A horse is a rat is a dog is a pumpkin!

And slippery slopes slide both ways.... (And that is not a pun, but a political observation.)

Bill Quick was gracious enough to leave a comment to my defensive post in which I probably misunderinterpreted a mutual misinterpretation or something, and in his comment he raised another topic which seems to be making a few waves -- libertarians and bestiality:

....I can advance some mildly libertarian arguments against [bestiality]....

So can I, and while I don't know whether Bill will agree with me this time, I thought I should credit him for making me finish what I might have been inclined to neglect.

I mean, who really wants to write about bestiality? Normally, it wouldn't occur to me, but reading this argument against sex with animals, it strikes me that what is missing from the debate is a libertarian argument against bestiality.

For the record, let me state unequivocally that not only am I against bestiality (and have no problem with laws against it), but I consider myself a libertarian. This does not mean that I speak for all libertarians (much less the Libertarian Party, which for all I care can advocate for bestiality until the cows come home for more.)

If being against bestiality makes me less than a full libertarian, I don't really care, as I am not in charge of their official doctrine, and I don't know whether even they are. Is there a "they" there?

At the outset, I should address a recurrent annoyance. I do not like it when people disagree with me by putting words in my mouth, and imputing to me whatever it is that they claim "libertarianism" means, because often I do not agree with whatever it is they're claiming libertarianism to be, and the disagreement becomes complicated by my not only having to defend my own position, but by the additional annoyance of having to either defend "libertarianism" or else argue that whatever they are saying does not constitute libertarianism. I'd rather not do that -- which is why I describe myself as a small "l" libertarian. If that isn't good enough for you, then maybe I should call myself "libertarianish." On borders and national defense, for example, I tend to part company with many (but not all) libertarians. Perhaps it's the same way with bestiality; perhaps not.

Anyway, yesterday I saw that Glenn Reynolds is being taken to task by another blogger I really respect, Sean Gleeson (inventor of the famed "Autorantic Virtual Moonbat"). Sean argues that because Glenn is a libertarian and "for" bestiality, that this is evidence that libertarianism is wrong:

Within the narrow blinders of libertarianism, laws can only be justified by appeal to an unconsenting victim. Human dignity has no place in the libertarian worldview, and the libertarian is left with no basis to outlaw what he calls "victimless crimes." Prostitution, polygamy, pornography, incest, drug abuse, bestiality, and a host of other crimes, being consensual, must be legal, and that's that.

And this is libertarianism's greatest failing. The libertarians happen to come to the right conclusions on a great many issues of policy, and I am happy to ally with them on those issues. But libertarianism is not an adequate theory of governance.

I have no problem with moral arguments about innate human dignity or moral exceptionalism, except I think what's involved here does not rise to that level. I believe that forbidding sex with animals can just as easily be based on the common sense notion that because an animal is incapable of consenting to sex, it constitutes cruelty to animals to have sex with them. Even if an animal seemed willing to have sex (and how can such a thing be determined?), an animal is no more a consenting adult than is a child. A child molester's claim that the child "enjoyed it" is in my view, no more relevant than it would be if a man said that about a horse or a dog.

Similarly, while I think grown men should be allowed to engage in public fighting exhibitions (because they consent to it), I have no problem with laws forbidding the pitting of dogs against each other even though they might appear to consent.

While I think man is inherently morally superior to animals, that does not mean animals have no moral worth. For once I find something with which I can disagree (albeit slightly) with Glenn Reynolds. Back to Sean:

These pro-bestial arguments are disarming to any honest and consistent libertarian. Even Instapundit Glenn Reynolds allows that he's "got nothing against" bestiality, explaining "since I'm happy to eat animals it's hard for me to consider people having sex with them to be, you know, more exploitative."

That's because libertarianism is fundamentally wrong.

Um, Glenn is wrong because libertarianism is wrong?

If Glenn is wrong, can't he just be given credit for being wrong on his own? Why does "libertarianism" have to be wrong because Glenn Reynolds said what he said? It's almost as if libertarianism is wrong because Glenn is wrong, but Glenn is wrong because libertarianism is wrong.

Of course, according to another school of popular reasoning, if someone like Glenn is wrong about something, that must mean he is wrong because he is not a libertarian. So, either he's bad for being a libertarian or else he's bad at being a libertarian! Far be it from me to explain others, but I think simply disagreeing with someone for specified reasons is preferable to sidetracking the debate into questions of ideological purity.

(Easy for me to say; I'm ideologically impure!)

Once again, I don't see the contradiction between my libertarian leanings and law prohibiting sex with animals, because I think sex with animals is cruelty to animals. And unnecessary cruelty at that. I think that because animals are alive and feel pain, and we humans are entrusted with their care, our enlightened self interest directs that we not be unnecessarily cruel in our treatment of them.

What seems to not be receiving the attention it should here is the fact that the poor dog which was sexually violated was whimpering in agony:

McPhail's wife told investigators that she found her husband on their back porch Wednesday night having intercourse with their 4-year-old female pit bull terrier, the Pierce County sheriff's office report said. The dog was squealing and crying, according to charging papers.

