3 ms·

Your argument could equally be used to justify criminalizing gay sex as long as it happens in a country where it's illegal and people generally don't like it.

Your argument could equally be used to justify criminalizing gay sex as long as it happens in a country where it's illegal and people generally don't like it. No it can't. It's the notion of consent that is subject to legal interpretation. In a symmetric relationship like homosexuality how would consent apply? We think it's wrong for employers to advertise "Irish need not apply" but today employers advertise "work permit required" and to get a work permit, you're not allowed to be Irish except for some special cases. You seem to be missing my point. I'm not saying our categorizations aren't constructed and somewhat arbitrary. They are. What I'm saying is that your comparisons are poorly chosen. It's wise to wonder why we eat cows but not dogs. But a relationship between two consenting adults is not comparable to one between an adult and an animal. If you want to wonder why some farmers prefer sex with goats to sex with sheep, knock yourself out.

Hondor 10y ago
So you agree? Our ideas of right and wrong are largely arbitrary so we aren't actually very good people compared to our ancestors. Your main concern is that the examples I used to show that aren't as good as showing that we arbitrarily eat pigs but not dogs? Your argument using consent seems to be more arbitrary than it needs to be. The legal definition of consent isn't the reason we don't allow those things. That's just a tool we use to decide if it's a crime. The reason we don't allow them is probably because it can psychologically harm the children. I'm not sure about the reason for animals but it's probably more similar to the reason we don't eat dogs but we do kill and torture them. That is, it's not for the benefit of the animals, but something arbitrary in our culture.
- solipsism 10y ago
  Sorry but you aren't making much sense to me. Our ideas of right and wrong are largely arbitrary so we aren't actually very good people compared to our ancestors. This does not follow. The definition of "good people" hinges on a moral system, arbitrary as it may be.

Hondor 10y ago

So you agree? Our ideas of right and wrong are largely arbitrary so we aren't actually very good people compared to our ancestors. Your main concern is that the examples I used to show that aren't as good as showing that we arbitrarily eat pigs but not dogs? Your argument using consent seems to be more arbitrary than it needs to be. The legal definition of consent isn't the reason we don't allow those things. That's just a tool we use to decide if it's a crime. The reason we don't allow them is probably because it can psychologically harm the children. I'm not sure about the reason for animals but it's probably more similar to the reason we don't eat dogs but we do kill and torture them. That is, it's not for the benefit of the animals, but something arbitrary in our culture.

solipsism 10y ago
Sorry but you aren't making much sense to me. Our ideas of right and wrong are largely arbitrary so we aren't actually very good people compared to our ancestors. This does not follow. The definition of "good people" hinges on a moral system, arbitrary as it may be.