Is Beastiality (Zoophilia) morally wrong or right?

[Lindsey-Loo]

I have no desire to have sex with animals. You seem pretty intent in this post on making it seem as though I have said that, so I figured I'd better make that clear.

No! Don't take that the wrong way, when I said "Do what you want, I'm not gonna try to stop you" and all that, I didn't mean YOU, as in you Danisty, I meant 'you all'. Anyone who reads this. Anyone to whom that applies, I guess. Sorry for not being clear.

 

[Random]

It is a perversion of our most potent divinely wrought expression: sexuality. If you lie with an animal, you forego everything sacrosanct in your nature and soul. It is a terrible thing.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

It is a perversion of our most potent divinely wrought expression: sexuality. If you lie with an animal, you forego everything sacrosanct in your nature and soul. It is a terrible thing.

Ah, so is this arguing that non-human animals are on a lower spiritual level than human animals, or that non-human animal sexuality is less sacred?

 

[Random]

Ah, so is this arguing that non-human animals are on a lower spiritual level than human animals, or that non-human animal sexuality is less sacred?

Quite, yes. Could one possibly disagree?

 

[Ozzie]

Female animals "present" for the males when they are ready to have sex. if the female does this towards a Human, would this not be a "Come on" signal?

If you accepted the come on signal you would reduce yourself to the level of the horny animal so moral argument from your standpoint over your action would become irrelevant as the animal is not capable of engaging in moral reasoning. Neither are you by virtue of your action. Tiberius, if you slept with a cat which was unwilling then did it again with the cat because the cat happened to like the first experience and started to follow you around, would you attempt to distinguish the morality of your actions on the first vs. second occasion? I hope not.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Quite, yes. Could one possibly disagree?

I've never really considered animals as being lower than humans in anything. Your point is interesting, though, in that assuming they are lower on the spiritual scale, that may be a valid argument against beastiality. Especially if one assumes sex as sacred.

That being said, how is it that you consider animals to be less spiritual than humans?

 

[Ozzie]

I've never really considered animals as being lower than humans in anything. Your point is interesting, though, in that assuming they are lower on the spiritual scale, that may be a valid argument against beastiality. Especially if one assumes sex as sacred.

That being said, how is it that you consider animals to be less spiritual than humans?

They are not less spiritual, they are less sentient. Spirituality is a cultural dimension of sentience. It is also linguistic when shared/communicated. If you can talk to the animals, maybe it is Ok to sleep with them.

Oz

 

[Guitar's Cry]

They are not less spiritual, they are less sentient. Spirituality is a cultural dimension of sentience. It is also linguistic when shared/communicated. If you can talk to the animals, maybe it is Ok to sleep with them.

Oz

I can see how spirituality can be "...a cultural dimension of sentience."

Are animals less sentient, though? We assume so, but can we ever really know this without placing ourselves in their subjective experience?

How about those who have a different definition of spirituality? For instance, some panentheists may argue that the spirit of an individual life form is a part of the spirit of God, and therefore all living things are on an equal spiritual level. Sunstone's recent thread, "Which is the Best Definition of Spiritual Experience" defined a spiritual experience as a "sense of connectedness to all things/life." I can imagine that animals sense this connectedness very well - possibly better!

Different definitions of spirituality may have different conclusions when it comes to the morality of beastiality.

 

[Ozzie]

I can see how spirituality can be "...a cultural dimension of sentience."

Are animals less sentient, though? We assume so, but can we ever really know this without placing ourselves in their subjective experience?

How about those who have a different definition of spirituality? For instance, some panentheists may argue that the spirit of an individual life form is a part of the spirit of God, and therefore all living things are on an equal spiritual level. Sunstone's recent thread, "Which is the Best Definition of Spiritual Experience" defined a spiritual experience as a "sense of connectedness to all things/life." I can imagine that animals sense this connectedness very well - possibly better!

Different definitions of spirituality may have different conclusions when it comes to the morality of beastiality.

I think sentience as an anthropomorphic concept requires objective criteria for definition. On that basis I think it is reasonable to place animals on a different level of sentience. The same anthropormorphism applies to attributing spiritual capacities to animals, and to defining different dimensions of spirituality . When we define spirituality as "sense of connectedness to all things/life.", we give it a subjective definition. We cannot provide objective criteria for it. The only objective criteria we have for defining any s notion of spirituality is language. Other animals may have language but we cannot understand them. Ambiguity in defining spirituality that can be extended to animals such that they understand, renders it useless IMO as criteria in deciding moral issues to do with animals such as bestiality. Would an animal understand it has a spiritual dimension? Maybe, but we cannot know. So sentience which can be defined objectively in terms of behaviour is superior criterion for gauging how we should act in relation to animals, the retarded and the young. (Sorry for the ramble GC. Hope it makes sense).

