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)
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?
As a utilitarian what are your views on sexual consent, that from what I understand the "its good to involuntarily plug everyone into a experience machine" seems to suggest that you don't have a theory of consent, if so do you not have a theory of sexual consent? instead relying on something like hedonic calculus to determine the wrongness or rightness of some action.
"The utilitarian has a pretty good account of this. Sex with animals is normally wrong because it typically harms the animals and risks spreading disease. Sex between animals of the same species is typically enjoyable and does not risk spreading disease the way it does if it is between people and animals." Not an expert in the relevant fields but from what I understand a standard belief in those circles is that the risk of disease is actually lower, so by utilitarian standards its not that they have incorrect moral beliefs about bestiality but rather that they have incorrect positive beliefs about the risk of disease. Also your use of the word "typically" is fairly questionable, that presumably many individual zoophiles take measures to minimise such risks, and that in those cases is not the standard utilitarian view that such activity would be not merely permissible but morally good?
Isn't a good intuitionist response something like "it seems to me that having sex with non human animals (even in cases where total utility increases) is very bad", that judging by the reaction to this article isn't this a widely held common sense view, something similar to "stomping babies to death is very bad".
"Ordinarily, we think that if, for example, two ducks want to have sex, we shouldn’t stop them. But why is this?" Knowing the horrors of duck rape do you personally think this? if so why? is it that you think the hedonic costs associated with duck rape are outweighed by benefits of having a population of ducks (ignoring other ways one might create ducks).
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)
What exactly are the "full ramifications" of sex btw fish?"
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.
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?
As a utilitarian what are your views on sexual consent, that from what I understand the "its good to involuntarily plug everyone into a experience machine" seems to suggest that you don't have a theory of consent, if so do you not have a theory of sexual consent? instead relying on something like hedonic calculus to determine the wrongness or rightness of some action.
"The utilitarian has a pretty good account of this. Sex with animals is normally wrong because it typically harms the animals and risks spreading disease. Sex between animals of the same species is typically enjoyable and does not risk spreading disease the way it does if it is between people and animals." Not an expert in the relevant fields but from what I understand a standard belief in those circles is that the risk of disease is actually lower, so by utilitarian standards its not that they have incorrect moral beliefs about bestiality but rather that they have incorrect positive beliefs about the risk of disease. Also your use of the word "typically" is fairly questionable, that presumably many individual zoophiles take measures to minimise such risks, and that in those cases is not the standard utilitarian view that such activity would be not merely permissible but morally good?
Isn't a good intuitionist response something like "it seems to me that having sex with non human animals (even in cases where total utility increases) is very bad", that judging by the reaction to this article isn't this a widely held common sense view, something similar to "stomping babies to death is very bad".
"Ordinarily, we think that if, for example, two ducks want to have sex, we shouldn’t stop them. But why is this?" Knowing the horrors of duck rape do you personally think this? if so why? is it that you think the hedonic costs associated with duck rape are outweighed by benefits of having a population of ducks (ignoring other ways one might create ducks).
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.