A man has been given three years in jail for having sex with a horse. I feel somewhat sorry for the defendant in this case, who is clearly disturbed. But I do think it is a sufficiently important issue of human exceptionalism that sex with animals should be punished as a crime. First, it is abuse. But beyond that obvious point, by definition, bestiality denigrates human dignity
On this final note, Peter Singer and I disagree–as we do about nearly everything. In “Heavy Petting,” a review of a book promoting bestiality (warning, the review contains crude imagery, some of which I have edited out in the quote below), Singer wrote:
But sex with animals does not always involve cruelty…At a conference on great apes a few years ago, I spoke to a woman who had visited Camp Leakey, a rehabilitation center for captured orangutans in Borneo…While walking through the camp with Galdikas, my informant was suddenly seized by a large male orangutan, his intentions made obvious…As it happened, the orangutan lost interest…but the aspect of the story that struck me most forcefully was that in the eyes of someone who has lived much of her life with orangutans, to be seen by one of them as an object of sexual interest is not a cause for shock or horror. The potential violence of the orangutan’s come-on may have been disturbing, but the fact that it was an orangutan making the advances was not. That may be because Galdikas understands very well that we are animals, indeed more specifically, we are great apes. This does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural, whatever those much-misused words may mean, but it does imply that it ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings.
Another bioethicist, Jacob Appel, has also defended bestiality, as he took a veiled slap at yours truly:
Opponents of bestiality often describe themselves as advocates of “human exceptionalism” and express the belief that intercourse with animals debases the dignity of human beings by blurring the lines between people and animals. (They fail to explain why sex is unique in this manner–why playing Frisbee with a dog, or eating a corned beef sandwich, does not also blur such boundaries)
Surely Appel understands the profound symbolic and intimacy differences between playing frisbee with a dog and having sexual intercourse with her (or him). Beyond that, I could not disagree with him and Singer more. Indeed, when a man was killed having sex with a horse in Washington, I supported legislation making such sex acts a crime because bestiality blurs the crucial moral line between humans and animals. I wrote in the Daily Standard:
Bestiality is so very wrong not only because using animals sexually is abusive, but because such behavior is profoundly degrading and utterly subversive to the crucial understanding that human beings are unique, special, and of the highest moral worth in the known universe–a concept known as “human exceptionalism.”…
MOST PEOPLE take human exceptionalism for granted. They can no longer afford to do so. The great philosophical question of the 21st Century is going to be whether we will knock humans off the pedestal of moral exceptionalism and instead define ourselves as just another animal in the forest. The stakes of the coming debate couldn’t be more important: It is our exalted moral status that both bestows special rights upon us and imposes unique and solemn moral responsibilities–including the human duty not to abuse animals.
Nothing would more graphically demonstrate our unexceptionalism than countenancing human/animal sex. Thus, when Roach’s legislation passes, the law’s preamble should explicitly state that one of the reasons bestiality is condemned through law is that such degrading conduct unacceptably subverts standards of basic human dignity and is an affront to humankind’s inestimable importance and intrinsic moral worth.
Our self image is crucial to how we act and what we countenance. Human exceptionalism needs to be defended at all levels–including as here, by drawing a line in the sand against base human behavior involving animals.
November 4th, 2009 | 6:38 pm
In light of the discovery of ARDI and the conclusion we did not evolve from apes, wonder if Singer still thinks of us as “great apes”?
November 4th, 2009 | 9:36 pm
The orangutang lost interest upon realizing the object of his affections was not an orangutang. Dogs engage in behavior humans find embarassing and joke about; does that mean that we should engage in affairs with them, or that it would be all right to, OR that it debases us?
I disagree about human exceptionalism, but why anyone would want to legitimize bestiality is a mystery to me. If a creature can’t produce offspring with one, he or she isn’t meant for one to date. And the phrase “go pick on someone your own size” comes to mind.
November 4th, 2009 | 9:41 pm
By the way, it doesn’t denigrate us. It denigrates THEM. Whoever is doing it is human, and if a human would behave that way, well, he or she is one of us, and there’s no point in being on our high and mighty about it; yes, make it illegal, but murder is illegal, theft is illegal, and we don’t say that those things denigrate the human race, which, by the way, is hardly a paragon of virtue among the animal kingdom. We’d LIKE to be morally superior; at least some of us would like to think we are. But we’re not. In fact the other animals behave more ethically than we do, and they don’t claim to be better than they are.
November 4th, 2009 | 9:54 pm
Ianthe: Animals don’t act ethically because they are amoral. And they don’t make any claims about anything. They are not rational beings in that sense.