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I think sentience as an anthropomorphic concept requires objective criteria for definition. On that basis I think it is reasonable to place animals on a different level of sentience. The same anthropormorphism applies to attributing spiritual capacities to animals, and to defining different dimensions of spirituality . When we define spirituality as "sense of connectedness to all things/life.", we give it a subjective definition. We cannot provide objective criteria for it. The only objective criteria we have for defining any s notion of spirituality is language. Other animals may have language but we cannot understand them. Ambiguity in defining spirituality that can be extended to animals such that they understand, renders it useless IMO as criteria in deciding moral issues to do with animals such as bestiality. Would an animal understand it has a spiritual dimension? Maybe, but we cannot know. So sentience which can be defined objectively in terms of behaviour is superior criterion for gauging how we should act in relation to animals, the retarded and the young. (Sorry for the ramble GC. Hope it makes sense).

Actually, I found this quite informative, and not so much a ramble!

I agree wholeheartedly that anthropomorphism is where we derive any notion of spirituality/sentience in animals. Being anthropocentric, we relate easier to something when it shows human characteristics.

But I wonder if the same objective evidence that we use to assume that animals can suffer, could also determine the state of sentience in an animal. For instance, we know that a dog, when in pain, will exhibit certain human characteristics of suffering: whimpering and bodily contortions. So, we assume that the animal is suffering.

If we are to assume that the animal is suffering, are we to assume that the suffering is merely an automated response to stimuli, and there is no conscious awareness of it (as Descartes would have), or should we assume that the animal is aware of its own suffering? Would this awareness of suffering be sufficient criteria for sentience?

On a practical level, I would argue that it is best to assume awareness of suffering, as it makes it seem morally wrong to torture the animal. I would rather err on the side of compassion. But what does that say about beastiality? By assuming sentience in an animal, we make it more than an automaton. This creature has an awareness of suffering, and rape becomes a very real thing. Without the awareness, would the assumption of the animal being no more than a "thing" be all that far-fetched? As a thing, rape would not be a reasonable conclusion to most people. If the animal showed an awareness of desire, would this argue that rejection may form a kind of suffering on the animal?

Anyway, now I appear to be rambling, Oz! In short, while I'm unsure of my stance on beastiality, I tend to assume a level of equal sentience. Possibly because I do not see the language barrier as all that important to my concept of sentience. Our definitions may be different, though...

 

[Tiberius]

If you accepted the come on signal you would reduce yourself to the level of the horny animal so moral argument from your standpoint over your action would become irrelevant as the animal is not capable of engaging in moral reasoning. Neither are you by virtue of your action. Tiberius, if you slept with a cat which was unwilling then did it again with the cat because the cat happened to like the first experience and started to follow you around, would you attempt to distinguish the morality of your actions on the first vs. second occasion? I hope not.

[sarcasm]Yeah, because it's completely wrong and disgusting for a human to have sex because they are horny.[/sarcasm]

BTW, I could cite numerous examples of animals displaying evidence of morality, but it would be offtopic.

And if the animal doesn't want to do it the first time, it's not going to want to do it again. How could an animal enjoy being raped? it is wrong to force any being, human, animal, whatever, into having sex against their will.

 

[Ozzie]

BTW, I could cite numerous examples of animals displaying evidence of morality, but it would be offtopic.

Cite one out of interest. Even if you think it is off topic, I think animal capacity for morality is of interest. For instance, do you think species that choose partners for life are more moral than those that do not?

 

[Ðanisty]

I once read that vultures punish other vultures for infidelity. I thought that was pretty interesting.

 

[Tiberius]

Cite one out of interest. Even if you think it is off topic, I think animal capacity for morality is of interest. For instance, do you think species that choose partners for life are more moral than those that do not?

Vampire bats share food among themselves. They need blood every few days or they will die. if a bat can't find food, it will beg for food from its neighbours, who will regurgitate an amount of blood to feed the hungry bat. However, if the hungry bat never gives food to hungry bats, but only takes it, then the other bats will no longer share blood with it. The bats only share blood with bats that will share back. if a bat is selfish and takes but refuses to give, then it will no longer get food from its companions.

Again, the African Painted Dog displays a similar trait. After a hunt, dogs will often regurgitate meat for members of the group that have stayed behind, including the old, the lame, the pups, and subordinate adults who have taken on the responsibility of caring for the pups.

Do not these examples show selflessness? Giving something of value to others when it could be kept for onesself? And does it not also illustrate a concept of fairness?

 

[Ozzie]

Vampire bats share food among themselves. They need blood every few days or they will die. if a bat can't find food, it will beg for food from its neighbours, who will regurgitate an amount of blood to feed the hungry bat. However, if the hungry bat never gives food to hungry bats, but only takes it, then the other bats will no longer share blood with it. The bats only share blood with bats that will share back. if a bat is selfish and takes but refuses to give, then it will no longer get food from its companions.

