Be civil and follow principle of charity in the comments.
Would it be okay if it was with a grotesque human-animal chimera capable of superintelligence asking for a friend
A sufficient majority of people want to eat animals, but not a sufficient majority of people want to fuck them. Morality is indeed completely subjective and defined only by culture
My theory on ethics is that it’s survival tools for hunter gatherer societies.
Eat meat, be strong. Good.
Fuck animal? Animal might bite, give you disease, and you are not making baby. Bad.
But if make baby good?
Unga bunga good
Extremist vegan or zoophilia apologist? We may never know.
This is the same type of arguments pedophiles make when they compare their mental illness to being gay.
People have already explained very articulately that killing an animal for food is different from fucking it for pleasure and dominance. Because let’s be real, that is the only reason why anyone would ever rape an animal.
We can definitely have a discussion on the amount of meat consumption and how it needs to be cut down significantly for both the sake of the environment and for the same of animal welfare and human health, but my experience is that everytime this type of argument is brought up, it tends to be a thinly veiled attempt at normalizing zoophilia.
I hope you don’t have any pets, OP.
“It’s called ‘inter-species erotica’, Fuck-o.”
Kelly can be a guy’s name too! Hooooo
The question is on social acceptance of killing innocent animals while condemning zoophila. How come murder of innocent accepted but rape is considered a sin? Should we not come to an ideal conclusion and stop both?
They weren’t replying seriously. It’s a reference to the film “Clerks II.”
Those same people do not actually kill animals. They eat meat, there is a disconnect here. I would wager if everyone had to kill and process the meat they eat that consumption would go down considerably.
Sexual morality is rooted in consent. Mortal morality is not.
So Killing animal without their permission is right. But Sex with animal without their permission is wrong. It isn’t consistent. It feels like we are just giving justifications for far worse crime because we have benefits associated with it.
The moral standing of a killing is completely unrelated to consent for most people. Most would say murder doesn’t become moral because the victim was suicidal. The killing itself is the basis for the moral stance, not the desires of the victim. The act is valued. Consent is neutral.
Sexual interaction is different. It does not necessitate a state change. It can be done to positive effect if done with consent. But animals, much like children, are viewed as insufficiently capable of granting consent. The consent is the basis for the moral stance, not the act itself. Consent is valued. The act is neutral.
Consent is the core concept which makes assisted suicide different from murder. So, consent is eligible in both sexual manner and matter of existence. We didn’t ask for animals’ consent before raping or killing them.
Assisted suicide is suicide, performed by the dying individual. Assisting in a suicide is enabling a killing, but is not murder if done correctly. The one performing suicide is the active party, not simply granting consent to the actions of another.
To bring things back to the original point, rape and murder are covered by different ethical principles. Consent has no bearing on murder. Consent is definitive for rape.
In assisted suicide, people consent to die a dignified death on paper and after government’s approval further medical procedures are performed by the professionals. I don’t see any problem here. Similarly I would have no problem with humans killing animals if animals start consenting to be killed. That’s not the case. Whole social acceptance of killing of innocent animals and condemnation of rape feels like a show were Murderers are pointing out fingers at the rapists with the sense of moral superiority.
Assisted suicides do not consent to die. They request to die. They initiate the process themselves rather than allow the desire of others to dictate events. There is a subtle but important distinction.
Because ~90% of people don’t actually think about morality deeper than ‘gross, icky.’ If that seems high I’m also including in that people who start with the reaction and work backwards looking for justifications.
Both acts have never been about consensus. They are defined morally and legally by culture and tradition. There are societies where eating meet is illegal and zoophilia is legal.
Zoophilia imparts trauma.
Death relieves a being of trauma. There ain’t more trauma when you are dead. And when done correctly, death in an abattoir is largely instantaneous.
Of the two, the former is more immoral when focusing on lingering or ongoing trauma.
Killing is a bigger crime than non-consensual sex because killing eradicates said animal from gene-pool and ends its potential progeny/generation. We try to justify killing of innocent animals because we are beneficiaries of that injustice. Benefits is corrupting our sense of morality. As for Zoophilia, it’s non-censensual sex, less harmful than killing. Killing is also considered a bigger crime (than rape) in jurisdiction of humans.
Everybody’s gotta eat, but not everyone’s gotta fuck a dog
No one has to eat meat, in fact with all the space used for animals we could produce way more food instead.
Cool idea: don’t presuppose what literally every human needs based on your narrow worldview. Without significant animal fat and protein I wouldn’t be able live.
No, I’m not going to get into specifics, but also, no, I cannot get my current nutritional needs (and still desire to eat) by cutting animal products and biproducts in my diet.
