User:Peter Damian/Ethics

Ethics of zoophilia

Bestiality has been until recently been viewed with moral, judicial and aesthetic outrage. It was dismissed by the historian E.P.Evans as a 'disgusting crime' (Evans 1906 p.148). According to Kraft-Ebing (KE p. 561) it appears 'monstrous and revolting' to most of mankind. Is it an outrageous and perverse act or, as the law's increasing tolerance of it suggests, a relatively harmless form of sexual deviance?

The social sciences, including sociology and criminology, as well other disciplines such as Ethics and Philosophy, have almost completely neglected bestiality. However, there are at least four moral arguments that have been, or could be used to justify the belief that bestiality is wrong.

1. Bestiality is unnatural, and what is unnatural is wrong
2. Our feeling of revulsion against it dictates that it is wrong
3. It almost invariably involves cruelty, and cruelty is wrong
4. It involves sexual coercion, and sexual coercion is wrong.

Unnatural

That unnatural behaviour is wrong is an old idea. Thomas Aquinas quotes Augustine as arguing that unnatural sex is the worst sin, and justifies by the argument that that in any kind of thing, the worst of all the corruption of the principle on which the the things of that kind depend. Thus it is "most grave and shameful" (gravissimus et turpissimus) to act against the determination of nature. Unnatural sex comprises any act intended not for human generation but sexual pleasures, such as masturbation and homosexuality. The worst is the sin of bestiality, because use of the due species is not observed, where he quotes Genesis 37:2, "He accused his brethren of a most wicked crime," says that "they copulated with cattle."

The belief that bestiality is unnatural may be subject to the naturalistic fallacy.

It was described and named by British philosopher G. E. Moore in his 1903 book Principia Ethica. Moore stated that a naturalistic fallacy was committed whenever a philosopher attempts to prove a claim about ethics by appealing to a definition of the term "good" in terms of one or more natural properties (such as "pleasant", "more evolved", "desired", etc.).

Cross species sex does sometimes occur in nature.

Repugnant

Revolting or disgusting: visceral reaction to the bestiality. This was a position taken seriously by the moral philosophers of the eighteenth century, such as Hume, who believed that moral behaviour derives from a moral sentiment: a feeling of approval (esteem, praise) and disapproval (blame) felt by a person who contemplates a character trait or action

Cruel

Bestiality is claimed to involve cruelty because it often or always causes pain or suffering to animals [2]. The practice can lead to health risks to humans and other animals by the spread of brucellosis. Side effects are behavioural problems such as marking (inappropriate urination indoors), fighting and dominance displays on the owner. Animals naturally have specific limited duration breeding cycles with their own kind (for example, female dogs come into breeding estrus twice per year, the rest of the time the female in a period of diestrus for repair and rest. Females are only drawn to the males for breeding, and can breed only during a limited time of each of these cycles. Penetrating a female, possibly repeatedly during her out non-breeding cycles by means of bribery, coercion or dominance is clearly a form of cruelty, even if the owner persuades themselves it is consensual.

Beirne argues against increasing legal tolerance of bestiality, and claims that it should be understood as 'interspecies sexual assault' because the situation of animals as abused victims parallels that of women and that of infants and children; because human-animal sexual relations almost always involve coercion (such practices often causing animals suffering and even death); and because animals are unable either to communicate consent to us in a form that humans can readily understand or to speak out about their abuse.

The decriminalisation and the psychiatrisation of bestiality, and the drift to toleration of it suggests increasing civility and social progress. The practice is no longer punished by execution or severe penalities. But Beirne argues that this viewpoint is anthropocentric.

Especially in the case of smaller creatures like rabbits and hens, animals often suffer great pain and even death from human-animal sexual relations. While researchers have examined the physiological consequences of bestiality for humans , they pay no such attention to the internal bleeding, the ruptured anal passages, the bruised vaginas and the battered cloaca of animals, let alone to animals' psychological and emotional trauma.

Zoosexuality is seen by authorities as profoundly disturbed behaviour, as indicated by the UK Home Office review on sexual offences, 2002) Beetz also states there is significant evidence that violent zoosadistic approaches to sex with animals, often characterized by "binding, roping, threatening, beating", are linked to "violent behavior" and could be a "rehearsal for human-directed violence", however she says that the degree of violence used has not been asked. It is possible animals are traumatized even by a non-violent, sexual approach from a human. But if the approach is conducted with kindness and care and stopped if the animal shows signs of discomfort, as zoophiles describe ideal sexual interactions with animals, Beetz believes there's no need for trauma to result.

Utilitarian philosopher and animal liberation author Peter Singer argues that zoophilia is not unethical so long as it involves no harm or cruelty to the animal,

Sexual coercion

If we are to acknowledge of the sentience of animals, we must start with the fact that in almost every situation humans and animals exist in a relation of potential or actual coercion. Sexual coercion is whenever one party does not genuinely consent to sexual relations or does not have the ability to communicate consent to the other. The situation is the same as when adults have sexual relations with children or any persons or creatures who, for whatever reason, are unable to refuse participation. If unwanted sexual advances to women, to infants and children are to be treated as sexual assault, sexual advances to animals should be treated likewise.