Again, the African Painted Dog displays a similar trait. After a hunt, dogs will often regurgitate meat for members of the group that have stayed behind, including the old, the lame, the pups, and subordinate adults who have taken on the responsibility of caring for the pups.

Do not these examples show selflessness? Giving something of value to others when it could be kept for onesself? And does it not also illustrate a concept of fairness?

No the examples show these animals have evolved cooperative behaviours. Such behaviours are common between species also - symbiosis. But organisms with symbiotic behaviours do not sleep with eachother (there may be evolved exceptions not involving sexual reproduction).

Bats and painted dogs do not have language. They are unable to label their behaviours as selflessnes or fairness, or discuss beastiality.

 

[Tiberius]

So? They may not speak English, but they are perfectly capable of communicating with each other. And isn't that what language is? A means of communicating with others? A way of expressing ideas and emotions?

 

[michel]

[sarcasm]Yeah, because it's completely wrong and disgusting for a human to have sex because they are horny.[/sarcasm]

That's the point though, isn't it ? We are animals; nature has pre-wired us to procreate as part of the survival system - and yet, because we have "promoted" ourselves to the "better" than the rest of the animals level, what you say is what happens.

We are "horny", we have a sex drive (well most of us), and that needs to be satisfied...but we are so much better than all other animals that we need to "manage" our "hornyness".

 

[Ðanisty]

Bats and painted dogs do not have language. They are unable to label their behaviours as selflessnes or fairness, or discuss beastiality.

They do not have a human language. This does not mean they don't communicate with each other.

 

[Ozzie]

So? They may not speak English, but they are perfectly capable of communicating with each other. And isn't that what language is? A means of communicating with others? A way of expressing ideas and emotions?

Spoken and written language that is a vehicle for communicating about human concepts like fairness, altruism or bestiality is uniquely human. Animal communication is of a different sort. Bats have echolocation which we do not. Many organisms use olfactory communication which is less important in man. Other organisms have a visual spectrum much larger than ours (in fact visual cues are the largest single communication system in nature).

The fact of these different communication systems shows that it is a mistake to project human linguistic concepts like bestiality, fairness or altruism onto animals. To do so helps us in understanding them in our terms, but does not help them understand themselves. Nor should we favour one animal over another simply because they display behaviour that is familiar to us because it is can be described in human terms. All of this is anthropocentrism. Being anthropocentric towards animals is equivalent to racism in our own species. Both are due to a failure to use appropriate language in describing other beings, and making the subsequent mistake of attributing mental states to them that we ourselves may hold. We erroneously interpret their behaviour through our own language.

Animals display normative cooperative behaviour. Such behaviour has been selected for on the basis that it facilitates reproduction and the perpetuation of the gene pool of the species, and only incidentally survival of the individual. Americans would be familiar with the Black Widow behaviour of the female devouring the male. We cannot reasonably describe this behaviour with human terms of patricide or suicide. There is some reproductive advantage to it however for the spiders.

Human also display normative cooperative behaviour. However, in our case, norms must also be culturally acceptable. What is culturally acceptable is described in written and spoken human language. Morality is normative. It is an example of a subjective term whose meaning is thrashed out in terms of identifiable acceptable behaviour. Whether beastiality is moral or not is a normative question. As bestiality is not culturally acceptable in Western society it cannot be moral in our society. That is not to say that bestiality may not be culturally acceptable and therefore moral in some other human cultural system. However, I know of no culture where this is the case. If it was, it would be described in their human language as acceptable.

My objection to bestiality is not based solely on the grounds it is not normative. Nor is it purely the case that it is wrong because it confers no reproductive advantage to humans or animals. It is wrong because in treating animals this way we take advantage of them by warping our perceptions of them in terms of our own linguistic criteria, and so justify our behaviour towards them in terms of what is a reasonable way to treat another human in our culture. But taking fornication tendencies outside our own cultural boundaries which are signposted by the boundaries of our language renders it deviant. That is why it might be morally OK to sleep with the animals if you could talk to them in our language, and if and only if, they understand it.

Oz

 

[Tiberius]

Okay, you claim that part of the reason that beastiality is wrong is because it isn't normal. neither is skydiving, or walking on the moon, yet no one claims these things are wrong.

You also claim that it is wrong partly because it confers no reproductive advantage to humans or animals. And yet women who have gone through menopause still have sex, yes?

You are attempting to limit communication to human language. This is not the case.

If a woman is naked and down on all fours, and a male dog comes up and goes for it, and the woman is aware of everything, is it wrong? Has the woman forced the dog? has the dog forced the woman? No, in both cases. The dog was not forced to mount the woman. The woman could have stood up before the dog tried to mount her.