Sexual Orientation Vs. Paraphilia

[JASKN]

If animals indeed have no rights whatsoever, then anything done to them cannot be immoral. Torturing an animal would no more be a violation of rights than torturing a rock.

Perhaps you think that mistreating or having sex with animals causes psychological harm for the human and thus should be avoided. This may or may not be true, I think it is very dependant on the person and the context. So much so, that blanket statements such as "bestiality is wrong" have no foundation in logic or fact.

The fact that you don't think bestiality benefits someone's life doesn't make it immoral. You have to show that in all instances and situations, bestiality is anti-life for the idea of bestiality to be immoral. If you cannot, bestiality is then no different than any other sexual orientation which for some people can be harmful but for others completely harmless.

I don't think you can seriously assert that torturing or having sex with animals is healthy for a "normal" human. Why don't you list a couple examples where doing both would leave the human better off?

There is a huge difference between practicing a kind of "sexuality" with an animal and practicing sexuality with another human. I can't think of any example where it would be psychologically healthy for a human to (torture or) have sex with an animal, even if you were the last human on earth.

[DavidOdden]

If animals indeed have no rights whatsoever, then anything done to them cannot be immoral. Torturing an animal would no more be a violation of rights than torturing a rock.

The latter statement is irrelevant to the question of morality, but along with the first statement, suggests that you think that rights-violation is the only form of immmoral behavior. Is that correct, or do you recognise that some forms of immorality do not involve rights violations.

Perhaps you think that mistreating or having sex with animals causes psychological harm for the human and thus should be avoided.

More or less: specifically, any man who sees a sheep as a reflection of his highest values is really in trouble.

The fact that you don't think bestiality benefits someone's life doesn't make it immoral.

Why not? If there is no benefit (and we know there is at least some cost), then it is a destruction of value, which is immoral.

If you cannot, bestiality is then no different than any other sexual orientation which for some people can be harmful but for others completely harmless.

Every gay male that I am acquainted with has sex with his lover -- has the guy as a lover in the first place -- because his lover reflects his values. What sheep can you say that of (please, don't actually answer that)?

[Vladimir Berkov]

It is not the act of torture that is immoral, it's the reasoning behind it. Boiling an animal alive because it's the only safe way to cook it is much different than boiling it alive to watch it suffer and die. If torture is simply causing pain to a living thing to get pleasure from observing it, then it's immoral.

But why exactly? What is the reasoning behind this statement?

[Vladimir Berkov]

I don't think you can seriously assert that torturing or having sex with animals is healthy for a "normal" human. Why don't you list a couple examples where doing both would leave the human better off?

There is a huge difference between practicing a kind of "sexuality" with an animal and practicing sexuality with another human. I can't think of any example where it would be psychologically healthy for a human to (torture or) have sex with an animal, even if you were the last human on earth.

Again, you are asking me to prove the converse of my argument and providing no support for your own. I am not asserting that bestiality is psychologically healthy. I am just saying that absent some strong argument and support, it is not de facto immoral as some here seem to believe. Generally, human activity which does not violate the rights of others is assumed to be moral absent some strong showing to the contrary. As such the burden is on those (such as you) who hold that bestiality is immoral to prove why this is the case, not on my to prove that bestiality is moral, healthy, etc.

The latter statement is irrelevant to the question of morality, but along with the first statement, suggests that you think that rights-violation is the only form of immmoral behavior. Is that correct, or do you recognise that some forms of immorality do not involve rights violations.

While perhaps not needing to rise to the level of an actual rights violation, all immoral behavior has to involve at minimum another being which has rights.

More or less: specifically, any man who sees a sheep as a reflection of his highest values is really in trouble.

I don't think anybody here asserted anything of the sort regarding bestiality.

Why not? If there is no benefit (and we know there is at least some cost), then it is a destruction of value, which is immoral.

I would think that the practicers of bestiality DO get a benefit from it, at least in their mind. People don't usually do things which they don't believe is a benefit to them in some way.

Every gay male that I am acquainted with has sex with his lover -- has the guy as a lover in the first place -- because his lover reflects his values. What sheep can you say that of (please, don't actually answer that)?

