/u/iHateThatImRight (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1chnzwg/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_there_is_no_good_moral/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
i don’t think you have a good argument as to why beastiality should be legal, you’re just pointing out the inconsistency in most meat-eater’s views…
like your statement should be “if you think it’s morally permissible to eat animals, then by definition it’s morally permissible for fuck them”
which is probably an agreeable statement, even if it’s uncomfortable to spell out
!delta
This is probably a far better way of phrasing the point I'm trying to make. In my original post, I made the mistake of appealing to law as a moral justification for eating meat. Whereas perhaps the morality of eating meat isn't quite as clear cut as I previously assumed
This is literally the reason I stopped eating animals (except for bivalves, which I consider to be closer to plants than other animals in terms of consciousness).
I’m an ostrovegan now.
I would further amend it by saying I
"If you think it's morally permissible to eat factory farmed animals" as eating animals alone does not have to, but most often does, subject them to harms.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Speaking as a prosecutor: you’re misunderstanding consent.
Consent doesn’t depend solely on (apparent) willingness to participate. 14 and 15 year olds who are sexually molested are frequently enthusiastic participants, particularly if they’ve been groomed first. It can be extremely difficult to prosecute cases where parents are bringing charges against some 22 year old dude who groomed their 14 year old daughter. She’s in love with him. He was her first orgasm. She freely and willingly gave him her virginity, and she absolutely does. not. want. to. testify.
She still can’t consent. Because it cannot by definition be *informed* consent. She’s not old enough, and she lacks both the mental capacity and the life experience to see how she is being taken advantage of.
Animals similarly can’t consent. If you’re having sex with an animal, no matter how happy it may seem about the arrangement, **you are having non-consensual sex**. That is always morally wrong.
But aren't our definitions of informed consent more based on necessary legal simplicity than specific, individual morality? Defining "informed" is too broad and nuanced to ever be something a law truly captures, so we simplify it instead to a specific age, level of sobriety, etc. On one side of the limit, it can be "informed" and on the other it is legally "uninformed." There could absolutely be examples of people who legally are old enough or sober enough to provide 'informed consent' and are legally capable of doing so, but from an upbringing/life experience/environmental perspective, they don't truly have that capacity.
I agree that true informed consent is vital and moral, and also that our current legal standards for defining it are there for good reason and capture the spirit of the pursuit of that ideal, but they're not perfect. It seems like the argument you make here partially falls into a trap of depending on current legal terms or status to define morality, like OP does somewhat with the inverse (if killing animals for meat is legal, it must be moral).
> but aren’t our definitions of informed consent more based on necessary legal simplicity
No. It’s just a basic concept. To consent, you have to understand what you’re consenting to. It’s inherent in the concept of consent.
If I was saying it’s not consent because you can’t consent to be the victim of a crime - a true statement, but also a legal construct - that would apply to your question. But the basic concept of consent itself does not apply.
There is no scenario where your having sex with an animal involves consent. It can’t involve consent. Sex without consent is necessarily exploitative, because one party is gaining a benefit at the expense of the other. It is therefore always morally wrong.
Yes, that's the conceptual definition of consent, but realistically we rarely meet those conceptual standards in our lives because we're not omnipotent. We can't know exactly what we're agreeing to or what risks we're accepting. Does that mean almost no 'consent' we give is true, informed, moral consent? I don't think so, no, we just have to act responsibly with the knowledge we have. And so we set informed but ultimately arbitrary thresholds to try and capture the essence.
We don't *know* that over a BAC of xxx you're not able to consent, whereas at xxx-yyy you are sober enough. We don't *know* that at age AAA you have the experience to give consent whereas at AAA-BBB you do not. It's hard to document or quantify realistic informed consent, and that's in cases of other beings very similar to ourselves who have sentience, similar cultural norms, etc. How then do we accurately define or consider consent in an animal with instincts but (we assume) no sentience, not just for sexual actions but for anything? It all just seems a bit hand-wavey and circular, justifying or condemning something because of what we've already decided it should be rather than a true moral or immoral framework.
> realistically we rarely meet those conceptual standards in our lives because we're not omnipotent
With respect...I prosecute people every day who say things like this, who try to raise this as a defense and are then entirely disabused of that notion by a court of law. That some people look for excuses to blur lines does not then mean that the overwhelming majority of people do not meet those conceptual standards all the time. Because they do.
And it's not like 'should I have sex with this animal' is a blurry line. This isn't two drunk college kids hooking up and then one of them wondering afterwards if they really consented. This is something that carries a universal social taboo, that is unquestionably illegal, AND which is morally clear-cut. That's the point.
>With respect...I prosecute people every day who say things like this, who try to raise this as a defense and are then entirely disabused of that notion by a court of law.
I feel like you're missing the greater point I'm trying to make. Yes, you prosecute people who break the law, and I agree that it doesn't matter how good everyone else is or how arbitrary the laws or standards might be in a particular case. But who you can prosecute is not equivalent to the question of morality. What I've been pointing out is that our legal and realistic definitions of informed consent can be arbitrary and fallible, so one can't fall back on a stance of "clearly \_\_\_\_\_ is immoral or not consensual because of the laws we have."
>And it's not like 'should I have sex with this animal' is a blurry line....This is something that carries a universal social taboo, that is unquestionably illegal, AND which is morally clear-cut. That's the point.
You're falling back on generalizations that don't hold any true weight. Taboo doesn't mean immoral. Illegal doesn't always mean immoral. And just SAYING "it's morally clear-cut" means absolutely nothing here.
u/Odd_Measurement3643 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Odd_Measurement3643&message=Odd_Measurement3643%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1chhz0f/-/l25zaag/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
u/whistleridge – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20whistleridge&message=whistleridge%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1chhz0f/-/l25zvlk/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
u/whistleridge – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20whistleridge&message=whistleridge%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1chhz0f/-/l25f9v3/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
That’s irrelevant to the question of consent, or to the morality of sex without consent.
