OddlyEnough at 23 Jun 2006: 13:51
I am afraid that I do not know to make quotes as others so, so forgive me for my mere copy / pasting.
>>889 - Hello Svansfall.
I am not sure if I read you correctly. Are you saying that the animal does not know that she enjoys the pleasure, and is only seeking the pleasure because she does not know any better, and that I would be showing her more respect by not giving her the pleasure that she is seeking?
If that is what you meant, I must disagree. Stimulation of genitalia is enjoyed by many individuals, and they are fully aware that they find it enjoyable. I'll repeat something I've said before now, in case you've not read all posts: When they are in heat, they are trying their best to relieve their sexual tension by rubbing themselves up against trees, or anything similar they can find. This is rarely sufficient and usually leaves them frustrated and annoyed. Once they have been stimulated and brought to orgasm, their sexual tension lessens, and they calm down and relax."
I am not sure where the confusion lies, because I haven't made any claims as to the abilities of animals to experience pleasure, or whether or not any individual animal would choose to seek pleasure in such a manner 'if it knew better' (which I take to say if it have mental capacities similar to that of humans, or at least much improved).
I believe you also misunderstand my use of respect. We have duties to treat others with respect (recognition and affirmation of their rational choice and autonomy), perhaps whether or not such a creature is 'deserving' of such respect (although I believe many supporters of animal-human sexual relations would be loath to claim that they are not).
By engaging in sexual relations, we violate a duty we have to obtain fully informed and rational considered agreement to engage in the sexual activity with any individuals. By obtaining this 'consent,' we affirm their autonomy. By not doing so, we strongly violate it. At least on the subject of sex.
As such, one will have wronged by violating our duty of respect (in a sense "disrespecting" the other). However, the wrong does not come from the fact that we have "disrespected" that other, but because we have violated our duty not to do so.
The distinction here is strange for some, but there reasons for it, namely having to do with the defense of constraints and arguments against consequentialsm.
Showing respect is a different kind of use of the word respect. My use is more along the lines of recognition and affirmation of autonomy, yours is more of recognition and affirmation of desires. It is not 'respecting' something to fufill its desires under my definition. It is benificent. And as I said, I believe our duty to be benificent is outweight by our duty of respect.
This issue also gets more complicated when you have to consider things such as physician assisted suicide, abortion, and so on... but this is a furry board, and a topic on beastiality, no? We can consider those subjects at another time.
I hope this clears things up. I don't think you were being equivocal, and I hope there is no more confusion. Please feel free to ask for clairification or offer more criticism of my opinion. I hold no disrespect for you for doing so, and actually welcome such opportunities to test and refine my moral beliefs, for without such opportunities I would surely hold a much more simple and base belief than I do now.
- - - - -
>>885 , Hello GrapeTang
Yo man, that's a cool way of looking at things, but it only builds a frame right? There's still no way of measuring the "degrees" of right and wrong when weighing duty, respect, and benifit, especially when other complications enter the picture. I mean, by definition, if the anti-zoos are right, then the zoos are deviant, and possibly unstable.
How would insanity fit in here? If someone was delusional enough to believe that what they were doing WAS respectful, does that make it right when they're doing it, and wrong when other people do it? I'm guessing no (murder and such), but then where do you draw the line? How crazy is crazy? I mean, there's people who think their dogs talk. They're out of their minds. Then there's people who think dogs are just dogs, and don't worry about the deeper implications. Sane people, ie, the majority. Some fall between, including zoophiles.
Me... I think some of them are delusional and are seeing what they want to see instead of what's there, and I'm pretty sure the rest just like to fuck animals, and don't sweat the moral issues unless pressed to justify themselves (most would use denial I imagine, except online where it's "safe"). But I can't really explain why I think zoophiles are nutty or amoral, while... I dunno... golfers are just normal. I mean, how much habitat gets wiped out to make a golf course?
Anyhow, thanks for brining something kinda new to the table, and don't sweat the read. If you read the first 200, you read the whole thing... or you may as well have."
Thank you for your compliment. One of the reasons I had for turning to believe in this theory over a more strictly Kantian one was the issue of beastiality, among others. Other victim-focused theories I considered could not find a way to object to beastiality, whereas an agent-focused one can.
The first objection you raise is actually a very difficult problem for any moral theory, even in ones where you define the right / good on very simple terms (like utilitarianism does). Its not one that can be easily answered, because it involves giving quantification to something without definite measure! In the end, it really isn't possible to apply moral theories to things like law without being arbitrary (Although law itself is arbitrary too in our perception of the wrongness of various criminal acts). You just have to consider the weights of various duties yourself do the best you can. No moral theory is 'the right one.' Not to say that m
I'm not sure what you mean by saying that "I mean, by definition, if the anti-zoos are right, then the zoos are deviant, and possibly unstable." It may be that they are acting immorally, and they certainly are deviant in that it is not a 'societally accepted' practice, but I wouldn't go so far as to make claim to their mental states.
Your question of insanity actually brings up an interesting problem. My theory is more concerned with people not violating their own duties rather than making sure that there are the least number of violations. The duties are prima facie ('pre-existing' in a sense), so that people do not understand them or become delusional is not an issue.
A delusional man who violates his duties is committing immoral acts, but he is likely not blameworthy for them. This is a very important distinction which is to some counter intuitive, but if you think about it is not hard to see. (We don't say that the person has done nothing wrong, but he isn't at fault for it because of his abnormal mental state.)
The problem that is brought up is whether or not others should stop him. Although now that I think about it, it isn't much of an issue, because our duties would say that stopping him from murdering is benificent (both to him and his victim) in a way that outweighs respecting the autonomy which he cannot exercise.
It also may be the case that agents do not act in the optimal moral fashion a majority of the time. It is kind of a depressing thought, but it is true.
One interesting side effect of my kind of theory which you may find interesting is that I don't believe I have a right to life, and mean it! What I really believe is that other people have a duty not to kill me.
- - - - -
>>890 , DragonFlame
"Yes, it is possible to Rape an animal. One does not need to understand the definition of an act to have it performed upon them unless the very meaning of the act is based on that understanding. I cannot think of such an activity off the top of my head."
The definition of the act based on law? That I am not entirely sure. If you read my previous posts, you can probably glean that I would understand rape as violation of the duty of respect in regards to sexual activity and intercourse.
"HOW do you KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt that an animal cannot understand consent?"
How do you know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they do?
(A response will probably have to in involve an explanation of your criterion of knowledge, or at least an explanation of your definiton of consent)
Until next time.