5 ms·

Disturbing, but valid point.

by n3rdy 14y ago

doktrin 14y ago
It's actually a fairly shallow argument, of the "it's hip to be libertarian" variety. Does it apply to domestic animals? Does the argument extend to animal torture? If not, then why? Which animal cruelty laws should we strip from the books? Note to self : when debating the legal and moral ramifications beastiality on HN at 2 in the morning, go to bed.
- n3rdy 14y ago
  It can go the other way too. Should it be illegal to kill animals for food? How is bestiality more cruel to an animal than how some pigs are raised in factory farms, or veal, or the frequent abuse of chickens that we've turned a blind eye to? What about animal testing in laboratories?
  - skorgu 14y ago
    Not the OP but it should be (and generally /is/) illegal to be cruel to animals even if you're going to end up eating them. Pain is much more morally questionable than death; I'd vastly rather simply cease being alive than have some horrible suffering inflicted on me. That we don't seem to care about enforcing those laws is one thing but simply saying "cruelty is illegal and rape is cruelty" doesn't sound inherently incompatible with eating meat.
  - dalke 14y ago
    Where does the argument stop? Why limit yourself to vertebrates, or even animals? Is it cruel to poison an ant nest in your yard? Is it cruel to eat wheat, cut down at the prime of its life? What about corn, which wouldn't exist without human intervention? Is sex with a flower, a plant sex organ, count as bestiality? Humans can empathize with things which aren't humans, and with animals is relatively easy to empathize with pain. The laws are a function of, among other things, our level of empathy with a species and its use for other means. Dogs and cats, beloved by many, take a very special place in our laws, while tasty chickens are less so. Lowly wheat is neutral on the empathy scale, while most are decidedly not fond of roaches. The balance of concerns changes over time. Should some day we be able to synthesize meat directly ("Panda meat while you wait!" "Put some tiger in your tummy today!"), then I predict there will be a larger call for "more ethical" treatment of animals currently raised for food. The arguments against bestiality vary. Some just think it's squicky, which is likely an aspect of empathy. Others think that in human cultures, sex must be consensual (not rape), by people who can make an informed decision (not children, not unconscious), and without the taint of a power imbalance (boss/employee, teacher/student). Though even then, an adult child having sex with a parent is also squicky by many despite passing these rules. Empathy with animals extends that view to animals, and it's hard to tell if an animal consents, and is not doing so from power imbalance. I am not an ethicist, but I think this gives an outline of the factors by which we tend to say that sex with delicious pigs is a no-no while sex with pretty flowers is odd, but not specifically regulated.
89a 14y ago
Not really valid, a steak is already dead and no longer suffering. An animal that's been raped still feels pain

Disturbing, but valid point.

by n3rdy 14y ago

Disturbing, but valid point.

It's actually a fairly shallow argument, of the "it's hip to be libertarian" variety. Does it apply to domestic animals? Does the argument extend to animal torture? If not, then why? Which animal cruelty laws should we strip from the books? Note to self : when debating the legal and moral ramifications beastiality on HN at 2 in the morning, go to bed.

n3rdy 14y ago
It can go the other way too. Should it be illegal to kill animals for food? How is bestiality more cruel to an animal than how some pigs are raised in factory farms, or veal, or the frequent abuse of chickens that we've turned a blind eye to? What about animal testing in laboratories?
- skorgu 14y ago
  Not the OP but it should be (and generally /is/) illegal to be cruel to animals even if you're going to end up eating them. Pain is much more morally questionable than death; I'd vastly rather simply cease being alive than have some horrible suffering inflicted on me. That we don't seem to care about enforcing those laws is one thing but simply saying "cruelty is illegal and rape is cruelty" doesn't sound inherently incompatible with eating meat.
- dalke 14y ago
  Where does the argument stop? Why limit yourself to vertebrates, or even animals? Is it cruel to poison an ant nest in your yard? Is it cruel to eat wheat, cut down at the prime of its life? What about corn, which wouldn't exist without human intervention? Is sex with a flower, a plant sex organ, count as bestiality? Humans can empathize with things which aren't humans, and with animals is relatively easy to empathize with pain. The laws are a function of, among other things, our level of empathy with a species and its use for other means. Dogs and cats, beloved by many, take a very special place in our laws, while tasty chickens are less so. Lowly wheat is neutral on the empathy scale, while most are decidedly not fond of roaches. The balance of concerns changes over time. Should some day we be able to synthesize meat directly ("Panda meat while you wait!" "Put some tiger in your tummy today!"), then I predict there will be a larger call for "more ethical" treatment of animals currently raised for food. The arguments against bestiality vary. Some just think it's squicky, which is likely an aspect of empathy. Others think that in human cultures, sex must be consensual (not rape), by people who can make an informed decision (not children, not unconscious), and without the taint of a power imbalance (boss/employee, teacher/student). Though even then, an adult child having sex with a parent is also squicky by many despite passing these rules. Empathy with animals extends that view to animals, and it's hard to tell if an animal consents, and is not doing so from power imbalance. I am not an ethicist, but I think this gives an outline of the factors by which we tend to say that sex with delicious pigs is a no-no while sex with pretty flowers is odd, but not specifically regulated.

89a 14y ago

Not really valid, a steak is already dead and no longer suffering. An animal that's been raped still feels pain