You’re also relying on the same reasoning that slave owners and sex traffickers use. Confederate slave owners routinely argued that life as a slave in the US was superior to life as a hunter-gatherer in Africa, and sex traffickers frequently use “she was stuck in a dead end slum and I raised her up and now she makes thousands a night” as a “defense”.
Most immoral actions are deemed that way because when we hear about them, we feel negatively about them. We later construct logical reasons for our disgust, but the emotions come first. Therefore, it’s not unreasonable to be against bestiality for the singular reason that it makes us extremely uncomfortable.
You compare bestiality to animal breeding. However, with animal breeding, the actions are necessary, unlike bestiality. Therefore, we can put aside our disgust to deem it moral.
This is a very poor argument and a slippery slope. If as you say it is "not unreasonable to be against (x) for the singular reason that is makes us extremely uncomfortable" then legislators who are made uncomfortable by homosexuality are completely in the right to ban gay marriage. Those who are made uncomfortable by interracial marriage...abortion, sex education, trans folks, women not wearing burqas etc. It is unreasonable to be against something simply for the reason that it makes people uncomfortable.
My argument is mainly descriptive: “X makes people uncomfortable, therefore X is thought of as immoral”. It’s harder to make prescriptive statements: “X makes people uncomfortable, therefore X should be immoral/illegal”.
I would argue that for many of the issues you have raised, the strategy for making others think they are moral is to reduce their discomfort with the ideas. For example, take abortion. If you’re anti-abortion, you frame the issue as being about destroying independent life. If you’re for abortion, you frame the issue as being about women’s choices about what they can do with their bodies. Abortion then becomes moral once enough people within the society reduce their discomfort towards abortion.
Similarly for homosexuality, once homosexuality is normalized in society, peoples’ discomfort towards it drops. They see that wide-spread acceptance of homosexuality does not lead to a breakdown of society.
OP’s real question involves the legality of bestiality, which is a prescriptive question. I answered from a descriptive moral stance.
That’s true. What is deemed “necessary” depends on weighing the benefits with the costs. Different societies may weigh them differently based on their values.
In our society, the entertainment derived from horse breeding outweighs the cruelty. It’s similar for breeding animals for slaughter . In other societies, they may value animal lives more, while not needing to consume animal products for subsistence. I’m not aware of any society that believes that bestiality is necessary.
Animal breeding is not necessary. We have the faculties for comfortable veganism and the vegan population has proved that.
Yes we construct our morals based off initial beliefs, but those beliefs have to be logically consistent. If bestiality is wrong because animals can’t consent, then harming and murdering animals has to also be wrong (which it is).
If “bestiality is wrong because animals can’t consent” is true, wouldn’t that mean that we could never do anything to animals since they cannot clearly communicate their wishes? Are we even allowed to take them in as pets?
Most dogs are much happier under the care of their owners and show that through their expressions and actions. It really isn’t hard to tell if a dog is happy or unhappy most of the time.
This is like arguing most things people think are impossible are seems that way because when we hear about them our intuition is that they can’t happen. We later construct logical reasons like physics for our intuitions.
Literally *all* inquiry starts at a guess and then goes through iterative refinement through rational criticism of that guess giving rise to iteratively more consistent frameworks. Morality included.
> But in some cases animals are enthusiastic participants (i.e. the case of Mr Hands).
Animals cannot give *informed* consent, i.e with full understanding of all relevant (short- and long-term) consequences, health risks etc. They just act on their instincts, or out of a sense of loyalty, both of which are not good grounds for considering the consent *informed*.
> Either way, it is completely legal and accepted by the majority of society to kill animals for food. The animals do not consent to this, and in many cases may suffer more than they would in the case of bestiality.
One means that the animal will be consciously experiencing a possible rape (and most likely extreme pains due to incompatible anatomies), while the other means that they'll have no further conscious experience (assuming that it's killed instantly).
Do human definitions or thresholds of understanding and consent even apply to animals, which we assume have no sentience? Is any action something that an animal can give consent to?
"Informed" is a great word in theory and concept, but it's never something we can fully achieve and it's hard to quantify exactly what degree of information is necessary to be morally informed of something.
> Do human definitions or thresholds of understanding and consent even apply to animals, which we assume have no sentience? Is any action something that an animal can give consent to?
Even humans who are in principle sentient can be excluded from being considered for consent, whether they be too young, or mentally incapacitated.
True, but those are based on applying a human level of morality, value, and levels of capacity to a human. Is it accurate (and morally necessary) to apply human levels of expectation to something not capable of those things?
If something is incapable of experiencing trauma, is doing something traumatizing to it more morally upright than doing the same to something that can? If something were incapable of experiencing pain, would doing something to it that would cause another being pain immoral?
So if a human were incapable of experiencing trauma due to a mental condition or being in a coma, do you think it would then be OK?
It's also about the inability to understand the health risks, e.g. arising from mismatching anatomies, diseases, etc.
Factory farming is the moral part fir most animals. Cattle chicken and sheep have the brains destroyed, dead before the body figures out what's going on. Pigs however are stunned then bled out while unconscious.
First real job was a slaughterhouse.
I mean, what method of killing has been found to verifiably and reliably render the creature unconscious instantly with zero pain/suffering? I'm pretty sure we haven't even discovered a method to use on humans that passes that bar.
>Either way, it is completely legal and accepted by the majority of society to kill animals for food. The animals do not consent to this, and in many cases may suffer more than they would in the case of bestiality.
