Bestiality/Zoophilia should be legal and is not inherently immoral

Overview: My strategy in this round has been to make multi-layered arguments that negate the Resolution. The structure of my arguments means that Pro must win each of my contentions to affirm the Resolution, while I only need to win one to defeat the Resolution. C2 is the first layer, though it actually contains two layers. In C2 I argue the consent is a morally complex interaction, for example I can’t permit something if I don’t know what it means to refuse permission or that violation of my permission would be wrong. This interaction goes beyond the psychological capacity of animals, so animals are not capable of consent. The second part of C2 says that even if animals were capable of consent, animals are unable to reliably communicate consent because animals exist outside the complex language/communication structure of humanity. Since communication of agreement is necessary for consent, an unreliable method of obtaining consent precludes the possibility of actually obtaining consent. The epistemic uncertainty of animal interactions renders consent impossible. C4 is the next layer- even if Pro proves that animals are capable of communicating consent, consent is only moral if it is informed consent. Informed consent is what we require for all other interactions- if you lie, mislead, or take advantage of ignorance, then the consent you obtain is not moral. Animals are not fully aware of the risks or circumstances of interspecies sex so are not capable of informed consent. Pro conceded this point in R1 when he said “No one who has a pet…has ever had informed consent from any animals.” If I win that informed consent is required, I have won this debate. C1 says that even if animals are capable of communicating informed consent, the inherent epistemic uncertainty of the act renders the practice immoral. Bestiality allows for rape without accountability and relies on guesswork to determine if consent is being granted. The inherent uncertainty of the practice hinders the moral practice of individual acts, making the practice as a whole morally unstable and thus immoral. C3 argues that even if Pro wins 100% that bestiality meets the moral requirements of consent, bestiality still violates obligations of care. Bestiality is immoral because it is a conflict of interests and creates an institution prone to coercive sexual relationships. C5 says that even if Pro defeats arguments C1-C4, he still has not met his BOP. C1-C4 only argues that bestiality is immoral; defeating them just proves that bestiality is not immoral. To meet his BOP, Pro must satisfy his own premise that bestiality is positively moral. Pro has never in this debate presented any argument that bestiality is moral. Pro’s only response is that we ought to accept a moral/immoral dichotomy, despite my examples of clearly amoral actions. Pro has not met his BOP. C5 I concede Pro’s point- a practice is immoral if it can’t be sustained in either a moral or an amoral manner. B.2 says that consent is the “prerequisite of all moral interaction,” i.e. it is required for moral interaction but does not make an action moral. Pro never refuted that amoral acts exist- e.g. sitting on a chair, nor that interpreting his premise as “either moral or amoral” substantially alters its meaning by prohibiting government regulation of traffic laws and border crossings. C1.1.1 The inability to reliably communicate and the massive power imbalance between man and animal are inherent traits of bestiality which render it immoral. These traits inhibit practicing bestiality morally, in the same way that the randomness of random face punching inhibits the moral practice of face punching. C1.1.2 Uncertainty is relevant to the morality of an action; it is not an appeal to ignorance. There is a huge amount of uncertainty in the capacity of animals to consent- my R4 evidence shows that even animal psychologists argue about the capabilities of animals- as well as uncertainty in interpreting animal behavior into human terms of consent. C1.1.3 Pro is incorrect- laws do not control individual actions, they govern practices. The law doesn’t make Professor Plum in the library with a wrench illegal- it makes murder illegal. In the same way the law doesn’t make that one time Professor-Plum-carefully-studied-his-dog’s-psychology-and-videotaped-everything-and-made-sure-he-wasn’t-accidentally-being-coercive legal, it makes the practice of bestiality legal. Bestiality includes all the careless people who abuse their power and misinterpret animal behavior and overestimate animals’ cognitive abilities. C1.1.4 Pro concedes banning exploding cars would be moral, conceding the principle that uncertainty renders acts immoral. Pro says exploding cars shouldn’t be banned if the risk is insignificant, but the risk of immoral acts of bestiality is not insignificant. C1.1.5 I agree, each act constitutes an immoral risk- my point is that bestiality inherently has characteristics that create moral