Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
JacobGalt

Is it immoral to have incest or animal sex?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

It would seem to be that it is against man's nature to have intercourse with animals, but is it immoral? And what about with a family member?

Out of curiosity, do you know the actual Objectivist view on ethics? Objectivism holds that if something goes against man's nature, then it is immoral, as it is self-destructive.

So yes, having sex with an animal is definitely immoral, as it means you are going against the proper function of sex- sex is not just for physical pleasure (Of course, I'm no even sure bestiality would be pleasurable) devoid of all spiritual values, but a celebration of the spiritual values that 2 people hold.

As for incest... I don't think it's necessarily immoral, no matter how taboo it may be. If someone has a differing view than me on the issue, though, I'd like to hear it as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity, do you know the actual Objectivist view on ethics? Objectivism holds that if something goes against man's nature, then it is immoral, as it is self-destructive.

So yes, having sex with an animal is definitely immoral, as it means you are going against the proper function of sex- sex is not just for physical pleasure (Of course, I'm no even sure bestiality would be pleasurable) devoid of all spiritual values, but a celebration of the spiritual values that 2 people hold.

As for incest... I don't think it's necessarily immoral, no matter how taboo it may be. If someone has a differing view than me on the issue, though, I'd like to hear it as well.

Yes, I do, but I want to hear arguments for and against the morality of incest and bestiality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question of whether or not beastiality is immoral would be dependent on whether or not it is based on psychological flaws. Using an animal as a form of entertainment is not immoral in itself.

Incest, as well, as taboo as it may be, is not immoral

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I do, but I want to hear arguments for and against the morality of incest and bestiality.
Your question is premature -- it's way to specific, and ignores the foundational question. But that's easily remedied. You give us the arguments that sex is moral; if you understand that part of the question, then the question of incest and bestiality is pretty simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so show us why using an animal as a form of entertainment is moral.

Ever watch the dolphins at Sea World?

-- Mindy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would seem to be that it is against man's nature to have intercourse with animals, but is it immoral? And what about with a family member?

You should be more specific on which kind of incest you are talking about. Are you talking about siblings, cousins, or something inter-generational?

As far as bestiality goes, I am not entirely sure how I can divide animals from any other sex toy. I might say it is immoral/irrational to have sex with someone I can't or do not value, but animals aren't even expected to be of value to us in any way other than our exploitation. If someone wants to use them as a sex toy I can't see a reason why not. On the other hand it is possible that animals come into a middle category between "object" and "person", that requires a different set of rules for both.

If you think you are in love with an animal, then you have a serious problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just threw up in my mouth a little...Ok...I'm ok now...

I think this is not a question answered by asking "why not," as much as by asking "why." An animal is clearly not necessary for sexual release since even without the ability to find a willing human partner everyone is capable of accomplishing the release themselves. So with sexual release removed, the question that remains is what other benefit(s) could possibly be received from bestiality that could not be achieved in some other way. For example, what twisted psychological state would be necessary to derive pleasure from such an inequitable and non-consensual relationship? You could ask the same question about pedophiles.

In short, look for the essential differentia and then ask yourself what could lead to the state of affairs. For my part, I can't think of any moral qualities that could lead to any of those things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just threw up in my mouth a little...Ok...I'm ok now...

I think this is not a question answered by asking "why not," as much as by asking "why." An animal is clearly not necessary for sexual release since even without the ability to find a willing human partner everyone is capable of accomplishing the release themselves. So with sexual release removed, the question that remains is what other benefit(s) could possibly be received from bestiality that could not be achieved in some other way. For example, what twisted psychological state would be necessary to derive pleasure from such an inequitable and non-consensual relationship? You could ask the same question about pedophiles.

In short, look for the essential differentia and then ask yourself what could lead to the state of affairs. For my part, I can't think of any moral qualities that could lead to any of those things.

I am not sure how the psychological state that leads someone to do something determines in entirety the moral category the action fall under. Some people may do something for one reason which is bad, others for a neutral to good.