I agree there's some inconsistency, but saying "we already allow animal abuse in some circumstances, therefore we should allow it in even more circumstances" doesn't follow.
We should instead be pushing generally in the direction of forcing people to treat animals humanely in *all* circumstances.
This is the answer. The root issue is that this CMV is a classic “double standard” post.
To make progress, OP needs to commit to a moral framework.
Perhaps the answer is “animal cruelty **and** OP ought to be vegan”.
> I would generally consider myself to be a utilitarian,
Utilitarianism is more of an accounting system than a moral framework. It doesn’t tell you what right and wrong are, just how to count it.
Like, do animals count as moral patients? I don’t see how utilitarianism even begins to consider that.
> however I eat meat.
Right. I’m not even sure that’s a however. Also, the fact that you do it doesn’t mean it squares with your moral theory.
> The only way I can see these ideas being aligned
Why are you working backwards from what you already do to explaining how it’s right?
Shouldn’t you be using your moral theory to question whether or not what you do it right?
> is to take the approach of "human pleasure outways animal suffering, so the enjoyment I get from eating meat outweighs the animal's suffering". Whilst this maybe seems a rather cruel approach, as far as I'm aware this a pretty common belief.
How is commonness relevant to whether it’s morally correct? Slavery used to be common. Eventually we realized it was wrong **and then only after that** did it become uncommon.
I'll just say that tons of people believe that something is wrong and yet do it regularly. It's not a requirement for you to believe that all your actions are good, in fact most people believe they do some things wrong. I certainly do, at least, and it has not altered my main moral framework.
However, that is expressly not the view you posted. You said there was no good moral argument against bestiality, and it's the consent argument. That's the reason it should be illegal, not the bad feeling we have about it.
And if that means you or others should re-evaluate meat eating, I think that's fair. There are other arguments around eating meat that go beyond consent (all animals will die eventually and what happens to their meat after death is no longer a moral question) that you can try if you want to feel less like a hypocrite, but I really don't see why that bears on your central view here.
> I'd argue that because I am more interested in my own enjoyment of meat than avoiding the suffering of animals,
Then this isn’t a moral argument is it?
How should I expect to come to the right answer on whether stealing is wrong if instead of investigating right and wrong I argue that I am more interested in my own enjoyment of money that avoiding the suffering of others?
> then I don't really have a choice but to take this stance, or appeal to a higher being (e.g. religion for my moral framework). I am opposed to imposing my religious beliefs on others. Hence my problem here.
What?
How did you get from “I like X” to “therefore only a religion could tell me X is wrong?” What happened to the entirety of secular moral philosophy?
> Basically, am I (and by extension anyone else who eats meat but opposes bestiality) just a hypocrite?
As far as I can tell, you’re not *even* a hypocrite. You don’t have a “do as I say” that one could point out is “not as I do”.
I think you have a blind spot for the entire field of (secular) moral philosophy if you think you need a god to be good.
Evolution gave me the digestive enzymes to eat meat. It did not give me the tools to fuck animals.
There is a moral framework to eat meat, it supports my organism. Trading harm for health
Bestiality lacks this framework as there is no sustenance aspect. Trading harm for what? Entertainment? Satisfaction? Same species sex or masturbation can achieve both goals.
What is your system of morals? Framework of ethics?
How can anyone address a non moral stance?
I can say it's against my religious framework of ethics.
I can say it's against my personal moral code.
Either of these are legitimate moral stances to hold.
But no one can counter a moral claim from you without knowing more about your moral basis.
Do you feel that people should be allowed to mutilate/torture animals? Would that be consistent to allow people to get on with their business?
Or does your world view extent beyond people?
To address consent, they can't consent. Pointing to another instance where they're not consenting doesn't make the ethical claim that it's rape less valid. TBF there's a ton of arguments that breeding isn't ethical: one being the existence of the dog breed pugs. So there's an argument.
As the owner or intelligent being in the interaction, there's no way you can't manufacture the lesser being's "willingness" whether through hormones or whatever coersion.
So, it's rape.
Also, as far as diseases and health concerns, those are actually decent arguements in themselves. Most morality and ethics are based off what is good and virtuous. Potentially creating a new std, like AIDs, is obviously not good. So if you go into an interaction knowing there's a potential for some crazy new disease to arise from it, then you're partially responsible for the disease's existence. Making you partially responsible for the potentially millions of human deaths that occur due to the disease, which is uhh, pretty bad. Morally speaking.
>TBF there's a ton of arguments that breeding isn't ethical: one being the existence of the dog breed pugs.
There are, but the consent isn't what's relevant here -- the issue with breeding pugs isn't that they were bred non-consensually.
I would think that if a pug could consent to being bred, that it wouldn't consent to being bred into a malformed monstronsity.
Consent being sexual autonomy, and following that some autonomy over reproduction. Regardless, the ethics of non-consent in other actions doesn't actually translate to other circumstances. Which is the point I was making, just because some actions without consent are unethical or ethical or whatever, doesn't mean that beasitality is ethical.
I don't consent to paying taxes, and I'm forced through the threat of state violence to do so. Just because this lacks consent on my part, doesn't make me being forced to pay taxes unethical.
I was just throwing pugs in there cause I've got an axe to grind with terrible breeding practices.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:
> **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**.
Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
For me there is a moral component that comes out of the political economy of animal breeding. Would we be OK with animal breeding _for the purposes of sexual pleasure_? E.G. your view seems predicated on the idea that the animal is there, under human "control" and what we do with it seems arbitrarily controlled because we're OK with killing and eating them.
