Meat-Eating vs. Bestiality

[Tiberius]

Fyi this isn't actually how dogs mate afaik. It's just a sign of dominance over another dog.

Then how do they mate? Missionary style, perhaps?

 

[Tiberius]

And I'm quite sure that any animal, at least largish animal, can easily withhold consent from being penetrated if they chose.

Or at l;east make it very clear they don't want to be involved.

 

[Rival]

Then how do they mate? Missionary style, perhaps?

Like tail end to tail end.

 

[Rival]

 

[Valjean]

They're tied, silly. That's not how they start out.

 

[dawny0826]

I'm a meat eater myself. Just a preemptive clarification in case someone thinks about accusing me of repeating vegetarian propaganda (whatever that is).

So, I have been thinking about why I and many others who have no religion oppose bestiality, and one of the most common reasons given is that one can't have the consent of animals to acts of bestiality. However, we also don't have the consent of animals to use them for labor or in industrial farming. We don't have their consent to slaughter them either.

With the above in mind, what makes meat-eating acceptable and bestiality unacceptable?

I don't find the utilization of animals for meat or labor to be morally unacceptable. However, I would consider physical abuse, neglect or inhumane killing to be morally unacceptable.

I find bestiality to be morally unacceptable. I can't provide a logical argument as to my thoughts on the subject, but, then, I don't think that I need to.

 

[Curious George]

I'm a meat eater myself. Just a preemptive clarification in case someone thinks about accusing me of repeating vegetarian propaganda (whatever that is).

So, I have been thinking about why I and many others who have no religion oppose bestiality, and one of the most common reasons given is that one can't have the consent of animals to acts of bestiality. However, we also don't have the consent of animals to use them for labor or in industrial farming. We don't have their consent to slaughter them either.

With the above in mind, what makes meat-eating acceptable and bestiality unacceptable?

Hmm.

I would suggest that with morality, we have no one solid argument but a bunch of different arguments aimed at different facets. There is much more involved, regarding how we reason out exceptions, and I will gladly pursue that with you. However, let us first try to jump-in and see what we get.

Animals, women, and children were at one time all considered property in the western world. Women and children have had this position changed based on equality arguments. Animals have not.

Bestiality laws are not born of the animal rights campaign but rather out of decency laws.

Still, people accept the consent arguments because we require consent for sexual activity. Consent is for the most part not a considered factor with killing.

While we have justified killings we do not have justified sex. Sex is either consensual or against the law.


So you must understand that the laws governing humans and the laws governing the treatment of animals have come through different paths. This is because we think of humans different than we think of other animals.

So it might be more revealing to ask why can you Kill your meat, but not beat your meat.

The answer is because animal welfare is what we regulate, not animal rights. We think that excessively cruel or inhumane treatment of animals is unnecessary and therefore morally wrong. So, this brings to question weather inflicting death is unnecessary or inhumane. The short answer is no. So, why then can we not inflict death upon humans? Because we protect human rights not welfare. Among those rights is a right to life. As animals have no accepted right to life, they can be killed if the killing is done so in a humane way.

But what about sex? If the animal has no actual rights then shouldn't people be able to have sex with them regardless of consent? Well firstly, we do not believe humans have the right to have sex with anything they please. We believe that humans have privacy rights which forbids the government from regulating sexual behavior that occurs within there bubble of privacy, unless public policy dictates otherwise.

Welfare is one of those reasons. So we can extend protection regarding animal welfare to include preventing bestiality based on all sorts of reasoning: animal suffering, lack of consent, disparate power position. Moreover, we can suggest that this harm deteriorates morality and decency. We can say that this behavior presents problems with public safety and health. Since animal welfare is within the realm of public regulation, the public can say that you are not allowed to have sex with your dog. Compare that to your favorite tree and you should be able to understand the difference (unless that tree happens to be endangered, historical, or on public property).

Furthermore, we have different theories of morality. We mostly evaluate actions that involve animal welfare and the morality on a cost-benefit analysis, or wholly contingent on how behavior towards animals affect humans. Either way, people generally do not equate humans and other animals.

*edit forgot to add the do not before equate in the last sentence.

 

[Skwim]

I don't find the utilization of animals for meat or labor to be morally unacceptable. However, I would consider physical abuse, neglect or inhumane killing to be morally unacceptable.

I find bestiality to be morally unacceptable. I can't provide a logical argument as to my thoughts on the subject, but, then, I don't think that I need to.

You can do whatever you like; however, most people do know why they believe the way they do. Just sayin' that maybe a little self-examination could help.

 

[dawny0826]

You can do whatever you like; however, most people do know why they believe the way they do. Just sayin' that maybe a little self-examination could help.

