I'm not sure why our intuitions about harming animals would be incompatible with natural law theory. Something's being perverse isn't the ONLY reason why NLT would judge it as wrong (murder is an obvious example). It's true that NLT-advocates can explain why beastiality is intrinsically wrong and meat-eating is not (since the former is a perversion), but nothing in this view entails that harming animals isn't wrong unless it makes us worse towards humans. Lots of Thomists talk this way, but they shouldn't, and lots (e.g. Oderberg) don't.
When I described the simple natural law account, I meant one according to which animals don’t matter intrinsically. I agree that’s not a necessary component of natural law.
Humans are not rational actors. It’s likely that the disgust reflex to bestiality evolved due to fears over animal-to-human diseases, whereas meat can be cooked to rid it of pathogens.
> People often say that it’s okay to eat meat because it’s natural. But this isn’t a relevant difference. If it was natural for us to have sex with dogs for fun, it would still be immoral.
This is ipse dixit. If you view this argument as meriting such a no response, why include it at all?
typo: parody --> parity
Fixed, thanks!
I'm not sure why our intuitions about harming animals would be incompatible with natural law theory. Something's being perverse isn't the ONLY reason why NLT would judge it as wrong (murder is an obvious example). It's true that NLT-advocates can explain why beastiality is intrinsically wrong and meat-eating is not (since the former is a perversion), but nothing in this view entails that harming animals isn't wrong unless it makes us worse towards humans. Lots of Thomists talk this way, but they shouldn't, and lots (e.g. Oderberg) don't.
When I described the simple natural law account, I meant one according to which animals don’t matter intrinsically. I agree that’s not a necessary component of natural law.
Humans are not rational actors. It’s likely that the disgust reflex to bestiality evolved due to fears over animal-to-human diseases, whereas meat can be cooked to rid it of pathogens.
I agree with that descriptive account, but then there's the normative question of whether that distinction is justified. I think it is obviously not.
> People often say that it’s okay to eat meat because it’s natural. But this isn’t a relevant difference. If it was natural for us to have sex with dogs for fun, it would still be immoral.
This is ipse dixit. If you view this argument as meriting such a no response, why include it at all?
Because people make it with alarming frequency.
And you saying essentially “this is wrong” with just a bit fancier language helps how?
I gave a counterexample, rather than just asserting it's wrong.