17 posts / 0 new
Last post
Takudzwa Mazwienduna's picture

The question of morality has been my favorite ever since I became an Atheist. I became an Atheist because the I discovered that the Bible is not a moral book, but one of salvation, and unrealistic. I have been obsessed with the question of morality ever since, and most of my findings point out that it is developed by real experiences, rationality and not divine command. Most of it for example comes from an understanding that we live in a society with people, and in order to live in peace with everyone we consider how our actions will impact the next person. Some of it is from experience like we have come to know that incest can give birth with offspring that has biological defects because related people share the same genes. Reading some of Richard Dawkins' work and other evolutionary scientists I have come to learn that empathy can be explained by our biological make up. The only area on morality I have left unanswered is whether bestiality is a moral thing. If it is, why? And if not, a good justification is required. Bestiality is having sex with other animals. I am just an inch to understanding RATIONALITY as the means for moral justification, and bestiality is the only piece left in the puzzle that I'm not sure about.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

CyberLN's picture
Did the animal consent to

Did the animal consent to this sex?

Takudzwa Mazwienduna's picture
No but do they consent to

No but do they consent to dying when we kill them for meat?

CyberLN's picture
I don't eat meat.

I don't eat meat.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
"Bestiality is having sex

"Bestiality is having sex with other animals."

dam my question would be?

you not get a better service with sex toys lol

Apart from that;

since the morality of animals is debatable, we have to assume them as being not mature enough to have a consent in the matter.

This means that having sex with animals is as bad as having sex with a minor morally.

"No but do they consent to dying when we kill them for meat?"
Who said that killing them for meat is moral?

If tomorrow we found a better way for getting meat without killing animals we would do it, since it is considered immoral to end a life if you can do without, in this particular situation, at this particular time.

Takudzwa Mazwienduna's picture
You made a lot of sense, made

You made a lot of sense, made more hypothesis' pop up to complement my understanding. Like our psychology supports in-group morality, which is why neighbor in the bible should correctly be translated to fellow Jew. A quick experiment would be if you take cattle from on kraal and mix them with a different herd, they would fight, but together they have a form of morality. So when they say love thy neighbor in the Bible they would be referring to fellow Jews and they could kill, rape and enslave Gentiles. Other animals not being part of our society are constant victims our other nature. Humanism and naturalism become the ideal pillars for perfect and universal morality.

Travis Hedglin's picture
"The only area on morality I

"The only area on morality I have left unanswered is whether bestiality is a moral thing. If it is, why? And if not, a good justification is required."

I think it is considered more taboo than strictly immoral. Taboos exist for more reasons than simply morality. Some of our taboos are left over from our ignorant past. In medieval times bestiality was considered a sign of witchcraft, and many were ignorant enough to think that demonic offspring would result from such couplings. It was also considered a hygienically unsound practice, because we though a person could get diseases from animals. Not to mention a certain personal revulsion many still and did have to it.

As far as today, we generally consider it animal abuse. While killing an animal for food can be justified with our need to eat to survive, copulating with one cannot be justified in the same way.

Takudzwa Mazwienduna's picture
That's another good rational

That's another good rational standpoint. Thanks a lot, I hadn't thought of it that far

Nutmeg's picture
Animals can't consent and you

Animals can't consent and you can't have sex with things that can't consent.

Travis Hedglin's picture
Two words: Sex Toys.

Two words: Sex Toys.

Nutmeg's picture
Well, for many people,

Well, for many people, animals could be regarded as inanimate objects, but often they're pets, companions even, and as such that woould be different. It's illogical to be sure that we don't mind killing them for food, but then people are illogical. As long as we don't have to see the animals being killed it's probably OK.

You probably wouldn't mind seeing a sex toy tortured, but if it were a cat or a dog you might intervene. The same with sexual abuse, for sure.

Maybe you should try more than two words in future.

Travis Hedglin's picture
The point was that we do have

The point was that we do have sex with things that can't consent. The distinction with animals is one of it having the ability to experience pain, and no small amount of projection from us onto the animal in question. Our ability to empathize tends to cause us to anthropomorphize, or perhaps it is the other way around, but the end result is often us projecting our imagination of how it must feel onto the animal.

My use of a two word response was to a SPECIFIC point, we do have sex with things that can't consent, so there are other distinctions that matter.

Nutmeg's picture
It doesn't require much

It doesn't require much imagination to realise that being raped would be unpleasant and probably painful for the animal.

Your point was trivial rather than specific, and not hepful in this discussion.

Travis Hedglin's picture
If it isn't painful for the

If it isn't painful for the animal, does that make it ok? If not, there is more to it than that as well. My point was exactly specific, and despite you finding it trivial, it did change the direction of conversation toward something more than just consent.

Nutmeg's picture
I don't think it does. I made

I don't think it does. I made the point that an inanimate object is not the same as a living being. In my view, consent would be needed and could not be given.

Travis Hedglin's picture
You quite clearly said

You quite clearly said "things" and not "living things", so my comment that inanimate objects are NOT included in the group of "things" you were talking about was useful, even if you choose not to recognize it.

William00's picture
The first time I plugged my

The first time I plugged my Martin acoustic electric into an amplifier, I couldn't believe the clarity and tonal balance. A truly remarkable experience. best martin acoustic guitar

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.