It has been objected that animals can genuinely consent to sexual relations with humans, and that they enjoy it and benefit from it'. However Adams asserts that there is a similarity in the respective world views of the zoophiliac, the rapist and the child sexual abuser. 'They all view the sex they have with their victims as consensual,' she claims, 'and they believe it benefits their sexual "partners" as well as themselves' (1995a:30). Linzey also compares the world-view of the zoophile to paedophiles, who also make claims about children consenting, enjoying, or even initiating sexual relations. "But it only takes a moment’s reflection to see that children, like animals, cannot give full and informed consent. All sexual contact without consent is inherently coercive". Frank Ascione says that "bestiality may be considered abusive even in cases when physical harm to an animal does not occur (this is similar to the case of adult sexual activity with a child where consent is presumed to be impossible)." This is because animals are unable to be fully informed, communicate consent, or to speak out about their abuse.

It has been objected that these arguments rely on double standards, such as expecting informed consent from animals for sexual activity (and not accepting consent given in their own manner), but not for surgical procedures including aesthetic mutilation and castration, potentially lethal experimentation and other hazardous activities, euthanasia, and slaughter.. However, this is the logical fallacy known as tu quoque, the argument that a position is false or wrong because its proponent fails to act consistently in accordance with that position.

One of the primary critiques of zoophilia is that zoosexual activity is harmful to animals and necessarily abusive, because animals are unable to give or withhold consent. Critics also point to examples in which animals were clearly harmed, having been tied up, assaulted, or injured.

Defenders of zoophilia argue that physically injuring animals is neither typical of nor commonplace within zoophilia, and that just as sexual activity with humans can be both harmful and not, so can sexual activity with animals.

Miltski believes that "Animals are capable of sexual consent - and even initiation - in their own way." It is not an uncommon practice for dogs to attempt to copulate with ("hump") the legs of people of both genders. Rosenberger (1968) emphasizes that as far as cunnilingus is concerned, dogs require no training, and even Dekkers (1994) and Menninger (1951) admit that sometimes animals take the initiative and do so impulsively. Those supporting zoophilia feel animals sometimes even seem to enjoy the sexual attention or to initiate it. Animal owners normally know what their own pets like or do not like. Most people can tell if an animal does not like how it is being petted, because it will move away. An animal that is liking being petted pushes against the hand, and seems to enjoy it. To those defending zoopilia this is seen as a way in which animals give consent, or the fact that a dog might wag its tail. That an animal might act instinctively rather than with thought does not mean there is not enjoyment, will or the ability to learn via Pavlovian conditioning, but a Pavlovian response may not be full consent.

Singers's position countered by fellow philosopher Tom Regan, who writes that the same argument could be used to justify having sex with children. Regan writes that Singer's position is a consequence of his adapting a utilitarian, or consequentialist, approach to animal rights, rather than a strictly rights-based one, and argues that the rights-based position distances itself from non-consensual sex. The Humane Society of the United States takes the position that all sexual molestation of animals by humans is abusive, whether it involves physical injury or not.

Commenting on Singer's article "Heavy Petting," in which he argues that zoosexual activity need not be abusive, and that relationships could form which were mutually enjoyed, Ingrid Newkirk, president of the animal rights group PETA, argued that, "If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you French kiss your dog and he or she thinks it's great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong. If it isn't exploitation and abuse, [then] it may not be wrong." A few years later, Newkirk clarified in a letter to the Canada Free Press that she was strongly opposed to any exploitation of, and all sexual activity with, animals.

Such relationships may also be taking advantage of animals' innate social structure which drives them to please the leader of a pack. Zoophiles believe the social roles between species are more flexible than that. Some people believe that zoosexual relations are simply for those unable or unwilling to find human partners. Research shows the majority of zoophiles appear to have human partners and relationships; many others simply do not have a sexual attraction to humans. Some zoophiles have an attraction to species which are relatively inaccessible, such as dolphins; tending to oppose the view that they are simply seeking sexual fulfillment. However farm animals or pets - with which the zoophile may have come into contact as a child - are the most common animals chosen.

Other ethical concerns regarding zoophilia are the belief that humans are guardians in charge of their animals, so a sexual relationship is a betrayal of the trust earned by this duty of care. Zoophiles say that taking responsibility for their pet's sexual drive is more accepting of the animal than neutering, which is done more for human convenience than animal welfare.

Those arguing against zoophilia may say that animals mate instinctively to produce offspring, only having sex for reproduction, hence they are deceived when these activities are performed, but this may be disputed due to research by the Bronx Zoo suggesting that some apes copulate for entertainment. The claim assumes that sex cannot both be biologically imperative and pleasurable. Some animals such as bonobo apes and dolphins do sometimes seem to have sex solely for pleasure. Animals of many species also masturbate, even if other sexual partners are accessible. Male animals can achieve orgasm, and Beetz claims that female animals of some species can too. However, there is no evidence for this in most female animals. Animals give mating signals to others of their species, and zoophiles feel they demonstrate appreciation for it in their body language, or initiate it. Animal owners normally know, what their own pets like or do not like. Beetz believes that as long as there is no sexuality involved people most probably would agree, they know when a pet does or doesn't like how it is being stroked, and to Beetz this is an indication that an animal can also give consent to sex without being forced.