[CW: bestiality] Professional "moral philosopher" ponders whether it's OK to sexually assault animals, featuring AI art

This has gotta be the worst thread this website has ever had. I'm not pretending I'm not part of the problem, but damn. Literally no one is benefiting, we're just all thinking about something disgusting and repulsive. Terrible job everyone, we really screwed the pooch on this one.

I gotta admit I started reading this thread ready to engage in our latest struggle session but actually I've decided I simply won't be reading it.

Please do not fuck your dog or horse or cow or sheep or hen or whatever.

Knew it was gonna be singer before i even clicked on it. Fucking utilitarians lol

always strange to me when people start trying to talk about bestiality like it's a real moral question and not just a fantasy fetish.

real people don't actually do that, 99.9999% of allegations are literally just made up, even an anonymous essay about why someone should be allowed to fuck a dog, that's someone writing themed smut it's not moral philosophy. the only academically interesting thing about bestiality is why it's had cultural purchase in myth, rumour, and storytelling for thousands of years.

Permanently Deleted

lmao

The deer who consents to me feeding him does not understand – and does not have the cognitive capacities to understand – my complex motivation to hand him food or the stories that I will later tell to my friends about this unusual encounter. The range of information that animals can learn differs from that of humans. This is not a problem though, because information that we do not have the capacity to grasp cannot constitute a deal breaker.

Read the article, thought it was interesting, my most direct philosophical objection was here. I think that information that we do not have the capacity to grasp can constitute a deal breaker. For instance, animals are incapable of understanding that they are being "fattened up" for slaughter, but if they could they would likely refuse to eat. It is permissible to do acts an animal does not consent to, like bringing my cat to the vet (scary) and having him vaccinated (painful), only when such acts are clearly in the animal's own best interests so that a "rational" animal would surely consent if it existed. If my cat could understand the purpose of going to the vet he would agree to it.

More broadly, I think

we are lacking philosophical (or at least cultural) ways to talk about the difference between consent to sexual activity and consent in general. Consent can be given under a spectrum of coercion, from being economically coerced to work a job to being physically coerced to perform a sexual act. Under which circumstances is it valid? Is there a spectrum of acts that require different circumstances for consent to be valid? Capitalism encourages us to ignore "weak" economic coercion and pretend that all decisions were made of our own free will. I think vocabulary is impoverished here. Socially, these concepts are floating under the surface: it's not illegal to fuck your employee, but you might get fired for it. It's not illegal to date a much younger adult, but you may be ostracized. Socially, we recognize that a large majority of such unions are impermissible and impose various lesser consequences/taboos. Unlike the author, I am willing to accept an explanation for inability-to-consent laws that says they are all heuristic-based and not based on some inherent part of the act*. It should be illegal for a cop to fuck his ostensibly-consenting prisoner: even though 0.000001% of the time it's fine and the coercion truly isn't significant, the cop can lie and there's no objective way for an onlooker to evaluate whether it's permissible. That's a sound enough argument for me to blanket ban sexual contact in large age/power/understanding differentials - with minors, animals, prisoners, severe mental disabilities, etc. - without requiring some ineffable component of the act to be wrong.
Coming up with a coherent moral rule for animals doesn't really mean anything when 99% (by mass) of animals exist under conditions of absolute human domination. As has been pointed out in this thread, animal agriculture requires sexual contact with animals. I would go as far as to say that there are so few zoophiles that most acts of bestiality are already legal, carved out by the animal husbandry exceptions in the bestiality laws. If you made it legal everywhere you'd have the same 10 million farm pigs being inseminated a year, and maybe a dozen new pet pigs. So I don't see a practical point to this proposal except for shock value

* whoops, this is deontology with extra steps. Ah well I'm a man of the people

You could say he goes back and forth on the issue sicko-no

funny-clown-hammer

I just know in my heart that somehow behind this is a white woman who wants to have sex with a dog

