This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Bestiality
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
gamerunknown
I don't think the laws against bestiality are consistent.
If we take the preposition that animals are treated as having a fraction of the worth of humans, then the same principles we hold for ourselves should apply in microcosm to them. For example, it would be a naturalistic fallacy to say that animals rape in nature, so that we should be permitted to rape them. Likewise, it is a naturalistic fallacy to say that animals eat each other in nature so that we should be permitted to eat them. I think the only consistent way to oppose bestiality is by being a vegetarian (not willing to contribute to the harm of an animal for one's own pleasure), or to believe in the literal truth of Leviticus (18:23).
Saying that a majority of people eat meat (compared to the minority that wish to derive sexual pleasure from animals) is an appeal to popularity. I think for the sake of consistency bestiality should be decriminalised.
Post by
Azazel
Beastiality is legal in Denmark!
Post by
MyTie
I think the only consistent way to oppose bestiality is by being a vegetarian
I believe it is cruel to rape an animal. Even if animals rape in nature. Because animals do something doesn't make it ok for humans to do it.
I also believe it isn't cruel to kill animals for food, if done properly. I've killed my animals before, on my farm. Either they were sick and needed to be put down, or they were ready for slaughter. Every animal killing I have done has been instantaneous.
Post by
asakawa
I'm just going to comment to say that this has the potential to become a truly unsavoury and inappropriate discussion. I want people to remember that people of a wide range of ages and backgrounds read this forum and be very careful. This thread will probably be subject to scrutiny.
Post by
gamerunknown
Well animals that could be raised for food could also be raised to be philandered. Humans don't need to eat meat to survive any longer though, even to perform to their peak physical capacity - we can derive our nutrients from other sources. Even if the killing itself is instantaneous, we are depriving the animal from any future pleasure it could feel. So it is gratuitous to kill for variety in taste.
Post by
MyTie
Even if the killing itself is instantaneous, we are depriving the animal from any future pleasure it could feel. So it is superfluous
I don't feel that animals are entitled to their life. I think that is to be determined either by their owner or by nature. I feel that animals are entitled to live free of pain, or more accurately, free from having pain inflicted unnecessarily on them. I think they should be treated humanely, but not as if they were humans, because they aren't.
Post by
gamerunknown
I think that is to be determined either by their owner or by nature.
Precisely, the fundamental notion is the right to life, which is voided for animals other than humans. While some slaughter methods minimise the pain felt by animals, there is documented evidence that they are not applied universally. Even if they were, they'd still remove the capacity for animals to feel pleasure - which seems to me to be worse than inflicting temporary pain on an animal (and that's the principle applied to humans). I find it odd that one could go to jail for assaulting an animal one owns, but chopping its head off and eating its flesh is seen as normal.
Post by
MyTie
I think that is to be determined either by their owner or by nature.
Precisely, the fundamental notion is the right to life, which is voided for animals other than humans. While some slaughter methods minimise the pain felt by animals, there is documented evidence that they are not applied universally. Even if they were, they'd still remove the capacity for animals to feel pleasure - which seems to me to be worse than inflicting temporary pain on an animal (and that's the principle applied to humans). I find it odd that one could go to jail for assaulting an animal one owns, but chopping its head off and eating its flesh is seen as normal.
Well, we disagree. My animals are treated with the highest degree of care and love. Every day I shovel manure out of stalls, and bring them in to their own individual stalls, every night, with their own hay, grain, and water. They are brushed sometimes, and the horses get exercised, but my wife usually is the one to work with the horses. When they are sick they get a visit to the doctor. That is expected. When I am sick I tough it out without a doctor. However, if an animal becomes a danger to itself or humans, it gets a bullet to the brain. If it is a meat animal, then it is given the best life I can offer, until it is time for slaughter. It has no want for food, or worry about predators, or competition from other animals. When I decide, their life is ended painlessly, and their purpose is fulfilled.
There is no comparison between people who brutalize animals and people who slaughter animals. I've been to animal shelters. I've seen dogs that have been beaten, burned, abused, starved, etc. That is horrible. Comparing that to being a carnivore, I think is just an appeal to emotion.