The person you describe has problems, but they don't stem from bestiality, they cause it, and perhaps practicing bestiality makes it worse, but in the end his psychological state is the problem, not the action itself. With the example of pedaphelia, the psychological state and the actions are problems for many reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure how the psychological state that leads someone to do something determines in entirety the moral category the action fall under. Some people may do something for one reason which is bad, others for a neutral to good.

I am responding to the question based on the assumption that they desire to sleep with animals apart from any unusual justifiers. Theoretically someone could pay you a million bucks to hump a goat and if you did you would be able to afford treatment for your dying wife, I wouldn't hold it against you in the same way. Outside of some rather ridiculous context like that, however, I can't think of any good reasoning that could lead to bestiality.

The person you describe has problems, but they don't stem from bestiality, they cause it

That was my point. Maybe I wasn't clear. For someone to desire most of these unusual things it is necessary that something is wrong with their reasoning and values. I view this sort of behavior is an indication of something incorrect, which is to say, unhealthy, which is to say anti-life and therefore bad in the person.

Edited by aequalsa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So yes, having sex with an animal is definitely immoral, as it means you are going against the proper function of sex- sex is not just for physical pleasure (Of course, I'm no even sure bestiality would be pleasurable) devoid of all spiritual values, but a celebration of the spiritual values that 2 people hold.

Really? I thought the proper function of sex was procreation between a man and woman? At least, that is what some folks will tell you. How do you determine the "proper function" (regardless of individual) of sex (an act involving individuals)?

Claiming a "proper function of sex" is simply nonsensical.

Edited by brian0918

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it brings pleasure and isn't irrational, it's moral.
I really do want you to answer the question that I asked. Give us the argument that sex is moral. An argument is not a question, or a conditional relation. It is an assertion. I did not ask "under what hypothetical conditions could sex be moral".

But furthermore, your argument fails for two reasons. First, I can just say "No, you're wrong", and that's the end of the argument, because you have simply given an arbitrary premise. Where is your proof that "If X causes pleasure and X is not irrational, then X is moral"? I can just as easily assert "If X causes pain and X is not irrational, then X is moral" or "If X causes pleasure and X is not rational, then X is moral". In other words, do you understand morality?

Second, though, you are specifically wrong about hedonism -- Objectivism and hedonism are mutually incompatible moral philosophies. In fact, the condition "if X causes pleasure" is irrelevant to your argument, so far, since all you would need to do is simplify your rule to "If X is irrational, X is immoral". You have to demonstrate that pleasure is a necessary precondition for morality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really do want you to answer the question that I asked. Give us the argument that sex is moral. An argument is not a question, or a conditional relation. It is an assertion. I did not ask "under what hypothetical conditions could sex be moral".

But furthermore, your argument fails for two reasons. First, I can just say "No, you're wrong", and that's the end of the argument, because you have simply given an arbitrary premise. Where is your proof that "If X causes pleasure and X is not irrational, then X is moral"? I can just as easily assert "If X causes pain and X is not irrational, then X is moral" or "If X causes pleasure and X is not rational, then X is moral". In other words, do you understand morality?

Second, though, you are specifically wrong about hedonism -- Objectivism and hedonism are mutually incompatible moral philosophies. In fact, the condition "if X causes pleasure" is irrelevant to your argument, so far, since all you would need to do is simplify your rule to "If X is irrational, X is immoral". You have to demonstrate that pleasure is a necessary precondition for morality.

Pain is anti-life, pleasure is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off- On bestiality

Animals by nature do not really, even in the natural world, consent to sex-even with the members of their own species. Man by nature has to choose his highest values and should pursue the best values. At the very least if you are that far gone you should masturbate, use a sex doll or buy the services of a prostitute. Why? Because when you masturbate it is a personal choice, when you us a sex doll it is a inanimate object that can feel no pain and the prostitute can consent to the terms you offer or not.