He's just out here asking questions like

Your dog, is it single?
Can you leave me unsupervised in this stable please?
Does it count as crossing state lines to commit a felony if it's only a misdemeanor in the state I travel to?

spoiler

Consider the following case:

Alice and her dog: Alice self-describes as being in a romantic relationship with her dog. She cares a lot about his wellbeing and strives to ensure that his needs are fulfilled. They often sleep together; he likes to be caressed and she finds it pleasant to gently rub herself on him. Sometimes, when her dog is sexually aroused and tries to hump her leg, she undresses and lets him penetrate her vagina. This is gratifying for both of them.

Alice’s story describes a kind of relationship commonly described within the Zeta movement, where there is a reciprocal emotional attachment between the human and the animal and sexual contacts are sexually gratifying to both of them. It is tempting to think that Alice’s relationship illustrates one way in which humans can develop more equal and non-exploitative relationships with animals, that go beyond our negative duties not to harm them.

What Alice’s story also illustrates is that there is a continuity between zoophilia and affectionate relationships that ordinary people have with their pets. What is it that makes affectionately caressing one’s cat of a different ethical standing than sexually caressing one’s cat? If there is no clear-cut boundary between the ordinary love that pet keepers express and the romantic love that some zoophiles express, then why accept one and not the other?

Alice

White women aren't beating the allegations

Intellectual: "Come, join me in pondering [this depraved shit I've been jacking off to]."

Grooming animals for sex is the same as grooming children for sex.

The people that want to permit one are also the people that debate age of consent laws.

The net happines of the world decreased with your action, Peter

Shana, they bought their degrees, they knew what they were getting into.

I say, let metaphysics crash.

people will do anything for views once you monetize them

Permanently Deleted

fuck peter "kill your toddler, fuck a horse" singer, all my homies hate this man

Does that include dolphins on LSD?

I'm not prepared for the horrific backlash this statement will get on this site, but nonetheless I'll say that though I condemn bestiality, the exploration and questioning of ideas (especially long-held, cultural taboos) is a good thing.

anotha one for the gulag

In a good world we could just shoot this mofo and move on

ah peter singer lmfao

Permanently Deleted

we can just medicalize people wanting to do that and not have to invent moralities concerning notmonids

Let's just get the nuclear holocaust over with already.

I'm glad I never liked Singer.

Is there any thought on socialist meta-ethics?

Seems like deontology (predetermined rules = ethical, eg. divine rule) is aligned with pre-capitalist modes of production.

Consequentialism (results = ethical, eg. number line go up) seems capitalistic

Is there one proposed for socialism? The third major meta-ethical category is virtue ethics, but that is as broad as deontology and consequentialism put together. Still it seems to fit, that the socialist citizen is free to produce and live as they see fit, which may be some form of eudaimonia. In short, it is about improving oneself over time through one's habitual actions ie increasing virtues

You should probably close this post, it seems to be causing a fuss

Peter Singer wrote an interesting short essay on the history of beastiality if anyone's interested https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/opinions/56258/heavy-petting

What a terrible day to have eyes

this topic is like a sandtrap honestly, feels like everybody comes at it from different directions

like of course people shouldn't be having sex with animals irl, I think the consent argument works here. Unfortunately there is a communication barrier between humans and other animals, and until that barrier can be magically crossed we simply will not be able to confirm consent, which means sex is off the table.

But over on the other end, I don't think people who jack it to lion king rule 34 porn should be arrested. People who try to come up with essential reasons why it's immoral seem silly to me, as if there's some line that can be drawn between good arousal and evil arousal.

Didn't read lol

but if a woman just exists and a male animal does the thing then it's not sexual assault

Here's some music related to this topic:

(CW: may be discrimination against white gals)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1*removed*Np9xvNQ&pp=ygUOcnVzdHkgY2FnZSBkb2c%3D

(Edit: I don't know how to do proper Content warnings)