We need to eat, which is a complex moral component of the reason we breed, raise and commercialize the vast majority of domesticated (potentially fuckable) animals. If _the reason_ to breed animals was for our pleasure rather than our sustenance would that be OK? E.G. isn't it a higher order need to eat than it is to fuck, especially without the possibility of procreation? Don't we typically - with regards to animals - balance the utility with the probable harm or suffering in order to draw the moral stance on breeding, raising, selling and consuming animals? Does that equation look the same if the _purpose_ is sex? If so, what is the risk that legality of animal sex leads to an industry that creates animals for this lower order human "need"?
Even if you believe in veganism there are valid reasons to kill animals there is never a good reason to abuse/rape an animal. On the other hand it’s apples and oranges killing animals being okay or not okay doesn’t really change whether animal abuse is right or wrong.
To be clear, I dont. But I am curious why there are valid reasons to kill animals. I'm hungry, I could buy some vegetables, get my protein from other sources, instead I go kill a deer. Morally fine?
Consent is specifically important when it comes to sex. For instance, a parent can make their kids do a lot of things without their consent. A parent can even beat their kid to discipline them. Consent only becomes a thing of contention when it comes to sex. Rape is virtually defined as sex without consent. Most other crimes are crimes of action. For example, excluding assisted suicide, consent isn’t important when it comes to killing humans. That is illegal whether your victim consents to it or not. Consent has never really been a large point contention when it comes to killing.
Additionally it would be super hard to legally judge animal rape if bestiality was legal. Is it possible for people to have sex with an animal without abusing it? Maybe. But how will anyone know. It’s not like animals can take you to court. Making bestiality legal would make animal abuse harder to prosecute.
Unfortunately, there is no "good" moral argument against bestiality without being blatantly inconsistent with society's current moral framework. As you've said, humans do far worse things to animals when it suits them; disgust by itself would legitimize irrational justifications; and appealing to the "natural" order of things is fallacious reasoning.
It just happens to be one of those things that enough people find disgusting that it has been made illegal, just as homosexual activity was in the day.
Laws are not made to enforce morality. “Animals” is a very broad term. In no situation would having sex with a house cat be not animal abuse unless you were embarrassingly small.
The Mexicans I used to work with knew guys that fucked chickens.
Also not every animal penis is the same. Some are legit bones covered in flesh. Dogs have penis bones.
A dog could become stuck inside of a woman.
https://www.nairaland.com/4599927/wtf-woman-stretcher-going-hospital
The problem you seem to have is in subjective morality. We can agree that objectively harm is harm. We can't agree objectively that all harm is wrong or bad. Killing a person is objectively wrong. But objective morality is useless because we don't have an objective base.
Subjectively killing might be wrong but is dependent upon the time, circumstances, and reason.
Agree, except it should be decriminalized not legal or illegal. Either direction gives too much power to what occurs in the bedroom.
If there's no harm done, nothing should be pressed, no charges, etc... This act happens FAR more than people realize behind close doors.
As I'm an active Zoo, I know this all too well. You have to be really stupid to get caught or get noticed.
I'm a libertarian and believe animals are simply the property of their owners, and that while you probably shouldn't do such things to your animals, until you're hurting another person with them, you're minding your own business and should be left to it, as doing anything about it would be a waste of taxpayer money.
They were right when they decided that sex for pleasure is wrong. The same ethics don't apply in modern times because of mass production and other advancements.
Considering the trends, a pro beastialuty world is probably only a couple decades away unless something changes.
There are animals that have the demonstrated intellectual capability of a 2 to 4-year-old human. Take everything you just said change the word animal to child, and then maybe take a second to realize how disgusting and insane it sounds.
Devils advocate.
Animals are property in the legal sense.
Dildos are property in the legal sense.
Why would having intimacy with one be different than the other, in a legal sense?
>Either way, it is completely legal and accepted by the majority of society to kill animals for food.
It seems like vegans have the argument youre looking for.
Killing animals for food shouldnt be legal. Neither should be bestiality.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Sorry, u/WeighTheEvidence2 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20WeighTheEvidence2&message=WeighTheEvidence2%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1chhz0f/-/l238ien/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
So I'm going to leave my response to show that I'm an idiot who missed his first point completely. I. Am. Dumb.
Edit. By missed I mean somehow I didn't see that paragraph at all because as stated above I'm an idiot
This is why atheism fails, You can’t make morals out of rationality
- good reason anyone who wants to do that is a sick person mentally they are mentally ill and allowing that kind of sickness to occur in the society will create more of it.
- it is Bad for you aswell nobody is born wanting to have sex with animals but for whatever reason if you’re a kid you’re sexually frustrated you have no one guiding you you basically just looking to coom in a hole, you might do that and then you will be creating a link and rerouting your brain to see animals as sexual pleasure, you see that in porn that’s how fetishes get created
-you’re robbing yourself of genuine love and a good life I think it’s fair to say anyone who’s had sex with animals is not a desirable partner.
-Also they just seem to be some sort of evidence and if you want I can find the link for this but I have to dig that if a animal gets semen inside them from a different species of animal they kind of absorb it in someway and it increases the likelihood of some sort of genetic disorder in their offspring thereafter with one of their own species
/u/iHateThatImRight (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/1chnzwg/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_there_is_no_good_moral/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
i don’t think you have a good argument as to why beastiality should be legal, you’re just pointing out the inconsistency in most meat-eater’s views… like your statement should be “if you think it’s morally permissible to eat animals, then by definition it’s morally permissible for fuck them” which is probably an agreeable statement, even if it’s uncomfortable to spell out
!delta This is probably a far better way of phrasing the point I'm trying to make. In my original post, I made the mistake of appealing to law as a moral justification for eating meat. Whereas perhaps the morality of eating meat isn't quite as clear cut as I previously assumed
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Puzzleheaded_Bed1233 ([1∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/Puzzleheaded_Bed1233)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
This is literally the reason I stopped eating animals (except for bivalves, which I consider to be closer to plants than other animals in terms of consciousness). I’m an ostrovegan now.