No one has to eat meat
People with crohn’s or colostomy bags would disagree.
in fact with all the space used for animals we could produce way more food instead.
The space used for animals is grassland and doesn’t have the right soil to be cropland. i.e. if all animals disappeared tomorrow we wouldn’t get any more cropland at all.
With one exception being the animals that are fed with crops.
We wouldn’t grow more crops in total, but more would be available for human consumption.
We wouldn’t grow more crops in total, but more would be available for human consumption.
The bulk of animal food from crops isn’t human edible, i.e. the leftover waste. Cows have an amazing ruminant digestive system that can process plant food that humans can’t!
Then who has to fuck a dog? Didn’t you mean noone has to fuck a dog?
Paging lemmy.world/u/noone
what do you have to say for yourself?
I think their point is that there are options to not eat the dog either.
Are there more people then having sex with dogs than there are those who eat them?
False premise. Zoophilia isn’t condemned because animal rights etc. It’s condemned because ‘ew WTF we don’t want people doing that, to the extent that we will make laws against it.’
It’s the same reason that we have laws against incest. Had laws against homosexuality.
I’m not saying it should be allowed because we (some of us) grew up and realised that laws against homosexuality were stupid. Just that, that is the reason. Collective societal disgust. It’s only justified by using animal rights (and rightly so, because EW) the same way we justified antihomo laws because it goes against some obscure biblical / Koranic rule.
It’s the same reason that we have laws against incest.
I’d argue it’s also the fact that because of the low genetic diversity of the parents children born from incest have a higher chance of developing genetical diseases.
The chance is lower than most people presume but at the same time: why gamble?
Yes but that is also a rationalization after the fact. First, it was ew, then we figured out that there were also rational reasons against it.
First, it was ew, then we figured out that there were also rational reasons against it.
Well, actually, it’s the other way around. Evolutionary speaking, there was a disavantage to inbreeding, so the “ew” evolved because of that. We think inbreeding is wrong because evolution taught us that it lowers the chance of survival for our offspring.
deleted by creator
While surely there is some genetic component at play there it appears to be primarily motivated by the primate social adaptation system.
This seems like a strange argument, because “the primate social adaptation system” is also ultimately governed by evolution. Obviously a primate group with a social tendency towards incest would have worse survival rates than a primate group with a social aversion to incest, and that social fabric definitely is tied to evolution (unless you mean to imply that our social fabric did not arise from evolution, but I don’t think that’s what you’re saying).
Also, I don’t see how this can have anything in particular to do with primates and their social constructs as incest is avoided by all animals, as far as I am aware. It is not a purely human or primate thing, incest is bad for all animals and so they have all evolved via evolution to avoid it. I’d say the Westermarck effect is just the result of that evolution - obviously humans can’t directly read genetic code, so the mind assumes that whoever you grew up with must be your close relatives, and that’s good enough of a signal in 99% of cases, so that’s what evolution went with.
deleted by creator
We don’t eat wood chips and don’t like the way they taste, not because they are bad for us, but rather because we would rather eat potato chips.
I’m sorry but I find this premise completely ridiculous - obviously we don’t like how they taste because they are bad for us. Evolution isn’t only about preference, it’s also about avoiding stuff, like poison or rotten food or woodchips or whatever. I don’t think we can come to an agreement on such a premise.
the “ew” evolved because of that.
i don’t know how you could possibly prove this, but i would love to see you try.
You can’t really definitively prove a theory like that I think. I’m no biologist so I’m not an expert by any means, but we can’t go back in time to see why evolution did what it did. We can only guess from what we have right now.
That said, such an “ew” response to incest surely is not just coincidence. It must have arose for a reason, just like all of our emotions evolved for a reason. For example, we also experience disgust when smelling or tasting rotten milk, because drinking rotten stuff is bad for survival too, so evolution made us have that response, because it would lower the chance of us drinking spoiled milk. There’s nothing “inherently disgusting” about incest or spoiled milk. We only find those things disgusting because they are bad, evolutionarily speaking.
And btw this isn’t restricted to humans obviously, all animals avoid having offspring with their close family, so this is a very deep-rooted behavior.
It’s been the norm in many countries for centuries, so can’t have been seen as EW as you claim
Those laws and customs predates knowledge of genetics significantly.
Humans may not have consciously known that incest was bad, but evolution made us think so before we were even humans.
AllSome animals avoid incest, it’s not just humans. We only created those laws and customs because evolution already made us believe that incest is bad. It’s pre-programmed in us, so to speak.All animals avoid incest
That isn’t even remotely true.
Fair - but humans are definitely not the only animals that do.
