considering the yearly 100 billion dollar pet industry in the US, and how that amount of money could have fed so many children, discovered cures for many diseases, and help fund research to move us to an even more efficient energy source, it seems that we have chosen otherwise, with our priorities.

We should not treat most animals as if they were human. We should treat many non-human animals as if they have rights. I am a specist, I am ok with exploiting animals for our benefit as long as we are not cruel.

[kayky]

It is dogma because it is presented as founding principle without justification. Please, show how "love" answers to all the above questions? Unless you are just saying that the letters l, o, v and e are somehow an explanation.

Love always wants what is best for what is loved. This is self-evident.

Interspecies sex happens in nature also. Does that mean that it is not a moral issue? Are you actually arguing that what happens in nature is not a moral issue when man does it?

Only human beings are capable of moral choice. An animal cannot be said to be either moral or immoral.

Well, you are the one who is speaking of beastiality as an act of cruelty. On what do you base that other than as an extension of human rights to animals.

No. I've already made this point, but I'll make it again. Just because animals do not have equal rights with humans does not mean they have no rights at all. Every creature has the right to be free of abuse.

Yes, that is a legal description. However, on what is that based, Or is it just dogma? By the way, I don't recall receiving an answer with regard to communicative primates. Can they give informed consent?

Love is not a dogma. Please explain how this is possible.

Higher primates are not capable of moral decisions. So, no, they cannot give informed consent.

[charles_hamm]

[

quote="charles_hamm"]

I'll take this as a 'no'. So we can't say that our true nature is love in any objective fashion. This means it's subjective so how can we apply a subjective nature to anything?

Is your claim that all moral decisions must have a scientific basis? While the truth about our nature may only be subjectively known, the reality of love is not. So the
"the truth about our nature" is not what is being applied. It is our understanding of love that is being applied, regardless of where you think that love is coming from.

If it is our understanding of love then there will be by necessity different understandings so why should something that will have multiple understandings be used as the primary criteria for determining moral actions?

Also can you provide some proof that love is the basis for all moral decisions?

Love always wants what is best for everyone and everything in any given situation. How can there be a higher standard than that?

That is not true at all. Love is an emotion and as such can lead a person to make rash decisions which are not the right ones at all.

Kayky:
Every choice we make in life comes from one of three sources: love, ignorance, or fear. Which one do you think is most likely to lead to the most moral choice?

This is not true. You left out justice, right and wrong, sympathy, empathy, ambivalence, hate, and I'm sure many more.

Love = justice, right, sympathy, empathy

Ignorance and/or Fear = wrong, ambivalence, hate

Anything you can name will fit into one of these categories.

Why in the world does justice or right fall into love? Justice is meant to be blind of all things but truth. A judge does not apply justice out of love. He applies it because the law requires it.

Ambivalence can't be ignorance since if I am ambivalent I know about something, I just don't care.

I could ask the same thing about gay marriage. As I keep being told, the majority opinion is not always right.

This issue proves my point. The fact that the majority of Americans do favor gay marriage shows that we are evolving in positive ways as a society. More of us are getting closer to our true natures. The anti-gay marriage stance is always based on ignorance and/or fear--even if it is merely a fear of the wrath of God.

The same can be said for those favor bestiality. As people move closer toward accepting it their true nature would show more.

Kayky:

Wow, indeed. I am not using the Bible to justify anything. I simply think the Apostle Paul did a good job in describing the kind of love I am referring to. I'm sure there are equally beautiful descriptions from other traditions as well. So, no.

So then why quote it?

People use the word love in a variety of ways. I want you to be more aware of the kind of love I am talking about.

If you believe this then you have misapplied the word that Paul used.

Since we can't show love as our true nature this argument falls short.

What we do or do not believe about our "true nature" is totally beside the point. All people have some understanding of the nature of love. There can be no higher standard for morality than love. So, no. The argument does not "fall short."

Whose standard of love do we use then? Mine, yours or someone elses'?

[charles_hamm]

If a man sees his dog in heat and allows her to be relived of the condition by having sex with her, please explain how he has not shown love for his dog.

You're trying really hard, Charles. But, no. This would not override the issue of informed consent. There really is no way to get around it.

We still don't have any solid evidence informed consent is required. There is no 'trying really hard' here. Until there is some objective evidence that informed consent is required then what we have is a matter of differing opinions about what love is.

Also love doesn't provide you with answers because love is subjective. Our answers will be different so they aren't answers, only opinions.

The kind of love I am talking about is not subjective at all. It is absolute. You either want was is best for the what is loved or you want something less.

So if the person wants what is best for his/her dog and determines that what is best is for the dog to be sexually satisfied then that must by your standard be absolute love.

[kayky]

If it is our understanding of love then there will be by necessity different understandings so why should something that will have multiple understandings be used as the primary criteria for determining moral actions?

I am referring to a specific kind of love: read 1 Corinthians 13.

Kayky:
Love always wants what is best for everyone and everything in any given situation. How can there be a higher standard than that?

That is not true at all. Love is an emotion and as such can lead a person to make rash decisions which are not the right ones at all.

I am not talking about an emotion. Read 1 Corinthians 13.

Kayky:
Every choice we make in life comes from one of three sources: love, ignorance, or fear. Which one do you think is most likely to lead to the most moral choice?

Why in the world does justice or right fall into love? Justice is meant to be blind of all things but truth. A judge does not apply justice out of love. He applies it because the law requires it.

Ambivalence can't be ignorance since if I am ambivalent I know about something, I just don't care.

Love always wants justice. Ambivalence is a fear of caring.

The same can be said for those favor bestiality. As people move closer toward accepting it their true nature would show more.

I can't make heads or tails of what you're saying here.

Kayky:

People use the word love in a variety of ways. I want you to be more aware of the kind of love I am talking about.

If you believe this then you have misapplied the word that Paul used.

Please explain how this is the case.

Whose standard of love do we use then? Mine, yours or someone elses'?

1 Corinthians 13.

[kayky]

We still don't have any solid evidence informed consent is required. There is no 'trying really hard' here. Until there is some objective evidence that informed consent is required then what we have is a matter of differing opinions about what love is.

1 Corinthians 13. There is no confusion.

So if the person wants what is best for his/her dog and determines that what is best is for the dog to be sexually satisfied then that must by your standard be absolute love.

How can the dog's owner determine this?

[charles_hamm]

We still don't have any solid evidence informed consent is required. There is no 'trying really hard' here. Until there is some objective evidence that informed consent is required then what we have is a matter of differing opinions about what love is.

1 Corinthians 13. There is no confusion.

So if the person wants what is best for his/her dog and determines that what is best is for the dog to be sexually satisfied then that must by your standard be absolute love.

How can the dog's owner determine this?

Maybe you should keep reading a little because 1 Corinthians 14:1 says:
"Follow the way of love and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy."

So if you desire gifts of the Spirit (as in the Holy Spirit), you will desire to follow Christ. That is where the love spoken about in 13 leads to. Are you willing to base all morals on the love in 1 Corinthians 13 and where it leads? I am.

Who else can make this choice? The dog can't speak so someone has to make this choice for the dog.