Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral

However, the rules Pro lays out are restrictive and labyrinthine to the point of being nearly impossible to follow. If Pro calls foul on some argument I make, I propose that judges evaluate the argument based on how well it captures the spirit of the Resolution. Basically, if I am directly attacking the idea that bestiality should be legal because it is moral, then my argument should be permitted. Judges should offer me leniency in meeting Pro’s restrictions because 1) The restrictions are quite elaborate and prone to misinterpretation- I shouldn’t be faulted for this and 2) Allowing Pro to disqualify my arguments encourages semantic and legalistic arguments, we should reject this strategy to preserve the quality of discourse on DDO. C1: Bestiality as a practice is immoral 1) A practice if immoral if it has inherent features that render it impossible to sustain in a moral manner. 2) Demonstrating that a single act within a practice does not violate moral norms is insufficient in proving a practice moral. Such a demonstration only proves that a specific, qualified act is moral. As an example, punching random people in the face is an immoral practice even if there are a narrow range of situations which a specific act of face punching could be permissible. 3) The practice of bestiality is inherently structured so that rape and abusive sexual relations will form. Cross-apply my arguments about consent and obligations of care which demonstrate the inherently problematic nature of bestiality. The practice is therefore immoral. C2: Pro’s argument fails H.4: 1) Pro doesn’t make any argument negating H.3- all he does is pose vague hypotheticals. In the absence of an argument negating H.3, Pro has failed to meet his BOP. 2) Humans are the only species capable of a lot of things. Legal contracts are an example of something only humans are capable of, because humans are the only species capable of making agreements. Pro’s first hypothetical does not lead in a compelling direction. 3) Non-human interspecies sex is non-consensual. I have just reconciled observed instances of non-human interspecies sex with H.3. Negation of H.3: Pro’s criticism of the applicability of “informed consent” consume the concept of plain “consent as well. Pro summarizes his critique by claiming that informed consent is inapplicable because it “relies on the context of the typical human mind and language,” yet the accepted definition of “consent” relies on concepts of “permission” and “agreement” which are wholly dependent on the context of human mind and language. The concept of permission entails a slew of social and linguistic understandings unavailable to animals. To grant permission I must understand that another agent desires to do X, the other agent recognizes my moral authority to sanction X, the other agent is requesting that I sanction X. I must understand that I have the ability to refuse X, that if another agent does X without my permission I have been violated, etc. Permission, agreement, and consent exist within a massive moral framework that animals do not operate in. I have trained my dog to go in her crate when I leave my home- I say “crate” and she enters her crate. How do we apply the concept of consent to this behavior? My dog is much happier lying next to the heater, but she obeys my commands. Is this because she understands that we have an agreement whereby I feed her and she obeys me? Does she evaluate her desire to please me against her desire to lie on the heater? Finally, Pro has the burden to show that consent is a concept applicable to animals. Merely refuting my criticism is not enough- Pro must present a positive case that animals are psychologically capable of consent. Animal’s inability to use language creates epistemic uncertainty in interactions between man and animal. This is problematic on two levels: 1) Establishing that animals are capable of consent Humans have no way of asking animals if they are capable of consent. At best we can examine their behavior and hypothesize that animals have this cognitive capacity, but this will always allow for a large degree of uncertainty. 2) Establishing that an animal is consenting to sex There is no way for humans to clearly communicate their intentions and preferences to animals or vice versa. The communication Pro relies on to establish consent will always be guesswork about what the animal wants and what it understands about the situation. Pro will likely respond that epistemic uncertainty exists even in consensual relations between humans. This response fails for two reasons: 1) Animals lack the ability to clarify any uncertainty about their consent. Humans can clarify when their consent is misconstrued. Animals not only lack the means of clarifying consent, they lack the conceptual framework to even understand that clarifying consent is an option in an undesired sexual encounter. Additionally, animals lack the ability to clarify if a sexual encounter has become undesirable. 2) The epistemic uncertainty in normal human interactions exists only in an academic sense and is in practice non-existent. Humans have internalized a complex system of moral convention and social cues to reliably communicate out intentions. Animals exist outside of this system so that the epistemic gap is of a magnitude that is incomparable to the gap that exists between humans. H.5.1: Again Pro is applying human concepts of the mind to animals. In what sense does a dog “pursue and action. ” When a dog obeys a command is it pursuing an action or simply following an ingrained stimulus-response behavior? Philosophical debates exist concerning the extent to which human action is freely chosen, yet Pro has done nothing to show that the less complex minds of animals operate at a level which allows for moral terms like “consent” to come into play. This point is especially salient with respect to sex- an activity which comes packed with automatic responses to sexual stimulus. If a dog brain is programmed to hump in response to certain stimuli, in what sense is it “pursuing” the act of humping? Finally, we have no way of determining whether an animal fears retribution for failure to comply. H.5.2 Again, Pro applies human concepts to animals. In what way does an animal mind “agree with itself? ” Honestly, what does this even mean? How does a human mind “agree with itself? ” I make hundreds of actions every day without any conscious decision or any self-awareness that is analogous to agreement. When I chew food I have no mental process by which I consent to behavior of my body- I just chew. Pro’s psychology doesn’t accurately describe humans, much less the massively disanalogous animal mind. Pro’s use of “agreement” in this section is different from the morally relevant use of “agreement” in the definition of consent. Agreement in the context of consent refers to some form of decision or ethical orientation towards a situation. Agreement in the context of a mind agreeing with itself is at best some sort of passive understanding of agreement whereby the mind doesn’t stand in the way of whatever it is doing, at worst is an incoherent concept. C3 – Bestiality violates the moral obligation of care 1) Individuals have the responsibility to protect the interests of those they have power over, especially when the power relation is non-consensual. This is why it is unethical for teachers to have sexual relations with students and offers at least a partial explanation for the immorality of sex with children. 2) Humans inherently exert a unique amount of power over animals. An animal sex partner depends on human caretakers for food, water, social interaction, access to bathroom facilities, etc. 3) This power imbalance makes it impossible to separate out coercive elements from sexual interaction. This power imbalance also makes any sexual interaction a conflict of interest. In the case of animals, the inability to report rape or seek justice after rape has occurred makes the obligation of care especially relevant. C4 – Informed Consent is the only morally relevant form of consent. 1) Consent given while misinformed, uninformed, coerced, or in an irrational state of mind bears no moral weight. Pro concedes that animals are incapable of informed consent, so bestiality is immoral. 2) Pro’s objections are largely irrelevant- a doctor treating an unconscious patient is implied consent, not uninformed consent. Guess what, you can’t call waive the requirement of informed consent just because one party is incapable of receiving information- this is way you can’t have sex with people in comas. 3) Pro’s reductio is incoherent. I agree that all sex between animals is non-consensual; it isn’t rape because animals are not moral agents- just like it isn’t theft when a pigeon nabs a piece of your popcorn. 4) Informed consent does not require 100% certainty, it just requires that consent be given from a state of rational awareness. C5 – Pro must show bestiality to be moral To prove the portion of the resolution “zoophilia should be legal,” Pro must prove the premise listed in G: “bestiality is a moral practice. ” This can only be done by showing that bestiality has some inherently positive moral characteristic; simply showing that bestiality is not immoral fails to meet Pro’s BOP. Something can fail to be immoral without being moral. For example, sitting on a chair is generally amoral; it has no positive or negative moral characteristic. It is easy to prove that sitting on a chair is not immoral; it is difficult to prove that it is moral.