Only we have those capacities, which is why we get so outraged about moral wrongs.
November 4th, 2009 | 10:01 pm
Wesley: I disagree. We’ve got what we call morality and ethics and special capacities and rationality, but that’s just what WE say, and a claim we make based on our own definitions. They are not without those qualities, as observing them proves, and they certainly are capable of feeling and expressing outrage. We’re not better than them because we have ‘free will’ to act ethically and morally or not; they’re ahead of us because they act consistently. We sell them short for the sake of serving our own purposes, which include conceit and justification of the way we treat and regard them. Hands down, they’re way ahead of us in terms of honor and purity of heart.
November 4th, 2009 | 11:14 pm
Vivisection is base human behavior involving animals. That’s where the line in the sand needs to be drawn. Are the other animals base for killing and eating other animals? No, because it’s a matter of survival. Same as with us, who by the way are also animals. But vivisection is base, and if we were superior to the other animals we wouldn’t do it.
November 4th, 2009 | 11:20 pm
Ianthe, I can’t believe you’ve had any experience observing animals in the wild. They eat their young. A new male in a pride immediately kills all the male cubs. Baby birds push each other out of the nest to die. Some insects paralyze larger animals and use them as food/incubators for their young. Sharks bite a hunk of you and then wander off to wait for you to bleed to death. Nature is nasty and full of acts humans consider brutal.
None of that, of course, is immoral, or wrong, or evil, because animals are amoral. They don’t have a choice. When you can’t feel guilt, yeah, I guess your heart is pure. But “honor”? Anything like that would be nothing but a handicap for an animal just trying to survive another day.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, we do more for other species on this planet than any other species. None of the other animals gives a rat’s patootie about any species other than their own, and most aren’t that crazy about other members of their own species unless there’s reproduction involved.
The anthropomorphism and self-hatred you display in your statements about “us” just further the stereotype of AR’s as being presumptuous and out of touch with the nature you claim to admire.
November 4th, 2009 | 11:54 pm
The idea that consistency matters is odd. If all men began consistently forcing themselves on women, that would not be progress.
And you’re confusing what Wesley said. He did not say animals have no emotions.
November 5th, 2009 | 1:00 am
How very depressing a blog entry this is. We’ve come to the point that the depravity of bestiality has to be explained.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
November 5th, 2009 at 1:11 am
You’re right, Cole Koray. It is depressing But it must be done.
November 5th, 2009 | 3:00 am
Peter Singer is a wack-job. No, sex with an orangutan does in fact depend on the fact that one party is an orangutan, and I’m sorry, playing frisbee with a dog doesn’t cross over to having intimate relations with them.
The sad thing is Peter Singer and his ilk are getting more and more credibility (witness ALGore). Wake up people-the wackos from the 60s have taken over while the rest of us sleep.
November 5th, 2009 | 12:54 pm
Anthropomorphism? Self-hatred? I said I admire nature or that Wesley said animals have no emotions?
I do know how other animals behave in the wild, etc. Even in my own house. But it’s anthropomorphism to talk about their “lacking” what we “have.” And by the way, I’ve seen them act with honor, and there is honor in their simplicity.
As for bestiality, if it isn’t within the same species in the general framework of what potentially could lead to reproduction, it’s not sex. It’s abuse, perversion, bestiality, whatever it could be called, but it’s not sex. The guy didn’t have sex with a horse. He did something really wierd with a horse, or rather more to the horse.
November 5th, 2009 | 1:08 pm
In other words, Rick Santorum was right. Bestiality is just a little ways down the road.
November 5th, 2009 | 3:08 pm
We are exceptional animals and it is a mark of shame to some folks to admit that one of our most exceptional attributes is Morality and a sense of spirituality. Having sex with animals makes us base critters who only look for personal gratification at all costs ,totally devoid of our own moralistic humanity. I also find it sad that folks would need our reasoning moral values explained to them. Pete Singer is a blight upon humanity because he wants to think our sense of purpose is as base as animals who have no evidence of moral behavior or History.
November 5th, 2009 | 3:26 pm
Ianthe: “Anthropomorphism? Self-hatred?”
from previous post: “We’re not better than them because we have ‘free will’ to act ethically and morally or not; they’re ahead of us because they act consistently. We sell them short for the sake of serving our own purposes, which include conceit and justification of the way we treat and regard them.”
Yeah, I see self-hatred, or an underlying distaste for the human race, in those statements.