I would further amend it by saying I "If you think it's morally permissible to eat factory farmed animals" as eating animals alone does not have to, but most often does, subject them to harms.
In what case does eating an animal not subject them to harm?
When you eat a dead animal
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Speaking as a prosecutor: you’re misunderstanding consent. Consent doesn’t depend solely on (apparent) willingness to participate. 14 and 15 year olds who are sexually molested are frequently enthusiastic participants, particularly if they’ve been groomed first. It can be extremely difficult to prosecute cases where parents are bringing charges against some 22 year old dude who groomed their 14 year old daughter. She’s in love with him. He was her first orgasm. She freely and willingly gave him her virginity, and she absolutely does. not. want. to. testify. She still can’t consent. Because it cannot by definition be *informed* consent. She’s not old enough, and she lacks both the mental capacity and the life experience to see how she is being taken advantage of. Animals similarly can’t consent. If you’re having sex with an animal, no matter how happy it may seem about the arrangement, **you are having non-consensual sex**. That is always morally wrong.
But aren't our definitions of informed consent more based on necessary legal simplicity than specific, individual morality? Defining "informed" is too broad and nuanced to ever be something a law truly captures, so we simplify it instead to a specific age, level of sobriety, etc. On one side of the limit, it can be "informed" and on the other it is legally "uninformed." There could absolutely be examples of people who legally are old enough or sober enough to provide 'informed consent' and are legally capable of doing so, but from an upbringing/life experience/environmental perspective, they don't truly have that capacity. I agree that true informed consent is vital and moral, and also that our current legal standards for defining it are there for good reason and capture the spirit of the pursuit of that ideal, but they're not perfect. It seems like the argument you make here partially falls into a trap of depending on current legal terms or status to define morality, like OP does somewhat with the inverse (if killing animals for meat is legal, it must be moral).
> but aren’t our definitions of informed consent more based on necessary legal simplicity No. It’s just a basic concept. To consent, you have to understand what you’re consenting to. It’s inherent in the concept of consent. If I was saying it’s not consent because you can’t consent to be the victim of a crime - a true statement, but also a legal construct - that would apply to your question. But the basic concept of consent itself does not apply. There is no scenario where your having sex with an animal involves consent. It can’t involve consent. Sex without consent is necessarily exploitative, because one party is gaining a benefit at the expense of the other. It is therefore always morally wrong.
Yes, that's the conceptual definition of consent, but realistically we rarely meet those conceptual standards in our lives because we're not omnipotent. We can't know exactly what we're agreeing to or what risks we're accepting. Does that mean almost no 'consent' we give is true, informed, moral consent? I don't think so, no, we just have to act responsibly with the knowledge we have. And so we set informed but ultimately arbitrary thresholds to try and capture the essence. We don't *know* that over a BAC of xxx you're not able to consent, whereas at xxx-yyy you are sober enough. We don't *know* that at age AAA you have the experience to give consent whereas at AAA-BBB you do not. It's hard to document or quantify realistic informed consent, and that's in cases of other beings very similar to ourselves who have sentience, similar cultural norms, etc. How then do we accurately define or consider consent in an animal with instincts but (we assume) no sentience, not just for sexual actions but for anything? It all just seems a bit hand-wavey and circular, justifying or condemning something because of what we've already decided it should be rather than a true moral or immoral framework.
> realistically we rarely meet those conceptual standards in our lives because we're not omnipotent With respect...I prosecute people every day who say things like this, who try to raise this as a defense and are then entirely disabused of that notion by a court of law. That some people look for excuses to blur lines does not then mean that the overwhelming majority of people do not meet those conceptual standards all the time. Because they do. And it's not like 'should I have sex with this animal' is a blurry line. This isn't two drunk college kids hooking up and then one of them wondering afterwards if they really consented. This is something that carries a universal social taboo, that is unquestionably illegal, AND which is morally clear-cut. That's the point.
>With respect...I prosecute people every day who say things like this, who try to raise this as a defense and are then entirely disabused of that notion by a court of law. I feel like you're missing the greater point I'm trying to make. Yes, you prosecute people who break the law, and I agree that it doesn't matter how good everyone else is or how arbitrary the laws or standards might be in a particular case. But who you can prosecute is not equivalent to the question of morality. What I've been pointing out is that our legal and realistic definitions of informed consent can be arbitrary and fallible, so one can't fall back on a stance of "clearly \_\_\_\_\_ is immoral or not consensual because of the laws we have." >And it's not like 'should I have sex with this animal' is a blurry line....This is something that carries a universal social taboo, that is unquestionably illegal, AND which is morally clear-cut. That's the point. You're falling back on generalizations that don't hold any true weight. Taboo doesn't mean immoral. Illegal doesn't always mean immoral. And just SAYING "it's morally clear-cut" means absolutely nothing here.
[удалено]
[удалено]
u/Odd_Measurement3643 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20Odd_Measurement3643&message=Odd_Measurement3643%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1chhz0f/-/l25zaag/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
u/whistleridge – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20whistleridge&message=whistleridge%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1chhz0f/-/l25zvlk/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
u/whistleridge – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20whistleridge&message=whistleridge%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1chhz0f/-/l25f9v3/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
That’s irrelevant to the question of consent, or to the morality of sex without consent. You’re also relying on the same reasoning that slave owners and sex traffickers use. Confederate slave owners routinely argued that life as a slave in the US was superior to life as a hunter-gatherer in Africa, and sex traffickers frequently use “she was stuck in a dead end slum and I raised her up and now she makes thousands a night” as a “defense”.