Post by
gamerunknown
Well I think the appeal to emotion only holds if I say "You'd feel better if you were a vegetarian". I'm saying that a logical conclusion of the premise that animals deserve rights is that they deserve not to be killed.
If our premise is that animals deserve to be prevented from harm, then I think the correlate should also hold that they should be permitted to feel pleasure and that we should not interfere in their life to end their capacity to feel pleasure (I wouldn't advocate diverting resources needed to help humans for other animals though, since we haven't found an entirely effective solution to our own problems).
Likewise, I think that if animals do not deserve autonomy and the pleasure sometimes derived from that, then the different ways in which that pleasure can be deprived from them should not be legislated against.
To use a different example, should having sex with a dead animal be a crime? Assuming it wasn't illegally killed.
Post by
MyTie
To use a different example, should having sex with a dead animal be a crime? Assuming it wasn't illegally killed.I don't know. I don't see why it should be illegal. I think it is wrong, but if someone wants to do it, I don't think I have the right to decide their sexuality.
There has to be some point at which rights which are afforded humans are not afforded to animals. You wouldn't give a turtle the right to vote, or a parrot a trial by a jury of it's peers. We differ on where we draw that line, is all. I don't think because animals shouldn't be abused "correlates" to them not being slaughtered for meat. They are two different things.
Post by
gamerunknown
Is there a basis on which to afford rights to certain animals and not others other than the appeal to tradition/popularity?
For example, is it worse to eat dog meat than pork?
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I think you're supposing a logical fallacy, in your argument. Your argument is that the right not to be tortured = the right to life, and so if an animal has no right to life then it has no right to not be tortured. They really are two different things.
In the US, many states have a death penalty in place. However, no state condones the torture of prisoners, even those on death row, and anyone doing something like that to a prisoner would be punished for it. The legal code recognizes the government's right to declare a person's life is forfeit because of a crime, but at the same time recognizes that torture is not warranted or allowed. In most places, when someone is charged with a crime, there is a difference in the charge when something like sexual assault or torture is involved with murder, vs. murder alone. We recognize that they are separate crimes, and are punished separately. So, even among humans, killing =/= torture or rape. They're considered separate crimes, even when committed together.
Also, there is a strong correlation between people who abuse animals, and people who abuse other people. Many sociopaths or psychopaths begin with animal torture before moving onto people. In most households where the spouse and/or children are being abused, the household pets also suffer. It's illegal not only for the pain it causes to that animal, but for the behavioral patterns it re-enforces in the criminal- to enjoy inflicting pain, to find hurting and subjugating another creature sexually arousing, etc. It's a gateway behavior. Also, depending on the specifics, it might cause a physically dangerous situation for the person involved. There are a lot of reasons that it is illegal, and none of them are because animals have the right to live on par with a human's.
Now, I am sure that there are ways that it could be practiced without physically hurting an animal- I do not want to describe them, or have them described to me. I'll head you off and acknowledge that they exist. But I think it's more ridiculous to have someone draft a law as to what you can and cannot do with an animal, with pages and pages of details, than to just tell people "no".
Post by
gamerunknown
there is a strong correlation between people who abuse animals
Well, correlations don't entail causation as MyTie aptly pointed out in another thread. If I recall correctly, Hitler was a vegetarian (if we ignore the fact that his cook used meat stock).
. But I think it's more ridiculous to have someone draft a law as to what you can and cannot do with an animal, with pages and pages of details, than to just tell people "no".
Well the point of law and discussions like these is to cover nuances. Some methods of slaughter for consumption would be considered torture, that doesn't mean we ought to outlaw the killing of animals.
Your argument is that the right not to be tortured = the right to life, and so if an animal has no right to life then it has no right to not be tortured.
I hold that depriving an entity of the capacity to feel pleasure is the equivalent of causing it pain. I suppose it could be considered equivocation, but I hold that the death penalty ought to be abolished too*. Anyway, the discussion is of animals that had caused no harm to others and were reared for the pleasure of human beings. For example, punching an innocent human is seen as a less serious crime than chopping their head off.