Ianthe, when you talk about animals exhibiting a quality exclusive to humans, that is anthropomorphism. Please describe when you have seen a wild animal act with what we would call “honor?” I mean, it’s a vague enough concept even when you apply it to humans.
And anthropomorphism is bad because it distorts our understanding of nature. When you interpret what an animal does in human terms instead of the animal’s own point of view, you are being, ironically enough, excessively homocentric. They’re animals, that’s fine, let’s not try to make them human.
Like the old saying goes, “Never try to teach a pig to sing. It doesn’t work, and it annoys the pig.”
November 5th, 2009 | 5:09 pm
Ianthe. You said: “I disagree [with Wesley]. We’ve got what we call morality and ethics and special capacities and rationality, but that’s just what WE say, and a claim we make based on our own definitions. They [animals] are not without those qualities, as observing them proves…”
Absolutely right. But don’t expect Wesley to be affected by reasonableness in this matter. His mind is closed to contrary arguments. He claims “moral sense” is THE greatest of attributes and exclusive to homo sapiens, and refuses to offer any proof of it except “nature.” I’ve challenged him repeatedly on this point, but all he does is wave off any question with “We’ve discussed this numerous times …”
Well, he HASN’T “discussed” anything. He’s simply made unsupported statements as if they were self-evident truths, and has been reluctant to offer a single fact to substantiate them. The whole business of humans having sex with animals is a smoke screen, more a matter of human psychosexual pathology than of human exceptionalism.
November 5th, 2009 | 11:19 pm
Robert: Yes, consistency matters. Of course it matters. Non-human animals act in a way consistent with what they are and what they do makes sense in terms of what they are. Whereas human animals claim to be superior to the other animals but often act worse and in ways that don’t make sense, and then excuse themselves with arguments like that of “human exceptionalism” and rationales like that of self-serving, utilitarian religious doctrine that humans who are brainwashed with it from birth don’t even realize obviates their critical reasoning abilities.
Padraig: You’re free to see what you choose to see, but my dislike is for that part of the human race that are idiotic and destructive, and it’s unfortunate that there are as many of them as there are; there are plenty of humans who do have sense. It’s not a matter of non-human animals in comparison with humans from my standpoint as much as it is from yours; I’m merely pointing out that you are being blind in a way that you don’t realize. As for honor being a vague concept — it IS? Oh, really? Now tell me you’re not a Democrat, or an Obama/Obamacare supporter.
November 5th, 2009 | 11:26 pm
HW: For a couple of minutes there before I saw your name I thought you were Dark Swan. I agree with you and with Dark Swan sometimes. I think you’re blind in a way you don’t realize sometimes, too, but today we’re in agreement, including about bestiality having more to do with psychosexual pathology than with human exceptionalism. Those who have given the animal rights movement a bad name by using it as a vehicle for their own pathology are, of course, pathological, and Wesley is right about them, but I’ve been saying human exceptionalism is circular reasoning all along. Wesley is right in the essence of what he’s saying, though, about the danger around us. It’s just that human exceptionalism facilitates it, and he doesn’t see that.
November 5th, 2009 | 11:30 pm
Wesley: Sorry, HW and I don’t mean to be rude by talking behind your back, as it were, even though it’s in the open on your own blog, which looks rude all over again in its own way. He and I disagree with you for different reasons, but I wish you’d consider what each of us is saying, because what you and SHS are doing is very worthwhile and necessary and the doctrine of human exceptionalism stands in its way.
November 6th, 2009 | 5:40 am
I’ll have to remember that Frisbee line the next time I’m down at the bar:
“Hey baby, it’s no different than a game of Frisbee–what’s your hang up?!”
/sarcasm
November 6th, 2009 | 10:37 am
DAVE: It goes beyond their being wacko. The 60s — that’s when a whole bunch of people started being on drugs, wasn’t it. Well, that explains it. Not that the pharmaceutical companies hadn’t had a field day with their ads during the evening news for legal drugs… Gore…there’s another pothead. And nobody says anything, instead they give him the Nobel prize, and now they gave it to another doper, the one in the White House. The Nobel committee probably is dopers too. Michael Savage calls them red diaper doper babies. Gore’s finest moment was his presidential election concession speech. Well anyway they believe the pothead about global warming because they’re dopers themselves, and now their parents were dopers, and…and human exceptionalism is worried about messing with genes? The red diaper doper babies already did that. Now there’s a death culture, and anyone is surprised? Hadn’t there been stuff with drugs going on leading up to the euthanasia movement of the 1930s?
November 6th, 2009 | 11:30 am
Ianthe: “Padraig: You’re free to see what you choose to see, but my dislike is for that part of the human race that are idiotic and destructive, and it’s unfortunate that there are as many of them as there are; there are plenty of humans who do have sense. It’s not a matter of non-human animals in comparison with humans from my standpoint as much as it is from yours; I’m merely pointing out that you are being blind in a way that you don’t realize.”
This seems to be what AR’s tend to do when they realize they have no substantive support for their argument: resort to snobbery. “Oh, you aren’t capable of understanding because you’re not as sensitive and intelligent as I am. Well, I can see what a load of self-serving egomaniacal crap that is, so apparently I can see things you can’t.
” As for honor being a vague concept — it IS?”
Well, it’s apparently vague enough that you can’t come up with an example of a wild animal acting (as you say they do) with honor as I requested.
November 6th, 2009 | 11:32 am
Sorry, there was supposed to be an end quote (“) after “as I am.”
November 6th, 2009 | 2:08 pm
padraig: honor is strictly a human construct that describes a kind of human behavior. Therefore to ask to see the term used in connection with animals makes about as much sense as talking about boiler pressure in a Mercedes.
November 6th, 2009 | 2:35 pm
HW: Exactly. That’s why I was asking Ianthe to provide some evidence (empirical, anecdotal, ANYthing) of animals acting with honor, as she said they do.
November 6th, 2009 | 8:39 pm
Human exceptionalism, that’s weak but at least it’s honest. Yes, that’s the reason that bestiality is criminalized. It’s not about the animal (who I’m guessing usually gets put to death for various specious reasons), it’s about human dignity. I’d propose we also criminalize playing frisbee and other “games” with animals, buying them toys, allowing them into our homes, feeding them, grieving for them when they die, and especially allowing them into our homes. It denigrates human exceptionalism when we afford lesser animals more respect than we’d afford to the most despicable human.
NB: that’s sarcasm.
November 6th, 2009 | 10:33 pm
I have seen non-human animals act with honor. I’m waiting for Padraig to explain just how honor is a “vague concept.” I find the rest of Padraig’s attribution to me and to animal rights people mind-boggling.
November 7th, 2009 | 10:43 am
Ianthe: I’ve seen animals act with compassion; in fact, I’ve experienced it. Honor …well, I’m not so sure. Same with altruism. But then it’s nearly impossible, given the language barrier, to “get inside the head” of almost any animal except another primate, but there are numerous instances of animals saving people’s lives. For example: a domesticated pig that attracted attention to its owner’s plight. See http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/pets-animals/photos/10-remarkable-animals-that-saved-peoples-lives/pig-dashes
November 7th, 2009 | 7:30 pm
Ianthe: “I have seen non-human animals act with honor.”
But you don’t feel like talking about it right now….? 3rd invitation to provide an example, preferably from a wild animal in native environment.
“I’m waiting for Padraig to explain just how honor is a “vague concept.””
Bring up your own definition, then, and show us how animals have acted according to it.
“I find the rest of Padraig’s attribution to me and to animal rights people mind-boggling.”
Some minds are easier to boggle than others.
November 8th, 2009 | 2:29 am
[This comment has been edited] I know this is gonna sound gross, but I really do not see how certain sex acts on animals are considered animal abuse and therefore worth jail time anymore than locking them up in the house all day or petting them roughly and agitating them is…
I highly doubt a dog goes through any psychological trauma by having sex with a human anymore than it does when it humps someone’s leg or another animal such as a cat. A doubt animals such as dogs have intimate relationships…I think its silly to arrest someone for animal abuse when they boink a goat, yet its perfectly legal for them to physically harm and kill that same goat.
Now, I do not think bestiality should be legal at all and I think its icky, I just don’t think it is always animal abuse. It should be illegal on the grounds that it is unhealthy/degrading to humans and is human abuse. Still, I think mandatory counseling would be a better sentence than sending them to jail. I’d rather prison space be used for those who pose a threat to human safety.
True, animals can’t consent, but we don’t need their consent for anything else we do to them, such as [neutering], keeping them as pets, or killing/eating them.
With the way people are trying degrade humans to the status of any other animal rather than exceptional beings (or beings created by a god or whatever), I will not be surprised if it is legal to [have sex with] your dog in the distant future.
December 4th, 2009 | 1:04 am
Bravo, padraig and HW. Excellent points and nice teamwork.
Personally, it would make me feel good to think that animals rescue people from dangerous situations out of their purity of heart, but in the back of my mind there is always the cynical thought: “Surely they must know that their humans procure the food, too…”
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact