More on the Bestiality Movie and "Sub Human Animals"
Apparently, there has been an attack on anti-bestiality laws, with the claim being made that such statutes are unconstitutional. (Why am I not surprised?) I haven't read it, but my friend Seth Cooper, a brilliant lawyer who once worked for the Discovery Institute, has. He weighs in at the American Thinker.
One argument against bestiality laws is that they are prohibited by the reasoning behind Lawrence v Texas (the Supreme Court case that prohibits laws banning homosexual sex), which found that such laws are constitutionally unacceptable "morals legislation." Cooper disagrees with this analysis: "Arguably, certain language in the majority and concurring opinions in Lawrence v. Texas casting doubt upon laws based purely upon traditional notions of sexual morality--if taken in its most literal and absolute sense--may thereby cast some doubt upon an important basis for anti-bestiality laws. But it's not unusual for jurists to resort to overgeneralizations and hyperbole in order to bolster their rulings in cases deciding highly specific matters...Only a seismic shift or complete collapse of traditional state police powers could exonerate bestiality."
That sounds right to me. I have never read Lawrence, but at least to some degree it seems to me to be a culmination of decades worth of political/legal advocacy by a constituency that has significant political power in this culture. I doubt that "Zoos" will ever achieve that level of acceptance.
On another note: For years I have been steamed about the use of the term "nonhuman animal," because it seems intended to focus on humans as animals toward the end of knocking us off our pedestal of exceptionalism. Cooper has the proper remedy. He calls our furry friends, "sub human animals." Very good. Notice given: I intend to steal the term and use it whenever confronted with the "nonhuman animal" assertion.
Cooper also throws in some good human exceptionalism advocacy. Way to go, Seth!
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 2:56 PM
8 Comments
8 Comments:
It's at least worth pointing out that what the court says and what the Constitution says are two different things. While for practical reasons lawyers may feel pressured to refer to something as being or not being "constitutional" based on Supreme Court precedents, it's good for our jurisprudential terminological hygiene to remember that Supreme Court rulings can be ridiculously wrong as actual explanations of what the Constitution means. Lawrence is highly questionable in exactly this way. So if Lawrence does imply that morals legislation is all unconstitutional, so much the worse for Lawrence, not for the _actual_ constitutionality according to original meaning of laws against bestiality. Imagine what the founders would have said!
When I was in law school, I was told by my constitutional law professor, "The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is." That is a topic for a different forum. But it has a ring of truth.
It reminds me of a thread here a couple weeks ago where Joe was implying that laws themselves are unconstitutional, because they stop people from doing what they want to do. I'm not sure what constitutes "morals legislation" exactly, except that the victim is either consenting, or is the perpetrator. Where in the constitution does it say that there can't be laws that stop people from doing what people shouldn't do? I agree Lydia that some of the language in Lawrence is not holding up well.
I would think that strict human exceptionalism would lead one to permit bestiality. Consider: to a human exceptionalist, humans have moral standing, animals do not. Therefore (given that assumption) sex with animals is equivalent to sex with a mechanical device, which may not be to your taste but is not generally something to outlaw.
Conversely, if you find bestiality repulsive than it's a sign that you aren't taking your human exceptionalism seriously, and that you look on animals as some kind of proto-humans that have moral agency but are sexually off-limits (like children are). Otherwise, what's the problem?
mtraven:
Flaw in your thinking - it's not logical.
1) Objective moral values exist.
a) "Objective moral values are valid and binding independently of whether anyone believes them or not... For example, to lable the Holocost objectively wrong is to say it was wrong even though the Nazis thought it was right. And it would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II..." (William Lane Craig, PhD *1).
b) "...we all know deep down that, in fact, objective mral values *do* exist. All we have to do to see that is to simply ask ourselves, 'Is torturing a child for fun really a morally neutral act?' I'm persuaded you'd say, 'No, that's not morally neutral; it's really wrong to do that.' And you'll say that in full cognizance of the Darwinian theory of evolution and all the rest." (William Lane Craig, PhD. *2)
2) If human beings are exceptional, then we are *able* to recognize that there are some acts that are not morally neutral, for only exceptional beings recognize moral absolutes, such as good and evil. Animals, not being exceptional, are unable to recognize moral absolutes, or else they would respond to the pain and suffering of other animals, not from instinctive bonding such as dogs are capable of (where a dog zoomorphises humans as its pack mates), but out of a sense of compassion. Animals still eat other animals, so that's not likely.