I think you are working from a false assumption about the purpose and value of sex.

[Maarten]

While perhaps not needing to rise to the level of an actual rights violation, all immoral behavior has to involve at minimum another being which has rights.

This either means that a man on a desert island could not be immoral because it doesn't involve another being, or another also includes the person doing the action in this case, and thus having sex with an animal also involves someone with rights.

Either way this statement is misleading.

[Vladimir Berkov]

I'll try to clarify what I said. Morality/immorality requires at least one being with rights to be involved. The showing required to prove that something somebody has done to themselves is immoral however, is very high. Generally things people do to themselves are no moral/immoral for the purposes of public policy or discussion. A person cannot violate their own rights.

When two people are involved, then the showing is lowered as it involves what one person does to another, which then becomes important as a matter of public policy, as well as resulting in possible rights violations.

[DavidOdden]

While perhaps not needing to rise to the level of an actual rights violation, all immoral behavior has to involve at minimum another being which has rights.

We now have an iron-clad diagnosis of your problem: you have formed the wrong concept of morality. That would mean that no level of depraved self-destruction could be immoral. You need to read up on Objectivist ethics: is this an area where you knowingly and deliberately reject Objectivism, or were you simply unaware of the nature of morality according to Objectivism?

The other problem (specific to bestiality) is that you are working from a mistaken assumption about the value and purpose of sex. Again, happiness arises from proper choices: it is not an end in itself that just mystically "happens" when you manage to harvest the fruit of a sheep-seduction.

[JASKN]

Again, you are asking me to prove the converse of my argument and providing no support for your own. I am not asserting that bestiality is psychologically healthy. I am just saying that absent some strong argument and support, it is not de facto immoral as some here seem to believe.

I will then put it this way: torture of and sex with animals is unhealthy for an individual in normal circumstances for a myriad of psychological reasons, and thus immoral. As DavidOdden pointed out, self-destruction is a form of immorality.

I think you are working from a false assumption about the purpose and value of sex.

What, other than a reflection of values, would you say sex should be? To be perfectly crude, are you just looking for a warm orifice?

[RationalBiker]

What, other than a reflection of values, would you say sex should be? To be perfectly crude, are you just looking for a warm orifice?

I don't think it's fair to personalize this. Perhaps your question could be phrased, "Do you think sex is moral if one is simply seeking a warm orifice?"

[Vladimir Berkov]

We now have an iron-clad diagnosis of your problem: you have formed the wrong concept of morality. That would mean that no level of depraved self-destruction could be immoral. You need to read up on Objectivist ethics: is this an area where you knowingly and deliberately reject Objectivism, or were you simply unaware of the nature of morality according to Objectivism?

The other problem (specific to bestiality) is that you are working from a mistaken assumption about the value and purpose of sex. Again, happiness arises from proper choices: it is not an end in itself that just mystically "happens" when you manage to harvest the fruit of a sheep-seduction.

I don't see how my concept of morality at all allows all leverls of "depraved self-destruction." I simply stated that the showing required for proof that an act is self-destructive and thus immoral is much higher than the showing required to prove that an act harms others and is thus immoral. This is because usually the best judge of what is self-destructive is the person themself, not an outsider.

For example, it would be foolish to state as a generality that "drinking is self-destructive and thus immoral" because each individual has his own tolerance level of alcohol, his own reasons for drinking, and his own value-heirarchy in which drinking is situated. For an alcoholic who can no longer control his urge for alcohol, drinking may very well be immoral. But for another man who merely enjoys the taste of beer or wine in moderation, it would be odd to say his enjoyment is immoral.

I will then put it this way: torture of and sex with animals is unhealthy for an individual in normal circumstances for a myriad of psychological reasons, and thus immoral. As DavidOdden pointed out, self-destruction is a form of immorality.

What, other than a reflection of values, would you say sex should be? To be perfectly crude, are you just looking for a warm orifice?

Again, I am seeing plenty of assertions but no support for them. As I stated, the burden of proof to show something is generally self-destructive of individuals is high. Mere repetition of conclusions without analysis or support will not do.