* It does strike me as inconsistent that a guard could get into trouble for striking a prisoner on death row or for consuming their flesh after their death or raping them after their death, but executing them is seen as de rigueur.
Post by
MyTie
@gamer - You are trying to draw moral equivalents, or degrees of acceptability, on a wide range of topics that don't relate to each other.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I have to agree with MyTie- from my perspective your argument seems to be bouncing all over the place, and I'm not sure how to organize it well enough to form a proper response.
Post by
gamerunknown
@gamer - You are trying to draw moral equivalents, or degrees of acceptability, on a wide range of topics that don't relate to each other.
They have similar premises.
It is wrong to murder (kill without sanction) because it deprives the individual that is murdered from the capacity to feel pleasure.
It is wrong to assault because it causes injury to the individual that is assaulted.
People apply the same principles to animals as they do to humans in terms of assault, but not murder. The reason I brought this up was because I saw someone say on a facebook post that the reason gay marriage should not be compared to bestiality is because animals are incapable of giving consent: but we obviously don't seek their consent in other scenarios.
Post by
MyTie
People apply the same principles to animals as they do to humans in terms of assault, but not murder.Because animals aren't humans.The reason I brought this up was because I saw someone say on a facebook post that the reason gay marriage should not be compared to bestiality is because animals are incapable of giving consent: but we obviously don't seek their consent in other scenarios.
You are looking at this with extremely black and white glasses on. It isn't all or nothing. If there is no reasons to inflict pain or death on something, then it shouldn't be done. There is never reason good enough to inflict pain or rape on an animal. The only reasons to inflict death is to relieve debilitating and terminal pain, to cease the animal from being a danger to self and/or others, or for food. There is a level of justification you are ignoring. Is it arguable that it is justifiable to kill an animal for food? Yes. You have to see there is a line of logic, even if you don't agree with it. Is it arguable that it is justifiable to torture an animal? No. That's the difference.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Ok Gamer, let me respond to your theory this way. Lets compare adults and children. Your logic would follow this path:
It is wrong to have sex with a child because it could hurt them, and because mentally they cannot consent. We justify this on the same principles that we justify that it is wrong to cause pain to an adult, and have sex without their consent.
However, we also think that it's morally wrong to confine an adult against their will, without due process. At the same time, parents often ground their children, regardless of the fact that they have not been convicted in a court of law. That makes no sense. If we protect children from rape, based on the fact that they have rights similar to those of adults, then we have to protect them from wrongful imprisonment. If you want to keep grounding your kids legal, then you need to decriminalize child rape.
Does that sound like a logical flow to you? Because that's kind of what your argument sounds like to me. If we aren't going to protect animals from being killed for food, then we should let you torture and rape them as much as you want because we can't give them any of the same rights or protections as humans unless we give them all of them.
Post by
gamerunknown
Is it arguable that it is justifiable to kill an animal for food? Yes.
There are scenarios where I think it may be justifiable to eat human flesh (even to kill a human against their will in order to eat them), that doesn't mean I think it ought to be a general principle. Ecological pyramids demonstrate that it will always be more efficient to eat the stuff lower down on the trophic levels than feed it to animals and eat their flesh.
Post by
gamerunknown
Because that's kind of what your argument sounds like to me.
Well, I understand the analogy, but children are dependants of their parents and the state permits parents to restrain children to prevent them from greater harm. In this instance, killing an animal is not preventing them from greater harm (I recognise that a mercy killing would be an example of that though). Funnily enough, I do recall a lecture by Chomsky where he said that all power structures should be questioned, starting with that of the family but that he did hit his child on the hand once when they went to touch a hot stove. Oh and I'm reminded of
this
too.
Other arguments I've heard in support of eating animals actually use similar language (they wouldn't survive without my aid, I care for them and keep them away from predators, they'd be worse off in nature and when I kill them I do so humanely, but they're not adults and their entire purpose in this world is for me to eat them).
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.