• yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    What I tried to say is:

    If treating other animals like they behave towards other animals is acceptable, the only reason beastiality would be illegal is because of “ew”.

    I’d say that’s one reason why our standards should be higher than the standards of animals. Suffering is bad even when non-humans are affected.

    • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      If treating other animals like they behave towards other animals is acceptable, the only reason beastiality would be illegal is because of “ew”.

      laws are bad, and don’t have anything to do with morality

      • yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        Substitute illegal with “prohibited according to the social contract of your anarchist commune” then. Or with whatever form of society and its rule system you would like to live in where the rules are a moral guide.

        • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          that’s not how morality (or rules) works at all. morals are formed from an ethical system. deontologists have the categorical imperative, utilitarianism and hedonism have the maximization of pleasure, divine command theorists have the command of the deity, virtue ethicists have moderation between competing extremes. if any of them prohibit sex with animals, it’s probably only divine command theory and maybe the categorical imperative. I guess the big “eww” factor could put off the virtue ethicists, too (bestiality isn’t very aesthetic).

          rules and laws are meant to keep social order. where they prohibit thing like killing or some other ethically bad thing, it is only a coincidence.