As for sex, I think that many here are confusing the mental issues of love with the physical issue of sex. Sex is at its root, a physical need. To say that satisfying a physical human need is immoral is to turn one's body against one's mind. There certainly are phychological problems some people have with sex, and bestiality may be one of them. But I don't think the mere wish for sex without a "reflection of values" is by itself immoral.

[RationalBiker]

As for sex, I think that many here are confusing the mental issues of love with the physical issue of sex. Sex is at its root, a physical need.

Actually, I think the argument would be that these statements reflect a position that turns the body against the mind.

Please support the assertion that sex is solely "a physical need" in human beings.

[Vladimir Berkov]

I never said that sex is soley a physical need. I said at its root, it is a physical need, which I think is beyond dispute. The desire for sex arises from the human body and brain. The specific implimentation of this desire, what a person finds most sexually attractive, what sexual relationships are chosen, etc have a big mental component. Still, you can't separate the mental aspect of sex from the physical.

[Inspector]

We now have an iron-clad diagnosis of your problem: you have formed the wrong concept of morality.

Agreed.

Vladimir, morality isn't simply a question of whether rights are violated. There are plenty of things that are immoral but which do not violate any rights.

Rather than focusing on cases where something is questionably immoral, focus on something that is clearly immoral, but which violates nobody's rights. How about bashing your own head in with a rock?

[RationalBiker]

I never said that sex is soley a physical need. I said at its root, it is a physical need, which I think is beyond dispute. The desire for sex arises from the human body and brain. The specific implimentation of this desire, what a person finds most sexually attractive, what sexual relationships are chosen, etc have a big mental component. Still, you can't separate the mental aspect of sex from the physical.

So then, your assertion is more than just "man has a physical need for a sexual release and an animal can be a moral means of facilitating that release". Rather, it would appear that your assertion is that an animal can be a moral choice for a human being to be sexually attracted to and to have a sexual relationship with. Is that what you are asserting?

What is the point of distinguishing that "at it's root" it's a physical need, if not to separate it from the mental component attached to it?

Edited September 1, 2006 by RationalBiker

[Inspector]

Generally, human activity which does not violate the rights of others is assumed to be moral absent some strong showing to the contrary.

This is false. All moral actions must advance the life of the actor.

Before asking us to show every possible instance of bestiality is bad to prove to you it is immoral, how about you first provide at least one instance in which it is moral?

Edited September 1, 2006 by Inspector

[JASKN]

I don't think it's fair to personalize this. Perhaps your question could be phrased, "Do you think sex is moral if one is simply seeking a warm orifice?"

Yes, I agree. I apologize Vladimir, I did not mean to imply that you personally are only looking for a warm orifice, and RationalBiker's rephrasing is better stated for what I wanted to know.

[Vladimir Berkov]

I will try to clarify my position in one post, from the responses it is clear that there is substantial misunderstanding about what my position actually is.

I am not holding that only rights violations are immoral. Actions may be immoral yet not be a rights violation, for instance anything you do to yourself by definition cannot be a rights violation yet may be immoral.

My position is largely evidentiary and not substantive. I don't have a position on the merits of bestiality as a moral or immoral practice. My argument is that since bestiality is a practice which cannot involve a rights violation and which does not involve a being which has rights, the only possible immorality would result from a harm the person does to themselves.

This is the hardest area of immorality to judge, as it necessarily is context-dependant on the person and every person is unique and different. The only solution is to give a wide benefit of the doubt to any such practices in question. Practices (including bestiality) which don't violate the rights of others and can only possibly harm the practictioner should be presumed to be moral unless proved otherwise.

And the one thing this thread lacks is proof, evidence, support or anything of that kind. There are plenty of conclusions and assertions about the immorality of bestiality, but as I stated above, that is not enough. To say such behavior is immoral requires more than one's personal beliefs or whims.

[Inspector]

The reason, for me at least, for not launching into a complete explanation as to the source of the immorality of bestiality is that to do so would be positively tiresome. If you understand the nature of sex, it's more than a little obvious that bestiality is in total contradiction of everything sex is to a rational man.

It's so obvious that if you don't get where the problem is, then I am at a loss to explain it. Just what part of the Objectivist position on sex don't you understand?

