The principle of harm is a principle applicable to nature. And what is meant of nature is not what is possible. What is meant of nature is "the principle of being that draws into reason what makes a thing intelligible as member of a kind". So we see this is not about what can be done to a thing, but rather what is rational in use to a kind within its system. The powers of every kind should be limited to the intelligible order for the act to be in of itself rational. And the rationality is what determines the morality.
You're asking about the overall societal attitude, yes?
Well, truth is, they are both just fine by society. And they are also both horrid and depraved.
Because the difference maker... is money. Money as a motivation greenlights just about anything to the late stage capitalist. Here is the american kennel club's advice on jacking off male dogs:
Some vet pages about making female cats cum to "control their estrus cycle". Which is something you can just go have a vet do to her, and breeders often do it on their own.
You're a vegan, did you forget how factory farms make more cows? A whole lot of fisting, and they don't exactly take dissent either.
And of course you can buy animal semen as well. Granted, that's much more hassle than a burger.
Now let's flip around to the opposite end. What if I were to do all the torture and murder of a factory farm worker, but without any of the material gain – just for my own personal pleasure? Society wouldn't like that very much actually! I'd be called a sicko! I need to get paid to make it okay.
Well, actually, it doesn't always have to be money. It just absolutely definitely super cannot be pleasure, whether the human's or the animal's. Because THAT'S disgusting.
If you wanna follow me on a tangential topic, I'd be curious how you justify your foregone conclusion of bestiality involving harm/rape that seems to underly the entirety of your post, by the way.
Sex is an emotional & psychological act, not just a physical one. Sharing such an extreme level of intimacy with a creature that cannot comprehend or consent is a sign of an utterly debased person.
While it may be different on the side of the animal (the victim) on the human's side it is quite similar to someone who would rape a child.
They are either completely uncaring about the impact on the creature they are "connecting" with or are so deluded they've convinced themselves it "consented." Either way, this is a sociopathic sensation addict of the worst sort, a junkie who will do pretty much anything to satisfy their craving.
Bestiality is wrong because of the consequences it has on humans, not the consequences it has on the other animals. Most of human morality is entangled with adaptive evolutionary mechanisms related to the well-being and survival of... humans. This is not weird, new or hard.
This seems to be a flawed analysis. You assume a scenario in which case bestiality is beneficial for humans due to it being hedonistically pleasurable for the person committing the act. However, bestiality is inherently bad for a society given the terrible health implications for a society which commits bestiality. This is an extension of the moral argument against incest.
You're treating the morality of an act as though it exists within a vacuum when it is not so. For example, in your response to Jessie, you state that you "find the idea of masturbating while looking at pictures of corpses gross, but it's not immoral." The distinction here is that while the act itself is not inherently immoral, it does indeed point to a broader increased likelihood of immorality.
Bestiality is not more immoral than eating animals *in a vacuum*, but a society which engages in bestiality would absolutely be more morally and medically unstable than the one in which we exist now.
I believe your analysis is flawed due to the dismissal of the reasons for sociological dogmas. Chesterton's fence and all that.
Depending on the premise here, I think there is a flaw in the analysis. If you are asking the reader why bestiality is objectively immoral and eating meat is not, no objections here. Objectively speaking, it does seem like there really is no moral difference (though I suspect we would fall on different sides of this debate). However, if you are asking how people in general believe there is a moral difference, this post goes astray. In my opinion, you had it right at the very beginning: people think bestiality is gross and eating meat is not. The key difference here though from your blobfish example is that there is a human element. Because a human is involved in an act that also seems gross, that may make it immoral to the casual viewer. However, as you would point out, there are plenty of gross things humans do that are not seen as immoral; a key difference may be that it is a human plus another living organism which may enhance the grossness. The other difference may be social acceptance or social momentum: this is not a widely held or practiced phenomenon and people continue to avoid practicing it. Combine this with the fact that it seems gross and a human is involved with another living thing in the practice, we now have a formula that would seem to match this and other cases. Incest is the classic case: if a brother and sister decide to have safe sex, this is seen as immoral because it is gross (for various historical and biological reasons), involves a human being with another human being, and it is not a widely performed practice. Another is organ markets: taking organs out of other people and putting them in other people is gross, the surgery involves several human beings (donor, recipient, doctor), and paying for organs is not openly (or at least legally) practiced. This formula may not be completely robust, but I think it at least gets closer to answering your question and getting to the bottom of this "popular morality" puzzle.