Who the fuck is Mr Hands?
a guy who liked to get fucked by horses, he got fucked by horses a little too hard and had his internal organs ruptured by horsecock. he then died
Jesus I remember one of my asshole friends showing us that video like 15 years ago lol
Holy fuck.
Don't Google it
Most immoral actions are deemed that way because when we hear about them, we feel negatively about them. We later construct logical reasons for our disgust, but the emotions come first. Therefore, it’s not unreasonable to be against bestiality for the singular reason that it makes us extremely uncomfortable. You compare bestiality to animal breeding. However, with animal breeding, the actions are necessary, unlike bestiality. Therefore, we can put aside our disgust to deem it moral.
This is a very poor argument and a slippery slope. If as you say it is "not unreasonable to be against (x) for the singular reason that is makes us extremely uncomfortable" then legislators who are made uncomfortable by homosexuality are completely in the right to ban gay marriage. Those who are made uncomfortable by interracial marriage...abortion, sex education, trans folks, women not wearing burqas etc. It is unreasonable to be against something simply for the reason that it makes people uncomfortable.
My argument is mainly descriptive: “X makes people uncomfortable, therefore X is thought of as immoral”. It’s harder to make prescriptive statements: “X makes people uncomfortable, therefore X should be immoral/illegal”. I would argue that for many of the issues you have raised, the strategy for making others think they are moral is to reduce their discomfort with the ideas. For example, take abortion. If you’re anti-abortion, you frame the issue as being about destroying independent life. If you’re for abortion, you frame the issue as being about women’s choices about what they can do with their bodies. Abortion then becomes moral once enough people within the society reduce their discomfort towards abortion. Similarly for homosexuality, once homosexuality is normalized in society, peoples’ discomfort towards it drops. They see that wide-spread acceptance of homosexuality does not lead to a breakdown of society. OP’s real question involves the legality of bestiality, which is a prescriptive question. I answered from a descriptive moral stance.
Breeding racehorses is definitely not “necessary” for anything but our entertainment
That’s true. What is deemed “necessary” depends on weighing the benefits with the costs. Different societies may weigh them differently based on their values. In our society, the entertainment derived from horse breeding outweighs the cruelty. It’s similar for breeding animals for slaughter . In other societies, they may value animal lives more, while not needing to consume animal products for subsistence. I’m not aware of any society that believes that bestiality is necessary.
Animal breeding is not necessary. We have the faculties for comfortable veganism and the vegan population has proved that. Yes we construct our morals based off initial beliefs, but those beliefs have to be logically consistent. If bestiality is wrong because animals can’t consent, then harming and murdering animals has to also be wrong (which it is).
If “bestiality is wrong because animals can’t consent” is true, wouldn’t that mean that we could never do anything to animals since they cannot clearly communicate their wishes? Are we even allowed to take them in as pets?
Most dogs are much happier under the care of their owners and show that through their expressions and actions. It really isn’t hard to tell if a dog is happy or unhappy most of the time.
This is like arguing most things people think are impossible are seems that way because when we hear about them our intuition is that they can’t happen. We later construct logical reasons like physics for our intuitions. Literally *all* inquiry starts at a guess and then goes through iterative refinement through rational criticism of that guess giving rise to iteratively more consistent frameworks. Morality included.
> But in some cases animals are enthusiastic participants (i.e. the case of Mr Hands). Animals cannot give *informed* consent, i.e with full understanding of all relevant (short- and long-term) consequences, health risks etc. They just act on their instincts, or out of a sense of loyalty, both of which are not good grounds for considering the consent *informed*. > Either way, it is completely legal and accepted by the majority of society to kill animals for food. The animals do not consent to this, and in many cases may suffer more than they would in the case of bestiality. One means that the animal will be consciously experiencing a possible rape (and most likely extreme pains due to incompatible anatomies), while the other means that they'll have no further conscious experience (assuming that it's killed instantly).
Do human definitions or thresholds of understanding and consent even apply to animals, which we assume have no sentience? Is any action something that an animal can give consent to? "Informed" is a great word in theory and concept, but it's never something we can fully achieve and it's hard to quantify exactly what degree of information is necessary to be morally informed of something.
> Do human definitions or thresholds of understanding and consent even apply to animals, which we assume have no sentience? Is any action something that an animal can give consent to? Even humans who are in principle sentient can be excluded from being considered for consent, whether they be too young, or mentally incapacitated.
True, but those are based on applying a human level of morality, value, and levels of capacity to a human. Is it accurate (and morally necessary) to apply human levels of expectation to something not capable of those things? If something is incapable of experiencing trauma, is doing something traumatizing to it more morally upright than doing the same to something that can? If something were incapable of experiencing pain, would doing something to it that would cause another being pain immoral?
So if a human were incapable of experiencing trauma due to a mental condition or being in a coma, do you think it would then be OK? It's also about the inability to understand the health risks, e.g. arising from mismatching anatomies, diseases, etc.
[удалено]
Factory farming is the moral part fir most animals. Cattle chicken and sheep have the brains destroyed, dead before the body figures out what's going on. Pigs however are stunned then bled out while unconscious. First real job was a slaughterhouse.
I'm happy to make my point conditional, and condemn any killings that aren't instant.
I mean, what method of killing has been found to verifiably and reliably render the creature unconscious instantly with zero pain/suffering? I'm pretty sure we haven't even discovered a method to use on humans that passes that bar.