[JASKN]

This is the hardest area of immorality to judge, as it necessarily is context-dependant on the person and every person is unique and different. The only solution is to give a wide benefit of the doubt to any such practices in question. Practices (including bestiality) which don't violate the rights of others and can only possibly harm the practictioner should be presumed to be moral unless proved otherwise.

And the one thing this thread lacks is proof, evidence, support or anything of that kind. There are plenty of conclusions and assertions about the immorality of bestiality, but as I stated above, that is not enough. To say such behavior is immoral requires more than one's personal beliefs or whims.

Perhaps some of the threads on sexuality would help you get the proof that you need. Since there is no scientific proof a la a chemical reaction displayed before your eyes or a bat breaking glass or something to that regard, at this point the only proof concerning the nature of sex is based off of experience and what we already know about psychology and the human mind.

As far as I can figure, an animal is different to a person's psychology than your average plastic or rubber sex toy, although they both have equal rights, because it is alive. That is a big leap from a rock if you are going to use it sexually. Inspector, would you disagree? Instead of writing a lengthy explanation, if you do not agree, what do you believe the major difference to be, or the biggest harm to a person's mind?

[RationalBiker]

Vladimir,

I'm going to quote a question David asked earlier which you seemingly did not answer. It pertains to the supporting argument for which you keep asking.

You need to read up on Objectivist ethics: is this an area where you knowingly and deliberately reject Objectivism, or were you simply unaware of the nature of morality according to Objectivism?

His question stands unanswered at this point. Are willing to do some reading to find your answer, are you already familiar enough with Objectivist ethics to understand why animal sex would generally be immoral, or do you reject Objectivist ethics in this matter?

This board cannot be a substitute for learning all things Objectivism. For that, one must do some "homework" of their own sometimes by reading what Ayn Rand (and/or Leonard Peikoff) wrote on the subject. If you are unwilling to do this, that's fine, but you must keep in mind that this board is for discussing Objectivism's ideas and principles, not for arguing against them or supporting contrary ideas or principles (except in the debate area).

Now with that in mind, I think Inspector had a good idea in suggesting that you come up with an example in which you think bestiality would be moral. This would allow for a concrete discussion on whether you might be right, or offer others a chance to demonstrate where you are wrong.

The only solution is to give a wide benefit of the doubt to any such practices in question. Practices (including bestiality) which don't violate the rights of others and can only possibly harm the practictioner should be presumed to be moral unless proved otherwise.

That is not the only solution. An objective solution would be not to make any moral judgement at all absent sufficient facts unless one already understands why something is immoral in principle to begin with. I don't see any reason to give someone an automatic positive evaluation over automatically giving them a negative evaluation absent sufficient knowledge or facts for a given context.

And speaking for myself, if a complete stranger shared with me that he "porked" a pig yesterday, my first thought is not going to be "Well good for you, I'm sure it was a rewarding experience that will help you flourish as a human being."

[Inspector]

Inspector, would you disagree?

I don't think I disagree. Frankly trying to make such comparisons makes my eyes cross, though. I hope this can be resolved with the suggestions David, Rationalbiker, and I made. That would be the most efficacious method to knowledge for Vladimir on this. I don't doubt that if he studies the material that what we are saying will make sense to him. If not, we can always go from there.

[DavidOdden]

My position is largely evidentiary and not substantive. I don't have a position on the merits of bestiality as a moral or immoral practice. My argument is that since bestiality is a practice which cannot involve a rights violation and which does not involve a being which has rights, the only possible immorality would result from a harm the person does to themselves.

Your present position is, at least, closer to correct. But it is still soundly Kantian in its core. Morality is not about evidence, it is about substance. There is still no serious question as to whether bestiality or animal torture are immoral, and you haven't provided anything to would even remotely support the possibility that these acts are ever moral. In invoking the fact that men can indeed differ as to their ideal woman (or man) -- in the same breath as a discussion of animal torture and bestiality -- suggests to me that you have significant conceptual problems with both "morality" and also "judgment".