What I meant by that is that I'm acknowledging my own hypocrisy in finding it acceptable to utilize animals for food and labor, but, not for sexual fulfillment. I'm not able to provide a logical explanation to justify this hypocrisy.

What's changed since the last time I partook in such conversation is that I no longer feel that bestiality should be illegal. I find it morally repulsive without the desire to impose my personal beliefs upon others.

 

[Tiberius]

Like tail end to tail end.

Yeah, that's not how it works.

When dogs have sex, the male's penis swells up and gets locked inside the female's vagina. They are like this for quite a while. If the male dog gets off the female's back, they end up like this. But this is not how they mate the whole time.

 

[Skwim]

Hmm.

I would suggest that with morality, we have no one solid argument but a bunch of different arguments aimed at different facets. There is much more involved, regarding how we reason out exceptions, and I will gladly pursue that with you. However, let us first try to jump-in and see what we get.

Animals, women, and children were at one time all considered property in the western world. Women and children have had this position changed based on equality arguments. Animals have not.

Bestiality laws are not born of the animal rights campaign but rather out of decency laws.

Still, people accept the consent arguments because we require consent for sexual activity. Consent is for the most part not a considered factor with killing.

While we have justified killings we do not have justified sex. Sex is either consensual or against the law.


So you must understand that the laws governing humans and the laws governing the treatment of animals have come through different paths. This is because we think of humans different than we think of other animals.

So it might be more revealing to ask why can you Kill your meat, but not beat your meat.

The answer is because animal welfare is what we regulate, not animal rights. We think that excessively cruel or inhumane treatment of animals is unnecessary and therefore morally wrong. So, this brings to question weather inflicting death is unnecessary or inhumane. The short answer is no. So, why then can we not inflict death upon humans? Because we protect human rights not welfare. Among those rights is a right to life. As animals have no accepted right to life, they can be killed if the killing is done so in a humane way.

But what about sex? If the animal has no actual rights then shouldn't people be able to have sex with them regardless of consent? Well firstly, we do not believe humans have the right to have sex with anything they please. We believe that humans have privacy rights which forbids the government from regulating sexual behavior that occurs within there bubble of privacy, unless public policy dictates otherwise.

Welfare is one of those reasons. So we can extend protection regarding animal welfare to include preventing bestiality based on all sorts of reasoning: animal suffering, lack of consent, disparate power position. Moreover, we can suggest that this harm deteriorates morality and decency. We can say that this behavior presents problems with public safety and health. Since animal welfare is within the realm of public regulation, the public can say that you are not allowed to have sex with your dog. Compare that to your favorite tree and you should be able to understand the difference (unless that tree happens to be endangered, historical, or on public property).

Furthermore, we have different theories of morality. We mostly evaluate actions that involve animal welfare and the morality on a cost-benefit analysis, or wholly contingent on how behavior towards animals affect humans. Either way, people generally equate humans and other animals.

Gotta say you covered a lot of ground here, a lot of it somewhat irrelevant. If bestiality is not okay then one has to show why. Most objections we've seen have come down to two issues, harm and lack of consent.

As for harm, it isn't all the big of a deal to most people. Several examples of acceptable harm to animals in human-animal interactions have been cited here, including premeditated death. So, even if a little harm did occur to animals in acts of bestiality it couldn't be cited as being an exception to animal treatment. However, no one has yet to show that bestiality is harmful in any way to the animal. At least no evidence that I've seen. So, the harm aspect of bestiality just isn't there.

As for consent, we can only infer it. Animals can't tell us much of anything except through their behavior. If they don't like something they very quickly demonstrate it in a number of ways, and if they like or don't mind an activity they show this as well. So, this is what we have to look at; how do they behave, and with a bit of trepidation I did just this. I Googled a couple of videos that showed three types of bestiality; two where the animal was submissive and one where it was dominant. In none of them did the animal show any behavior that could be construed as lacking consent. And, as would be expected, where the animal took the dominant roll just the opposite appeared to be the case. The animal couldn't wait to participate.

 

[Skwim]

What I meant by that is that I'm acknowledging my own hypocrisy in finding it acceptable to utilize animals for food and labor, but, not for sexual fulfillment. I'm not able to provide a logical explanation to justify this hypocrisy.

What's changed since the last time I partook in such conversation is that I no longer feel that bestiality should be illegal. I find it morally repulsive without the desire to impose my personal beliefs upon others.

Good for you.

 

[Curious George]

Gotta say you covered a lot of ground here, a lot of it somewhat irrelevant. If bestiality is not okay then one has to show why. Most explanations we've here seen have come down to two issues, 1) harm, and 2) lack of consent.