risk. Pro doesn’t address my point that individual acts are always qualified and are always tied up with “non-essential” characteristics or that bestiality only exists as the practice of individual qualified acts. We can only judge the morality of a practice through all the acts that fall within it, i.e. how bestiality is actually practiced. C1.1.8 The point of my cake-rape room is that if such a room were allowed, rapists could just line up at the door knowing they could get away with rape. The possibility that they might do something benign does not justify allowing the opportunity to rape someone. Moreover, Pro himself said “a law which permits a single instance of violating rights is improper”- allowing legal space for unaccountable rape permits the violation of rights. C1.2.1 Pro doesn’t address that even with a video recording, interpretation is required. The nature of bestiality means it is NEVER possible to simply ask the victim “did you consent?” The best we can ever do is guess about whether the victim consented. It is important to note that even with video evidence, a non-consenting animal could appear to consent for any variety of reasons. With human sex these issues do not exist. The crime of rape is based on violation of consent, so the crucial evidence is mind of the victim. Under ideal epistemic conditions- a human rape will always be held accountable since the victim can testify their lack of consent. Under ideal epistemic conditions, animal rape may or may not be held accountable, since justice depends on correctly guessing the lack of consent of the victim. C1.2.4.3 Animal behavior is non-uniform- frightened animals may not always appear frightened. Pro has only provided evidence that sometimes animals hump humans, not that video evidence can reliably be used to determine consent. C2.3.2 Pro says that if I don’t act to stop someone from stealing my wallet, I have consented. Keep this in mind when considering whose theory of consent is correct. C2.3.3,6 Money is not central to the car buying example. I need more than preference and volition to agree to take the car. Imagine someone only capable of preference and volition trying to enter into a car agreement: “Would you like this car for free?” “I want this car!” “Ok, do you agree to take it?” “I don’t understand what an agreement is, but I want it!” “Ok well I agree to give it to you, do you accept?” “I don’t understand any of those words, but I want this car!” Even if the dealer gives the car away, Mr. Preference hasn’t agreed to anything, he has just taken something he wants. Agreement and consent require an understanding of the circumstances of the interaction and of the moral concepts involved with agreement and permission. Simply having preferences and the ability to act on them is insufficient. C2.3.3.5 The portion of the article I cited represents the opinion of Dr. Kaminski, the author of canine research that inspired Dr. Pilley’s research. My evidence shows that Pilley’s conclusions are contested within the scientific community- this plays into the epistemic uncertainty of bestiality. Kaminski disputes Pilley’s claim that the dog knows common nouns- she says the behavior only “[shows] that the dog can combine words for different actions with words for objects.” The “common nouns” Pilley claims the dog knows are actually learned by the dog as proper nouns applied to specific actions. C3 Coercion is moral if it is being employed as a care taking measure. Since humans take up relationship where they have power over animals, they have obligation to deploy that power to care for the animal, e.g. in benign behavior modification during training or in administering healthcare. A sexual relationship is different from other sorts of interactions. Anyone with even a basic understanding of human sexuality knows that sex is not the same as “any other time when a human wants something…” Extend all my arguments about how sex complicates power relations between humans, such as in the case of teachers or employment. Sexual relationships are especially prone to abuse, that’s why they are so tightly governed within human power structures. The impossibility of holding animal rape accountable also plays into this argument. Humans will know they can abuse their power to fulfill their sexual desires without fear of repercussion. C4 Pro doesn’t refute that informed consent is morally required- this is why it is functionally conceded. Extend all my arguments that consent requires awareness of the circumstances of the interaction. Pro concedes that animals are ignorant of nearly all the factors involved in sex- he merely brushes these factors off as irrelevant. Yet if I win that informed consent is required for consent to be moral, then these factors are relevant. Pro also does not refute that simply being aware of the interaction is insufficient for informed consent- ignorance of factors like health risks are relevant, as are any beliefs animals might have about rewards or punishment associated with sex.