I'm trying to figure out why you would publically admit that you don't have a position on the morality of bestiality (and I wonder if your same agnosticism holds for animal torture). It seems to me that either (1) you don't know for sure whether animals have rights, (2) you have some unrevealed concrete evidence that bestiality and torture are actually good for some person's life -- please reveal that evidence carefully, omitting actionable details, (3) you don't know what morality is well enough to judge it, (4) you don't want to judge the action of others, or (5) as a summation of 2-4, you have an epistemological anti-trump card that prevents you from judging the actions of others because you don't know whether maybe the other person gets some imaginary benefit from perversion, so everybody has a secret get out of judgment-jail card since we cannot inspect another person's mind.

Practices (including bestiality) which don't violate the rights of others and can only possibly harm the practictioner should be presumed to be moral unless proved otherwise.

Hey, law guy, as you should know, the first clause is superfluous because it is implied by the second clause. Yet you continue to inject this "violates the rights of others" business -- why? The implicational relation is this: only certain non-moral acts violate the rights of others. Non-moral acts are those that are immoral and those that are amoral. We (or at least I) do not condemn the amoral violation of another person's rights, and I would be extremely tolerant of a violation of my rights under such circumstances. I could also harm others without violating their rights, for example I could, if I wanted, irreparably damage your ego by calling you an evil swine, and I would not have violated your rights but would have immorally harmed you. Again, your focus on rights violation murks up your understanding of morality.

I would not dispute the claim that adultery can be moral: I would really need to know the facts surrounding the situation before passing judgment. But you've got the evidence here that bestiality and animal torture are never moral. If you have a counterargument (by counterargument, I mean "an argument providing evidence for an alternative position", and not just automatic gainsaying), then you can make your case for bestiality and torture as life-enhancing activities. Just don't say "but you can't know for sure that it isn't". Epistemologically speaking, get with the program. The arbitrary has no evidentiary value.

BTW, have you read "Fact and Value"? It's short, and I think it explains the status of moral evaluation very clearly.

[Lathanar]

And the one thing this thread lacks is proof, evidence, support or anything of that kind. There are plenty of conclusions and assertions about the immorality of bestiality, but as I stated above, that is not enough. To say such behavior is immoral requires more than one's personal beliefs or whims.

You need to look at what a person is trying to get out of the act of beastiality. The only thing that I can think of, and based on other converstaions I've seen on this subject, is physical pleasure, not reason. What other possible value can you get from having sex with an animal? Until you can come up with a solid example of where someone gains value through sex with animals based on reason and not physical pleasure, it will be immoral in my mind. This has nothing to do with rights violations, this is centered on whether the standard of man's values is based on rational self-interest or physical pleasure.

[Olufemi]

You need to look at what a person is trying to get out of the act of beastiality. The only thing that I can think of, and based on other converstaions I've seen on this subject, is physical pleasure, not reason. What other possible value can you get from having sex with an animal? Until you can come up with a solid example of where someone gains value through sex with animals based on reason and not physical pleasure, it will be immoral in my mind. This has nothing to do with rights violations, this is centered on whether the standard of man's values is based on rational self-interest or physical pleasure.

I don't understand this. By this logic, masturbation is also immoral. It's "just" physical pleasure. I put "just" in quotations because there is nothing wrong with non-selfdestructive physical pleasure, and there are alot of things right about it. I have a sexual drive that is satisfied at will by another person, so I have to pursue other ends. If I use a hand, a sex toy, ect I'm seeking nothing more than physical release.

Also, if an animal is not being tortured, what is wrong with using it for sex?

[norak]

In a piece denouncing Objectivism, Rothbard claims there is a neo-Randian group called Students of Objectivism for Rational Bestiality.

This brings up the question of whether bestiality is moral under Objectivism and whether it is rational.

Objectivism holds that pursuit of happiness is moral. Sex in pursuit of happiness is selfish and also moral and rational.

Sex between humans and non-human animals or any transspecies intercourse has the additional benefit of zero risk of pregnancy, meaning there is no worries about having to rush to the abortion clinic the day after.

Some people criticism bestiality, saying that non-human animals cannot consent to sex and therefore sex with animals goes against their freedom. However, if this were true then killing animals for food would be immoral as well and we should all be vegetarians. When humans kill animals for food the animals certainly don't consent to being killed. Killing an animals is done at the expense of the animal's will and for the pleasure of meat-eating humans.