That’s a great justification for the EW
What about same sex incest, or where one or both partners are sterile, or between adopted siblings who aren’t related genetically? That would still be considered wrong, right? Even though there wouldn’t be genetic consequences
Personally? IDGF about what two consenting adults do in bed. My only objection is when it comes to children being born from incest because of the higher risk of genetic diseases.
between adopted siblings who aren’t related genetically?
Don’t know where you from but AFAIK that’s perfectly legal in Germany.
My only objection is when it comes to children being born from incest because of the higher risk of genetic diseases.
But that’s still not a 100% consistent argument and it leans into another morally complex topic: eugenics.
Because, if you argue that way, you’d have to clarify your stance towards people with genetic diseases/disabilities in general.
And if you follow the logic, we would also have to shun/abolish sexual relations between people with genetic disease or who carry the respective alleles, so that their offspring have a higher chance of inheriting a disease (in some cases way higher than with random siblings).
It might be the root cause, why there seem to be marriage rules in most human societies, that exclude intermarrying of siblings (especially considering that the risks increase drastically if you keep procreating that way for generations), but the current taboo is not entirely rational and seems more based on cultural tradition than current understanding.
Again, personally: As I have one confirmed genetically transmitted condition and one suspected genetically transmitted condition this is a dilemma close to my heart and TBF I haven’t reached a final conclusion for myself yet. On one hand I think it is unethical to conceive a child knowing full well, that they have a considerable higher risk of disease, and yet I don’t think GATTACA was meant as an instruction manual. As so often in life the answer is somewhere in the middle.
It’s the same reason that we have laws against incest. Had laws against homosexuality.
I don’t think this is right. We have laws against incest, because we were programmed by evolution to think incest is bad. The causal chain is:
- Incest lowers survival rates,
- Evolution causes humans to find incest disgusting to increase survival rates,
- Humans create laws to abolish incest because they find it disgusting.
Homosexuality is not like that at all, if I understand correctly (which I may not, tbf). Homosexuality may in fact be a evolutionary trait that is selected for in a certain sense, or it may just be a side-effect of other evolutionary efforts. For instance, having a homosexual uncle could be beneficial to you, as he would spend less time taking care of his own kids (obviously won’t have any) and more time taking care of you. The uncle’s genes would have no incentive to do this and evolution would not pressure the uncle to become homosexual, but your common ancestor (your grandparents on one side) would benefit as your genes would be helped along by your uncle, and so evolution could have caused homosexuality to occur ever so often, to produce one of these “helpful uncles”.
This is exactly why many indigenous cultures put an emphasis on thanking the animal for their meat.
Can I not also thank a squirrel after sex?
Why a squirrel specifically? 🤣 dear Lord, you’re an evil spirit 😅
Predisposed to consuming nuts
(I’m gonna regret this one later)
From what I’ve been told by rape victims, I’d much rather be murdered.
Who do you personally consider a bigger criminal?
- Human murdering other animal without their consent?
- Human raping other animal without their consent?
(We are making judgments solely based on the animal’s perspective. So we can’t include disingenuous human arguments like “They died a noble death for our survival”.)
raping an animal is still worse. Morally, killing animals is bad but it does provide a method of survival wether it’s moral or amoral, raping an animal is just a sick and twisted desire that is not only gross and unnatural but also does not provide any method for survival, so while no it’s not noble like your premise claims the argument to be it’s just seem as societally gross for a good reason.
From the animal’s perspective, you could argue rape continues their species and therefor is natural like killing, cannibalism etc. but that doesn’t change the dynamic between humans and animals. To the animal, dying is death and it’s something every living thing has to do, getting raped/rape is not
Through Animal’s perspective - Raping an animal is bad but Killing is worst outcome as it removes them from the gene pool, which means they can’t be able to produce their offspring and continue their progeny/generation. ~ Humans justify killing animals because they think through their own benefits, because they neglect animal’s perspective.
Right, I think a lot of my understanding does revolve around being a human and I cannot separate myself from that morality & most animals are driven by survival if that makes sense. This question is so fucking wild
There is no logical consistency except what allows the continued survival and flourishing of life and the human race.
Having sex with animals could get you sick and cause all sorts of problems. Eating animals on the other hand can extend your life beyond a few days and perhaps even into years after you can no longer drink your mother’s milk and has very few downsides, especially with the invention of cooking. Sure, we don’t need the source of sustenance that is meat today when we have several times more food than is necessary to feed the whole globe and then throw a lot of it away, but this wasn’t true for the vast majority of our history. People only a few hundred years ago had to scrape for every protein they could find.
There’s no special moral reason because we didn’t decide. It’s just an instinct, though one that we can examine and ignore if we want.