The woman took photos with her cell phone and called the sheriff's office.

That makes me very angry, and I am a libertarian.

This is the third time I've read about a pit bull (or a close relative thereof) being violated like this, and if "libertarianism" really means letting that son of a bitch do that to the poor dog, then I guess it means I'm not a "real" libertarian. (So what? Will the world weep over my "treason"?) Libertarianism can be criticized for a lot of things, but I just don't see "libertarianism" in allowing this to be done to some poor dog.

It's a little easier to analyze this case because the animal let the humans know it was in pain. In general, though, there's no way to know, as animals cannot complain. Nor can they consent. There is no such thing as a consenting animal, and unless the animal cries, there is no such thing as a complaining animal. While I disagree with the animal rights philosophy that animals are like people, I nonetheless consider them more than inanimate chattel. Thus, while I would support the right of a person to neglect his car until it conked out (say, to buy an old clunker and run it into the ground), treating a horse that way would be unconscionable, and I support making it illegal. Indeed, the first laws against animal cruelty were passed to prevent the routine working to death of harnessed horses in factories once they had outlived their usefulness. Laws prohibiting cruelty to animals may quite properly define cruelty as including having sex with them for the animals cannot consent to sex. This is no more inconsistent with libertarianism than supporting laws prohibiting sex with minors.

Likewise, just as one cannot enforce a contract entered into by a child, there'd be no way to enter into a contract with an animal. Consent would be meaningless; suppose a valuable racehorse was "told" that it might sign a contract by imprinting a piece of paper with its hoof. If it did so, no court would consider that a valid contract because a horse cannot enter into a contract.

I see the question of whether it is within "man's nature" to have sex with an animal as basically moot. No one can define with precision what man's nature is anyway. Is masturbation part of man's nature? What about having sex with a dead animal? Is that necrophiliac bestiality? What about sex with a butchered carcass? Is that more "wrong" than screwing a rump roast?

How about a watermelon? Yeah, I know, it's considered by some to be an inflammatory symbol, and screwing fruit sounds pretty demented, but does it rise to that level of immorality requiring we punish the offender with criminal sanctions? And for those who are into smaller fruits or veggies and very different activities, how about bananas and cucumbers?

OK, let's really follow this out.... How about sex with a pumpkin? Halloween is approaching, and I remember reading about a man who did just that:

A Warren, Michigan, man has been sentenced to 90 days in jail for indecent exposure after neighbors spotted him having sex with a pumpkin. The man was already jailed at the time of his sentencing on a charge of domestic violence.
(The full sordid details here.) Might the argument be made that it is against man's nature (and possibly violative of human moral exceptionalism) for a man to have sex with a pumpkin? Obviously, here he was offending neighbors by doing it in public, but does anyone really have a moral objection to screwing a pumpkin that would not also apply to the use of any other inanimate object -- or simple masturbation?

Morally, there is no difference between a pumpkin, a banana, and a jar of lubricant. What makes sex with animals different is that there is a victim. Maybe not the same victim as a human, but a victim nonetheless.

I barely touched on necrophilia, and while I know that corpses cannot consent, if a person may consent in life to having his body burned to ashes or dissected by medical students, might he give permission to sex after death? Is that a libertarian cause too?

Some of these arguments are at least as ridiculous as arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or whether handguns should be sold in vending machines to elementary school students.

I don't know.

And much as I try to be serious, some of those pumpkins can be distractingly sexy.....


glamourpunpkin.jpg


Sorry about the next one, but I'm just trying to be inclusive:


sexypumpkin.jpg


Now that I think about it, that last one's sick enough to make most normal pumpkins feel like this:

pumpkinpuke.jpg

(Cinderella made me stop right there, lest the pumpkin of repugnance be transformed into a carriage of wisdom.)

UPDATE: Sean Gleeson has left a very thoughtful comment below, and I don't think this is as serious of an ideological dispute as it might appear to some.

Nor am I willing to engage in a speculative interpretation of Glenn Reynolds' "got nothing against bestiality" statement (that it's hard to consider sex with animals as more exploitative than eating meat).

(I'm sure there are those who would argue that because Glenn Reynolds says eating meat is the "moral equivalent" of sex, then his tolerance of sex with people means Glenn endorses cannibalism for people, but I think that carries the slippery slope argument too far. Besides, aren't there enough slippery slope arguments without my raising anticipatory defenses before they're even advanced?)

posted by Eric on 10.24.06 at 11:11 AM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/4147






Comments

I think you can make a distinction between men having sex with female animals and women having sex with male animals (if you really want to get into the finer points of this, which probably no one does). A dog that mounts a woman is doing so because he chooses to. That's not the case with a man and a female dog. So I don't think it's really technically correct that "an animal can never consent to sex".