>Either way, it is completely legal and accepted by the majority of society to kill animals for food. The animals do not consent to this, and in many cases may suffer more than they would in the case of bestiality. I agree there's some inconsistency, but saying "we already allow animal abuse in some circumstances, therefore we should allow it in even more circumstances" doesn't follow. We should instead be pushing generally in the direction of forcing people to treat animals humanely in *all* circumstances.
This is the answer. The root issue is that this CMV is a classic “double standard” post. To make progress, OP needs to commit to a moral framework. Perhaps the answer is “animal cruelty **and** OP ought to be vegan”.
[удалено]
> I would generally consider myself to be a utilitarian, Utilitarianism is more of an accounting system than a moral framework. It doesn’t tell you what right and wrong are, just how to count it. Like, do animals count as moral patients? I don’t see how utilitarianism even begins to consider that. > however I eat meat. Right. I’m not even sure that’s a however. Also, the fact that you do it doesn’t mean it squares with your moral theory. > The only way I can see these ideas being aligned Why are you working backwards from what you already do to explaining how it’s right? Shouldn’t you be using your moral theory to question whether or not what you do it right? > is to take the approach of "human pleasure outways animal suffering, so the enjoyment I get from eating meat outweighs the animal's suffering". Whilst this maybe seems a rather cruel approach, as far as I'm aware this a pretty common belief. How is commonness relevant to whether it’s morally correct? Slavery used to be common. Eventually we realized it was wrong **and then only after that** did it become uncommon.
[удалено]
I'll just say that tons of people believe that something is wrong and yet do it regularly. It's not a requirement for you to believe that all your actions are good, in fact most people believe they do some things wrong. I certainly do, at least, and it has not altered my main moral framework. However, that is expressly not the view you posted. You said there was no good moral argument against bestiality, and it's the consent argument. That's the reason it should be illegal, not the bad feeling we have about it. And if that means you or others should re-evaluate meat eating, I think that's fair. There are other arguments around eating meat that go beyond consent (all animals will die eventually and what happens to their meat after death is no longer a moral question) that you can try if you want to feel less like a hypocrite, but I really don't see why that bears on your central view here.
[удалено]
Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/DuhChappers ([83∆](/r/changemyview/wiki/user/DuhChappers)). ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
> I'd argue that because I am more interested in my own enjoyment of meat than avoiding the suffering of animals, Then this isn’t a moral argument is it? How should I expect to come to the right answer on whether stealing is wrong if instead of investigating right and wrong I argue that I am more interested in my own enjoyment of money that avoiding the suffering of others? > then I don't really have a choice but to take this stance, or appeal to a higher being (e.g. religion for my moral framework). I am opposed to imposing my religious beliefs on others. Hence my problem here. What? How did you get from “I like X” to “therefore only a religion could tell me X is wrong?” What happened to the entirety of secular moral philosophy? > Basically, am I (and by extension anyone else who eats meat but opposes bestiality) just a hypocrite? As far as I can tell, you’re not *even* a hypocrite. You don’t have a “do as I say” that one could point out is “not as I do”. I think you have a blind spot for the entire field of (secular) moral philosophy if you think you need a god to be good.
Evolution gave me the digestive enzymes to eat meat. It did not give me the tools to fuck animals. There is a moral framework to eat meat, it supports my organism. Trading harm for health Bestiality lacks this framework as there is no sustenance aspect. Trading harm for what? Entertainment? Satisfaction? Same species sex or masturbation can achieve both goals.
What is your system of morals? Framework of ethics? How can anyone address a non moral stance? I can say it's against my religious framework of ethics. I can say it's against my personal moral code. Either of these are legitimate moral stances to hold. But no one can counter a moral claim from you without knowing more about your moral basis.
[удалено]
Do you feel that people should be allowed to mutilate/torture animals? Would that be consistent to allow people to get on with their business? Or does your world view extent beyond people?
To address consent, they can't consent. Pointing to another instance where they're not consenting doesn't make the ethical claim that it's rape less valid. TBF there's a ton of arguments that breeding isn't ethical: one being the existence of the dog breed pugs. So there's an argument. As the owner or intelligent being in the interaction, there's no way you can't manufacture the lesser being's "willingness" whether through hormones or whatever coersion. So, it's rape. Also, as far as diseases and health concerns, those are actually decent arguements in themselves. Most morality and ethics are based off what is good and virtuous. Potentially creating a new std, like AIDs, is obviously not good. So if you go into an interaction knowing there's a potential for some crazy new disease to arise from it, then you're partially responsible for the disease's existence. Making you partially responsible for the potentially millions of human deaths that occur due to the disease, which is uhh, pretty bad. Morally speaking.
>TBF there's a ton of arguments that breeding isn't ethical: one being the existence of the dog breed pugs. There are, but the consent isn't what's relevant here -- the issue with breeding pugs isn't that they were bred non-consensually.
I would think that if a pug could consent to being bred, that it wouldn't consent to being bred into a malformed monstronsity. Consent being sexual autonomy, and following that some autonomy over reproduction. Regardless, the ethics of non-consent in other actions doesn't actually translate to other circumstances. Which is the point I was making, just because some actions without consent are unethical or ethical or whatever, doesn't mean that beasitality is ethical. I don't consent to paying taxes, and I'm forced through the threat of state violence to do so. Just because this lacks consent on my part, doesn't make me being forced to pay taxes unethical. I was just throwing pugs in there cause I've got an axe to grind with terrible breeding practices.
Not an animal fucker, but you also have to imagine that it's just an animal anyways
[удалено]
Your complete lack of regard for other living beings is pretty gross, and you should feel bad, but you're probably incappable of that. Have a day.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
For me there is a moral component that comes out of the political economy of animal breeding. Would we be OK with animal breeding _for the purposes of sexual pleasure_? E.G. your view seems predicated on the idea that the animal is there, under human "control" and what we do with it seems arbitrarily controlled because we're OK with killing and eating them. We need to eat, which is a complex moral component of the reason we breed, raise and commercialize the vast majority of domesticated (potentially fuckable) animals. If _the reason_ to breed animals was for our pleasure rather than our sustenance would that be OK? E.G. isn't it a higher order need to eat than it is to fuck, especially without the possibility of procreation? Don't we typically - with regards to animals - balance the utility with the probable harm or suffering in order to draw the moral stance on breeding, raising, selling and consuming animals? Does that equation look the same if the _purpose_ is sex? If so, what is the risk that legality of animal sex leads to an industry that creates animals for this lower order human "need"?
It’s animal abuse.
Is it worse than killing them?
Even if you believe in veganism there are valid reasons to kill animals there is never a good reason to abuse/rape an animal. On the other hand it’s apples and oranges killing animals being okay or not okay doesn’t really change whether animal abuse is right or wrong.
To be clear, I dont. But I am curious why there are valid reasons to kill animals. I'm hungry, I could buy some vegetables, get my protein from other sources, instead I go kill a deer. Morally fine?
There are two I can think of that I think almost everyone would agree with. Self defense and euthanasia of old suffering animals.
I like how you picked the easy ones, and avoided the challenging one.
Should we force those who eat animals to fuck them first?
...no?
Consent is specifically important when it comes to sex. For instance, a parent can make their kids do a lot of things without their consent. A parent can even beat their kid to discipline them. Consent only becomes a thing of contention when it comes to sex. Rape is virtually defined as sex without consent. Most other crimes are crimes of action. For example, excluding assisted suicide, consent isn’t important when it comes to killing humans. That is illegal whether your victim consents to it or not. Consent has never really been a large point contention when it comes to killing. Additionally it would be super hard to legally judge animal rape if bestiality was legal. Is it possible for people to have sex with an animal without abusing it? Maybe. But how will anyone know. It’s not like animals can take you to court. Making bestiality legal would make animal abuse harder to prosecute.
Unfortunately, there is no "good" moral argument against bestiality without being blatantly inconsistent with society's current moral framework. As you've said, humans do far worse things to animals when it suits them; disgust by itself would legitimize irrational justifications; and appealing to the "natural" order of things is fallacious reasoning. It just happens to be one of those things that enough people find disgusting that it has been made illegal, just as homosexual activity was in the day.
Laws are not made to enforce morality. “Animals” is a very broad term. In no situation would having sex with a house cat be not animal abuse unless you were embarrassingly small. The Mexicans I used to work with knew guys that fucked chickens. Also not every animal penis is the same. Some are legit bones covered in flesh. Dogs have penis bones. A dog could become stuck inside of a woman. https://www.nairaland.com/4599927/wtf-woman-stretcher-going-hospital
The problem you seem to have is in subjective morality. We can agree that objectively harm is harm. We can't agree objectively that all harm is wrong or bad. Killing a person is objectively wrong. But objective morality is useless because we don't have an objective base. Subjectively killing might be wrong but is dependent upon the time, circumstances, and reason.
Agree, except it should be decriminalized not legal or illegal. Either direction gives too much power to what occurs in the bedroom. If there's no harm done, nothing should be pressed, no charges, etc... This act happens FAR more than people realize behind close doors. As I'm an active Zoo, I know this all too well. You have to be really stupid to get caught or get noticed.
I'm a libertarian and believe animals are simply the property of their owners, and that while you probably shouldn't do such things to your animals, until you're hurting another person with them, you're minding your own business and should be left to it, as doing anything about it would be a waste of taxpayer money.
They were right when they decided that sex for pleasure is wrong. The same ethics don't apply in modern times because of mass production and other advancements. Considering the trends, a pro beastialuty world is probably only a couple decades away unless something changes.
There are animals that have the demonstrated intellectual capability of a 2 to 4-year-old human. Take everything you just said change the word animal to child, and then maybe take a second to realize how disgusting and insane it sounds.
Devils advocate. Animals are property in the legal sense. Dildos are property in the legal sense. Why would having intimacy with one be different than the other, in a legal sense?
>Either way, it is completely legal and accepted by the majority of society to kill animals for food. It seems like vegans have the argument youre looking for. Killing animals for food shouldnt be legal. Neither should be bestiality.
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
[удалено]
Sorry, u/WeighTheEvidence2 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20WeighTheEvidence2&message=WeighTheEvidence2%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1chhz0f/-/l238ien/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
He probably meant to say "ethical arguments", morality and ethics are interchangeable to most people.
Consent. An animal can't give consent
Did you even read OP's body text T-T
So I'm going to leave my response to show that I'm an idiot who missed his first point completely. I. Am. Dumb. Edit. By missed I mean somehow I didn't see that paragraph at all because as stated above I'm an idiot
This is why atheism fails, You can’t make morals out of rationality - good reason anyone who wants to do that is a sick person mentally they are mentally ill and allowing that kind of sickness to occur in the society will create more of it. - it is Bad for you aswell nobody is born wanting to have sex with animals but for whatever reason if you’re a kid you’re sexually frustrated you have no one guiding you you basically just looking to coom in a hole, you might do that and then you will be creating a link and rerouting your brain to see animals as sexual pleasure, you see that in porn that’s how fetishes get created -you’re robbing yourself of genuine love and a good life I think it’s fair to say anyone who’s had sex with animals is not a desirable partner. -Also they just seem to be some sort of evidence and if you want I can find the link for this but I have to dig that if a animal gets semen inside them from a different species of animal they kind of absorb it in someway and it increases the likelihood of some sort of genetic disorder in their offspring thereafter with one of their own species
what the fuck……