As for harm, it isn't all the big a deal to most people. Several examples of acceptable harm to animals in human-animal interactions have been cited here, including premeditated death. So, even if a little harm did occur to animals in acts of bestiality it couldn't be cited as being an exception to animal treatment. However, no one has yet to show that bestiality is harmful in any way to the participating animal. At least no evidence that I've seen. So, the harm aspect of bestiality just isn't there.

As for consent, we can only infer it. Animals can't tell us much of anything except through their behavior. If they don't like something they very quickly demonstrate it in a number of ways, and if they like or don't mind an activity they show this as well. So, this is what we have to look at; how do they behave, and with a bit of trepidation I did just this. I Googled a couple of videos which showed three types of bestiality; two where the animal was submissive and one where it was dominant. In none of then did the animal show any behavior that could be construed as lacking consent. And, as would be expected, where the animal took the dominant roll just the opposite appeared to be the case. They couldn't wait to participate.

The things you do in the name of research. Hats off.

That you do not see the relevance, does not mean it is not there.

I am sure you understand that there is more than one theory of morality.

I used both harm and lack of consent in my post. The groundwork explains how we interpret such harm and lack of consent and why it is ok.

But the meat and potatoes deals with
Our modes of determining what is moral. When might we evaluate animal behavior to determine if the animal likes it, or doesn't mind? A shot at the vet, neuter or spade? Does the animal like this? Is it ok?

I imagine that there is both suffering and lack of consent in these instances, but they are not immoral acts. Why is that? I would suggest that morals are built upon a more complex groundwork. Now what framework are we to apply? If animals are not equated to humans, virtually any will do.

 

[Skwim]

The things you do in the name of research. Hats off.

Interesting, in a very perverse way, but honestly, I wouldn't care to do it again. Once was enough.

That you do not see the relevance, does not mean it is not there.

So what is this relevance I'm not seeing?

I am sure you understand that there is more than one theory of morality.

Quite a few, but which do you see as relevant here?

I used both harm and lack of consent in my post. The groundwork explains how we interpret such harm and lack of consent and why it is ok.

But the meat and potatoes deals with
Our modes of determining what is moral. When might we evaluate animal behavior to determine if the animal likes it, or doesn't mind?

When? Whenever you like. I went ahead and did mine already so go ahead and do yours; however, I'm not about to share my sources. You'll have to do your own Google searches.

A shot at the vet, neuter or spade? Does the animal like this? Is it ok?

Not sure what you're getting at, but having received my share of shots I'm guessing the animal wouldn't like it. Is it okay? Sure.

I imagine that there is both suffering and lack of consent in these instances, but they are not immoral acts. Why is that?

The benefit outweighs the suffering.

I would suggest that morals are built upon a more complex groundwork.

Many are. Many are not. Some are built on nothing more than "X says so."

Now what framework are we to apply? If animals are not equated to humans, virtually any will do.

Really! Hmmm.

 

[Curious George]

The benefit [of the shot or procedure of spaying or neutering] outweighs the suffering.



.

I put in the brackets to keep in mind what we were discussing. outweighs what suffering?

 

[Chakra]

No, I don't find it "better" - killing is killing, and it is what it is. I find making sentience a litmus test to be nauseatingly anthropocentric, to be honest. That, and considering I'm an animist, I would classify everything as sentient.

Do you really believe killing is the same throughout? That would essentially mean that you think mowing a lawn is the same as beating puppies with a stick. That's at least what I derived logically from your statements. And also, your definition of sentience is different from the ones that scientists use.
But you are right, this is different from the original topic and I will desist continuing this conversation.

 

[Skwim]

I put in the brackets to keep in mind what we were discussing. outweighs what suffering?

The pain from the shot, if nothing else.

 

[Curious George]

The pain from the shot, if nothing else.

if nothing else implies that there could be more? what is that more?


and what are the benefits?

 

[Nous]

Surely if other animals can be slaughtered humanely, then human animals can be slaughtered humanely (as the word "humane" indicates). Describe "humane slaughter" as it applies to human animals.

Funnily enough I actually support voluntary euthanasia.

So you cannot describe any sort of "humane slaughter" where the creature being slaughtered has not volunteered?

I think it's a valid point, we are designed to eat both meat and plants

Where did you get that idea? Name a biological adaptation that is common to omnivorous animals and that humans have that distinguishes humans from other apes.

 

[Skwim]

if nothing else implies that there could be more? what is that more?

The pain I presume that goes along with spaying or neutering.

and what are the benefits?

You tell me, You're the one who said "A shot at the vet, neuter or spade."


.