3) If there are moral absolutes, and we recognize them, then we must recognize that our exceptionalism must not be degraded, because if we degrade our own selves, it is only a step away from degrading the "self-ness" of other human beings. Other humans stop being exceptional in our eyes and start being open to exploitation, which violates the moral absolutes that we know deep down exist.
4) If there are moral absolutes, and human beings are able to recognize them, then we recognize that animals are off limits sexually, not because we see them as proto-humans (although there is an aspect to that), but because we recognize the biological differences between ourselves and animals, and recognize that sexual contact with animals degrades our own exceptionalism, and degrading our own exceptionalism ties back in to number 3.
*1. -
1* - Quoted in THE CASE FOR FAITH by Lee Stroble, pg 80.
2* - ibid., pg 81.
Tabs, there probably isn't room here to go into a discussion of whether moral absolutes exist or not. It's a complicated and controversial question.
However, even if there are moral absolutes, I can't see why a prohibition of human/animal sex would be one. After all, it is widely practiced in various cultures, and arguably doesn't hurt anyone.
Anyway, my point was not so much to defend the practice as point out yet another contradiction in the thinking of human exceptionalists.
Consider -- we treat animal pets as proto-humans in all sorts of ways (giving them names, treating them like members of the family). That doesn't "degrade human exceptionalism", whatever that means. So why should bestiality?
mtraven:
"Tabs, there probably isn't room here to go into a discussion of whether moral absolutes exist or not. It's a complicated and controversial question."
It is, but it's a starting place. For some reason, morality exists, that much we can agree on, but whether there are absolutes or not, well, you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on that.
"Consider -- we treat animal pets as proto-humans in all sorts of ways (giving them names, treating them like members of the family). That doesn't "degrade human exceptionalism", whatever that means. So why should bestiality?"
Y'know why I like talking to you? You drive me to want to be poetic, even if I fall flat all the time. You also put up with the fact that I can't say anything gracefully and still treat me with respect, which I appreciate.
Explaining this is going to sound odd right now. We just had my dog put to sleep and I'm very, very unhappy, so I'm probably going to sound very stupid. Please bear with me and try not to smack me too hard when something I say comes out sounding wrong.
My dog *was* a member of the family, not just treated like one. We call all of our pets our four-legged children. We spoil them, scold them, love on them, and think of them as an important part of the household.
But they're not people. They can't reason, they can't respond like people do. People who are into beastiality, overall, like to let go of all morals and ethics, to let go of their humanity. They like to be animals, without compassion, disciplin, or intellect. That's why sex with animals appeals to them - they stop identifying with humans and stop being human for a while.
First of all, that's not good for the person because one begins to doubt one's own self worth, but the second and more important reason is because once you start seeing yourself as an animal, without self-worth, then how long before you see other humans as "just animals" and lacking worth of any kind?
That's why I use the phrase "degrading human exceptionalism." Degrading - I use it in a more literal fashion, where something eventually erodes or crumbles, where entrophy kicks in and destroys something. Human exceptioanlism is worn down to nothing. Pretty soon nobody looks important anymore. It always has some kind of carry-over effect.
I love my dog still, and I am content in knowing my baby will be waiting for me on the other side (er, I'm not asking you to accept that, just explaining my own thought process here), but I wouldn't consider sex with her or any other animal because ... well, okay, the thing at the top of my cerebral cortex is Ewwwwwwwwww, but under the layers of Ewwwwwwwww is another thought - I'm a caretaker of this planet. I can't abuse the animals, I can't stop seeing myself as a caretaker of the planet, and I can't stop seeing other people as having intrinsic worth.
We really don't own anything, especially not living things. We die in the winter and are earth by April. Our time here is short and we should treat every moment as precious, all people as brothers, and all living things under us as under our protection. Even if there are no moral absolutes (again, we'll have to agree to disagree), that much is truth. Why ruin our short ride on spaceship earth by making things difficult for anything else that's alive?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home