Phil   ·  October 24, 2006 11:49 AM

I see your point, but seeing arousal as consent would also support an argument that a bitch in heat "consents" because she is receptive. Or, for that matter, a 14 year old boy is more capable of consent than a girl. I think that unless there's a consenting adult, there really can't be true consent.

Eric Scheie   ·  October 24, 2006 01:19 PM

Thanks, Eric, for your contribution to the discussion, and especially for pointing out what may be flaws in my thinking, or at least in my expression of thought. I do see how "libertarianism is wrong" does not follow from "Instapundit is wrong," and I'm sure I didn't mean to build my syllogism along those lines. I'm sorry for the fault, and grateful for the correction.

My thesis was that while a liberatarian impulse will often lead to correct public policy, a doctrinaire libertarianism cannot be a complete philosophy of government. I daresay I am much like you in that regard.

Sean Gleeson   ·  October 24, 2006 01:24 PM

Thanks Sean.

I don't think this is all that major of a dispute. Nor do I mean to dump on Glenn as being "pro-bestiality" for I'm not entirely sure that was what he meant to say.

This is not to interpret Glenn's remarks, but I do think that there are distinctions along the following lines between eating animals and having sex with them:

1. Humane slaughter is not cruel, because the animal does not understand that death is coming;

2. Sex with animals is cruel, and also unnecessary.

Eric Scheie   ·  October 24, 2006 01:54 PM

Just as an aside, I want to call attention to one sentence in this lengthy piece:

"(much less the Libertarian Party, which for all I care can advocate for bestiality until the cows come home for more.)"

What a great turn of the phrase on a tired cliche! I like me some good writing.

Rhodium Heart   ·  October 24, 2006 04:00 PM

I guess there's a big difference between dog-lovers and, uh, dog-lovers.

Bleepless   ·  October 24, 2006 06:00 PM

Far be it from me to try and put words in another person's mouth, but it seems to me that Glenn Reynolds probably supports voluntary cannibalism, just as he supports voluntary sex. If you see sex as just as exploitative as eating, then I think that position is internally consistent.

Jon Thompson   ·  October 24, 2006 06:22 PM

I really don't see how one can get round the argument that killing the animal is a worse violation than having sex with it, and that therefore if we accept killing animals for food, we are being inconsistent if we condemn bestiality. The argument that "humane" killing is not cruel because the animal does not know what is happening really smacks of a rationalization to justify something simply because it is familiar and accepted. By this argument, would sex with an unconscious animal be acceptable? Would killing a human become acceptable if the human did not realize he was about to be killed? What about using animals for their whole lives as beasts of burden? Is this acceptable (given that they are certainly aware of it and generally clearly don't like it) but having sex with them is not? If we insist that an animal can never give true consent to anything, what about keeping them as pets?

I have no strong feelings about bestiality (or meat-eating) one way or the other, but I think a lot of the logic we see deployed on these issues is just tailored to justify the status quo.

Infidel753   ·  October 24, 2006 07:01 PM

Jon, are you sure you might not be confusing a reluctance to put cannibals in prison with "support" for voluntary cannibalism?

Infidel, it seems to me that if an animal is killed humanely, it cannot be said to suffer, any more than you or I would suffer if someone suddenly fired a bullet into the back of our head without warning. To judge death as more harmful than sex applies an external anthropomorphic judgment that the animal would prefer sex to death. I don't think that is warranted, because although we know that as humans we would rather live, the animal lacks this awareness of death, and cannot value it in human terms.

I think sexual intercourse is different from death, because the animal is aware of it, and could be expected to suffer. Perhaps not the way a human would suffer, but to make an animal suffer at all for wholly unnecessary reasons strikes me as wrong. Medical research on animals also means suffering, but the difference is that there could theoretically be beneficial, even necessary reasons for it. I see no theoretical good that could come from sex with an animal.

You raise an interesting point with an unconscious animal, though. (That is different.) As to pets, I don't think that does harm to animals, especially domestic animals. Many of them (especially cats) wander in and stay. My dog is free to leave, although she won't. Horses enjoy being ridden, just as dogs enjoy exercise. Again, I think we have a responsibility to take care of them, and I think having sex with them violates that responsibility. (Yeah, I know it's rationalizing the status quo, but I also rationalize a human responsibility to wear clothes.)

Eric Scheie   ·  October 24, 2006 10:55 PM

You OK with riding horses? Dogsled teams? Household pets? Zoos? Hunting? Cosmetic testing? Cancer research on rats? Knock out gene mice?

I rode horses and they do not like having you on their backs with a metel bar in their mouth connected to your hand for yanking on. Your dog might prefer to run in a pack and mate when he sees fit instead of your domestic bliss. Rats with indiced cancer suffer.

Doug_S   ·  November 14, 2006 08:10 PM

Microsoft and Peter Jackson postpone the making of a film based on the Halo video game after backers pull out...

Destin Ornelas   ·  November 22, 2006 07:34 AM

Microsoft and Peter Jackson postpone the making of a film based on the Halo video game after backers pull out...

Destin Ornelas   ·  November 22, 2006 07:35 AM


March 2007
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits