Sex with animals is ethically permissible

Sex with animals as an ethical question.It is clear that CON is attempting to straw-man my argument in this section. My contention is not, and never will be that "should one [should] have sex with animals", which would define sex with animals as a responsiility, but rather that people merely be entitled to the freedom. While it is seemingly minor, it is actually quite important to my case.Animal Freedom is Irrelevant.In his section on the relevancy of animal rights, CON argues, the burden of proof rests on the claimant that they have a soul. No credible evidence exists for souls of any sort, and it is likely that when something dies it is simply dead, and so the pain that it endures in life is irrelevant. All the pain and comprehension that it endures is worth nothing once it dies, and death for animals is inevitable and even necessary for their evolutionary strategy to work.Teleological Account of Human Nature and Bestiality.In response to CON's claims on teleology, teleology is only valid as claim for normative ethics if there is both an agent, and an intent in evidence. A knife is a good knife if it cuts well IFF there is an agent who wants to cut something with that knife, and the teleology only applies in that specific situation. It is invalid to say that "A knife is a good knife if it cuts well" if the purpose for which the agent needs a knife is principally to stab and open a hole centered on the initial point of penetration; in this case cutting too well may in fact be detrimental to the functon of a knife used to that end. His argument that his teleology or Aristotle's teleology are correct are merely arguments from authority, and to be discounted. Rather, I propose the teleology of a person to be whatever they damn well please, so long as it does not attempt to define the teleology of another person... and in that case, we get right back to the point of the normative ethics I proposed in the first place, and Teleological accounts of human nature then turn to support the case for PRO.Deontology: Kant Screws the poochOn deontology, he proposes a straw man. First, how is it inconceviable that people be able to do whatever they damn well please, so long as they do not violate the freedom of others to do whatever THEY damn well please? Second, it is a simple matter to rationally allow others to do whatever they damn well please, so long as they let you do whatever you damn well please. Both of Kant's rules are satisfied. It is, further, a simple matter to rationally will yourself to have sex with an animal: A person may have a biological sexual drive that needs reduction, an animal that will serve that purpose, and as such t is rational to use the animal for that purpose. His argument here seems to hold NO water whatsoever, and in all actuality deontology supports beastiality.Consequentialism: Conflating pragmatism with ethicsAs far as consequentialism, it is another word for pragmatism, and it fails in every way that a thing can fail to be equal to ethics. It is essentially saying that the ethicalness of something is defined by how well you can avoid consequences, and it is the philosophical equivalent of nihilism or solipsism. We have long accepted that might does not make right, no does the ability to "get away with it". Following this, CON makes an appeal to law, appeal to popularity, and an appeal to authority by which such a thing is argued by CON as wrong. Such an argument rightly fails against gay rights, and against interracial marriage, and it must fail against beastiality.Further, he has a BOP to determine that satisfying one's sex drive is not itself rational, so long as it does not violate the freedom of an ethical agent.As such, CON stands thoroughly and completely rebutted. Animals have pragmatic value to People, at best More on game theoryBecause of the lack of any thing that may be considered a soul, evolutionary strategies are relevant to the discussion of what beings may have value. For Darwinian evolvers , their evolutionary strategy necessitates death; it cannot be divorced from the cycle of "1) have children with mutations, 2) organisms compete over resources 3) losers die 4) winners return to step (1)". Critters which evolve primarily in the Darwinian mode cannot and must not realize the first and most basic freedom to be, and extending it to them without fully making them people is an insult to what they are. Without an after-life, however, only their external effect on the world is relevant to their species or any other species. As such animals have only pragmatic value. For memetic evolvers, death is neither necessary or beneficial. The unit of such evolution is the idea, which is the "DNA" of memetics, and any organism or entity able to understand that idea may benefit from that adaptation. If one person has a good idea, all people can benefit without the need for any death. In this way, they ideally form a community where the ideas compete, and the people do not. As a rational goal of people is to prevent death, and as this life is all we have, it then becomes important to guarantee freedom. As such, people have intrinsic value to themselves which does no insult to the survivability of the community of people, and thus people have every responsibility to accept the intrinsic value of other people as equals ought be treated equally More on ethicsTeleologically speaking, as the telos of the person is an intrinsic finality, and as such purely up to the person in question. That being accepted, the same logic which CON purportedly accepts as valid supports (teleology) serves as a path by which the above ethical rules may be reached. More on existential sustainability Simply put, if people find use for animals in relieving our sex drives, it is a fundamental good for animals, as we then have a reason to save them when we save ourselves from some existential threat. This is directly in line with CON's claim of consequentialism as that the consequences to the actions of animals of being useful to humans is enough to establish responsibility to be useful to humans. The difference between ethics and pragmatism Why pragatism is not ethicsNormative ethics, accepted by CON as the subject of this debate, is concerned principally with what no man ought do. In various situations, such an argument has been applied that the happiness of the majority authorizes them to do injury to the freedom of a minority to be. In Germany, it was decided that being Jewish was to be scrutinized, and that all that discomfort and anger with jewish people was more important than that little ammount of happiness had by those people through their freedom to be. On common sense The special pleading of CONThis particlar point was in fact a basis from which to argue that CON has a burden of special pleading which he needs to address. CON has yet to forward any suitable argument as to why those things might be considered as evil or not evil, but by which sex with them is somehow different; I have certainly met my burden to demonstrate why they are not. ConclusionsCON has yet to provide any argument in favor of his ethical principles, or even detail what those principles are; he has provided 3 different and conflicting ethical frameworks without providing support for why any one of them must be right. He has not argued his accepted claim that sex with animals is ethically impermissible, IE that some necessary causal relationship exists between "sex with animals" and some ethically impermissible activity. Ethics are clearly for people, not animals. Pragmatic unacceptability is diffrent from ethical unacceptability. Common sense dictates that imposition upon animals is acceptable and even necessary for the existence of people. Therefore having sex with animals is ethically permissible.