With the exception of sex toys the object you choose to "get off" with must be able to consent (choose!). Animals can not choose to have sex with you and not animal engages another species for sex. You don not see chimps even do bestiality, that means here you are lower that a chimp. It takes two to have sex (masturbation and sex toys is NOT sex but masturbation all the same) and morality does not apply to the non chosen. Therefore to have sex means that the object if it is a biological entity then it is only moral to have sex with it if it consents- which since we are human (I presume! I know i am) we must either masturbate or have sex with a consenting adult. Also- I can not conceive of doing this without hurting the animal and unless you have a proper use for bringing pain to animal- (for science research, food, clothing, medicine) In all the cases I just mentioned there are primary human human values that are served. Sex is a result of the values you hold. Animals have proper uses as property and sex is not one of them!

on incest

I think it would be improper for very close family members- mother, father, uncles. Cousins I don't see anything wrong with it because the genetic distance from you (i don't know the appropriate technical term) In fact I will admit that I have a cousin that f she where not married I would go for without any shame at all. This is about the only area the Bible qua sex ethics got right in the old testament I think...

lets look at it step by step by family member-

mother and father and uncles- the psychological connections you have made with your parents and the genetic closeness should tell you that this is not a appropriate thing. Somebody here please back me up....I really can't explain this..This something that I think that I FEEL is wrong but emotions are not tools of cognition.

I think it would not be wrong to be with you aunts- they have none of your genes as long as they are not still married to your uncles. And your cousins- with the advanced screening techs for birth defects and the stance of o'ism on abortion I don't really know if this is appropriate to pro- create with your cousins but i don't see anything wrong if ya'll choose not to have offspring.

I hope somebody will agree with how I arranged this and back me up with reason on this. or if I am wrong then of course tear me a new intellectual one then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is this your entire understanding of the morality of sex?

No -- I know the Objectivist view on sex. My question was: if you find values in your mother, for example, is it moral to have sex with her?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No -- I know the Objectivist view on sex. My question was: if you find values in your mother, for example, is it moral to have sex with her?
I see; so your understanding of the Objectivist theory of sex is that it is a virtue to have sex with anything that you value?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see; so your understanding of the Objectivist theory of sex is that it is a virtue to have sex with anything that you value?

No, only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a man or woman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a man or woman.
Are you now done with bestiality?

If so, then I think the next question is what those highest values are that you find in a potential partner. What exactly does that refer to, for example is it merely the emotional state of intense longing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you now done with bestiality?

Yes, thanks for the Socrates-style questions.

If so, then I think the next question is what those highest values are that you find in a potential partner. What exactly does that refer to, for example is it merely the emotional state of intense longing?

Nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The official Objectivist stance on sex, or what I think of as Rand's personal views, are pretty clear. There is no room for bestiality in that worldview.

Personally, I think it is neither moral or immoral. I think it's a personal choice, like what ice cream flavor you like. It's not something I'm into, but if someone can lead an otherwise healthy and Objectivist life, but just likes to pounce a goat from time to time, I don't really think there's a problem with it. Although I somehow can't conceive of such a person.

Oh, wanted to point out that chimps will hump anything, including other animals and humans (whether the human is willing or not) at times. I've seen it on nature videos. And haven't you ever seen a dog hump someone's leg? Okay, that's not technically intercourse, but I still think that qualifies as an animal attempting to have sex outside its species.

As for incest, I think there are cases where it can certainly be moral. There was a story on one of those newsmagazine shows about a man and woman who met and fell in love. After some amount of time, they somehow discovered they were long lost brother and sister. Because of society's taboos on the issue, and because they shared those views, they broke off their romantic relationship. I think in that case you would find nothing in the official Objectivist philosophy that would call for these two people to break off their romantic relationship. If they wanted to have kids, they would just have to have them genetically tested to make sure there were no defects.

Where the people know they are related, I think it would have to be a case by case basis. In general, I think consenting adults who hold the highest value for each other could be moral. A man wanting to bang his 14-year-old daughter, maybe not so moral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...