The utilitarian cannot say animals having sex with each other is fine even most of the time if wild animal suffering is a thing for that species (and it is for most species). Also, the consent theorist might be able escape the problem by appealing to agency. It’s wrong for (most) humans to have sex with an animal because we know better; we know it violates consent, and we would be the perpetrators of that wrong. Animals aren’t moral agents, so it isn’t even clear that they’re doing something wrong (violating consent) when they have sex. For very young children who aren’t yet moral agents, letting them have sex with each other might have negative consequences for them in the future, which is why it’s good to intervene on their behalf.
What about power dynamics as an explanation? Two 14 year-olds can consent to each other because there is no asymmetric power dynamic whereas this wouldn’t hold with a 14 year old and a 30 year old.
Similarly, if a human wants to have sex with a sheep the power dynamics are extremely one sided, but two sheep or humans not.
(This viewpoint would imply that if we encounter a relationship between a human and a creature who is much stronger and smarter than a human (e.g Smaug) we should also not consider this ethical of Smaug)
But most people think that we shouldn't allow two ten-year-olds to have sex with each other, for instance. It's also not clear two 14-year-olds can consent to sex with each other--I think most laws make that illegal.
Well they might get pregnant for one. But most people think that it’s wrong to have sex with animals because they can’t consent to the full ramifications of the action. So that would also apply to sex between animals.
I think most people would think it was wrong to have sex with a dog even if somehow the dog might get pregnant. Similarly most people think it’s not wrong for animals to have sex with each other even if they won’t get pregnant.
People have never encountered an extraordinary human capable of impregnating a dog. And if someone was capable of it, they might be reclassified as a dog. Just as I think people wouldn't object to the narrator of Kafka's "A Report for an Academy" being paired with "a small half-trained female chimpanzee" even though he can't tolerate her half-trained nature during the day.
If other species could not do what was required for them to reproduce, they would go extinct. Anyone who doesn't want all species to go extinct therefore cannot object to the existence of sex within a species. That same problem does not apply to anyone who objects to sex across species, which is not necessary for anything.
Does the paper you cite actually argue that there is a ”narrow range of circumstances in which bestiality is, while disgusting, not immoral”? I’m referring to the ”disgusting” bit here, does the paper say that or are those your words?
I greatly enjoyed the bestiality article. I used to think sex with animals has to be wrong for consent reasons, but that article opened me up to the possibility that certain animal behaviors can convey consent, and that even if they don't understand what sex is, they still only need to consent to whatever the human is doing that they understand. That's what's great about controversial opinions; they make us rethink our positions. The paper changed my mind. I am now pretty sure that sex with animals is fine.
The utilitarian cannot say animals having sex with each other is fine even most of the time if wild animal suffering is a thing for that species (and it is for most species). Also, the consent theorist might be able escape the problem by appealing to agency. It’s wrong for (most) humans to have sex with an animal because we know better; we know it violates consent, and we would be the perpetrators of that wrong. Animals aren’t moral agents, so it isn’t even clear that they’re doing something wrong (violating consent) when they have sex. For very young children who aren’t yet moral agents, letting them have sex with each other might have negative consequences for them in the future, which is why it’s good to intervene on their behalf.
What about power dynamics as an explanation? Two 14 year-olds can consent to each other because there is no asymmetric power dynamic whereas this wouldn’t hold with a 14 year old and a 30 year old.
Similarly, if a human wants to have sex with a sheep the power dynamics are extremely one sided, but two sheep or humans not.
(This viewpoint would imply that if we encounter a relationship between a human and a creature who is much stronger and smarter than a human (e.g Smaug) we should also not consider this ethical of Smaug)
But most people think that we shouldn't allow two ten-year-olds to have sex with each other, for instance. It's also not clear two 14-year-olds can consent to sex with each other--I think most laws make that illegal.
Really? Two 14 year olds who have consensual sex are breaking the law? Interesting I didn’t know that.
What exactly are the "full ramifications" of sex btw fish?"
Well they might get pregnant for one. But most people think that it’s wrong to have sex with animals because they can’t consent to the full ramifications of the action. So that would also apply to sex between animals.
There seems to be an obvious difference between inter vs intra-species sex: the latter is how a species reproduces, and the former is not.
I think most people would think it was wrong to have sex with a dog even if somehow the dog might get pregnant. Similarly most people think it’s not wrong for animals to have sex with each other even if they won’t get pregnant.
People have never encountered an extraordinary human capable of impregnating a dog. And if someone was capable of it, they might be reclassified as a dog. Just as I think people wouldn't object to the narrator of Kafka's "A Report for an Academy" being paired with "a small half-trained female chimpanzee" even though he can't tolerate her half-trained nature during the day.
If other species could not do what was required for them to reproduce, they would go extinct. Anyone who doesn't want all species to go extinct therefore cannot object to the existence of sex within a species. That same problem does not apply to anyone who objects to sex across species, which is not necessary for anything.
Does the paper you cite actually argue that there is a ”narrow range of circumstances in which bestiality is, while disgusting, not immoral”? I’m referring to the ”disgusting” bit here, does the paper say that or are those your words?
My words.
Ok, then how do you justify expressing emotive disapproval of something if you are convinced of a rational argument that it is not immoral?
I greatly enjoyed the bestiality article. I used to think sex with animals has to be wrong for consent reasons, but that article opened me up to the possibility that certain animal behaviors can convey consent, and that even if they don't understand what sex is, they still only need to consent to whatever the human is doing that they understand. That's what's great about controversial opinions; they make us rethink our positions. The paper changed my mind. I am now pretty sure that sex with animals is fine.