If I speak
The principle of harm is a principle applicable to nature. And what is meant of nature is not what is possible. What is meant of nature is "the principle of being that draws into reason what makes a thing intelligible as member of a kind". So we see this is not about what can be done to a thing, but rather what is rational in use to a kind within its system. The powers of every kind should be limited to the intelligible order for the act to be in of itself rational. And the rationality is what determines the morality.
My answer is not what you expect.
Nope, not even after reading my username.
You're asking about the overall societal attitude, yes?
Well, truth is, they are both just fine by society. And they are also both horrid and depraved.
Because the difference maker... is money. Money as a motivation greenlights just about anything to the late stage capitalist. Here is the american kennel club's advice on jacking off male dogs:
https://www.akc.org/expert-advice/dog-breeding/what-to-expect-when-you-collect/.
Some vet pages about making female cats cum to "control their estrus cycle". Which is something you can just go have a vet do to her, and breeders often do it on their own.
https://veteriankey.com/feline-reproduction/
http://therio.vetmed.lsu.edu/controlling_the_female_estrous.htm
You're a vegan, did you forget how factory farms make more cows? A whole lot of fisting, and they don't exactly take dissent either.
And of course you can buy animal semen as well. Granted, that's much more hassle than a burger.
Now let's flip around to the opposite end. What if I were to do all the torture and murder of a factory farm worker, but without any of the material gain – just for my own personal pleasure? Society wouldn't like that very much actually! I'd be called a sicko! I need to get paid to make it okay.
Well, actually, it doesn't always have to be money. It just absolutely definitely super cannot be pleasure, whether the human's or the animal's. Because THAT'S disgusting.
If you wanna follow me on a tangential topic, I'd be curious how you justify your foregone conclusion of bestiality involving harm/rape that seems to underly the entirety of your post, by the way.
Sex is an emotional & psychological act, not just a physical one. Sharing such an extreme level of intimacy with a creature that cannot comprehend or consent is a sign of an utterly debased person.
While it may be different on the side of the animal (the victim) on the human's side it is quite similar to someone who would rape a child.
They are either completely uncaring about the impact on the creature they are "connecting" with or are so deluded they've convinced themselves it "consented." Either way, this is a sociopathic sensation addict of the worst sort, a junkie who will do pretty much anything to satisfy their craving.
Bestiality is wrong because of the consequences it has on humans, not the consequences it has on the other animals. Most of human morality is entangled with adaptive evolutionary mechanisms related to the well-being and survival of... humans. This is not weird, new or hard.
This seems to be a flawed analysis. You assume a scenario in which case bestiality is beneficial for humans due to it being hedonistically pleasurable for the person committing the act. However, bestiality is inherently bad for a society given the terrible health implications for a society which commits bestiality. This is an extension of the moral argument against incest.
You're treating the morality of an act as though it exists within a vacuum when it is not so. For example, in your response to Jessie, you state that you "find the idea of masturbating while looking at pictures of corpses gross, but it's not immoral." The distinction here is that while the act itself is not inherently immoral, it does indeed point to a broader increased likelihood of immorality.
Bestiality is not more immoral than eating animals *in a vacuum*, but a society which engages in bestiality would absolutely be more morally and medically unstable than the one in which we exist now.
I believe your analysis is flawed due to the dismissal of the reasons for sociological dogmas. Chesterton's fence and all that.
Depending on the premise here, I think there is a flaw in the analysis. If you are asking the reader why bestiality is objectively immoral and eating meat is not, no objections here. Objectively speaking, it does seem like there really is no moral difference (though I suspect we would fall on different sides of this debate). However, if you are asking how people in general believe there is a moral difference, this post goes astray. In my opinion, you had it right at the very beginning: people think bestiality is gross and eating meat is not. The key difference here though from your blobfish example is that there is a human element. Because a human is involved in an act that also seems gross, that may make it immoral to the casual viewer. However, as you would point out, there are plenty of gross things humans do that are not seen as immoral; a key difference may be that it is a human plus another living organism which may enhance the grossness. The other difference may be social acceptance or social momentum: this is not a widely held or practiced phenomenon and people continue to avoid practicing it. Combine this with the fact that it seems gross and a human is involved with another living thing in the practice, we now have a formula that would seem to match this and other cases. Incest is the classic case: if a brother and sister decide to have safe sex, this is seen as immoral because it is gross (for various historical and biological reasons), involves a human being with another human being, and it is not a widely performed practice. Another is organ markets: taking organs out of other people and putting them in other people is gross, the surgery involves several human beings (donor, recipient, doctor), and paying for organs is not openly (or at least legally) practiced. This formula may not be completely robust, but I think it at least gets closer to answering your question and getting to the bottom of this "popular morality" puzzle.