Sex with animals is ethically permissible

I will start by asking Pro to clarify his clarification: Is he asserting that people are fundamentally different from other animals (as in possession of a "soul" or a definite distinction in thought)? If so, an anatomical basis for that would be useful. Pros I. Animals have pragmatic value to People, at best Pros A> I am not aware of any aspect of game theory that purports to establish "people are optimally a community apart from other entities" and I will vehemently disagree with the assertion both in terms of societal health and in particular this subject. After all, sex with animals will not be an issue under such strict segregation as Pro implies. 1. Stipulated. Perhaps the final word word "tribes" could be broadened to "communities"? 2. Here there is a problem- memetic evolution is at best a metaphor, as the "meme" is not actually a unit in an evolutionary sense [1]. Further, cultural evolution, like all evolutions is by nature competitive in a direct biological way- rich successful rock stars versus a struggling street performer for example. It is true that animal have little direct contribution to culture, but their presence as companions cannot be termed a negative. Also, this topic on pragmatic value has little to do with the ethical question, as Pro has not yet demonstrated an "is therefore ought" connection. Pros B> People have ethical responsibilities from the basis of first principles, which animals cannot take part in. 1. Definition of freedom: stipulated 2. Definition of responsibilities Here Pro overextends his definition, in that he claims that is a person's responsibility to defend others freedom as well as his own. It is superior ethics to do so, but not a responsibility. 3. Definition of fairness: Stipulated, and quite good. 4. The claim of freedom: i. Here, Pro is wrong for the first time. Different animals are well known to have widely varying concepts of identity and theory of mind [2]- which is good from Pros point of view, as otherwise the tricky concept of consensual bestiality could not be addressed. ii. I"m just going to assume that Pro has no analogue to my experiences with horse corralling, were "offering" freedom to an unaware, fleshy automation with no concept of personal liberty was obviously not the issue. Pros C> People are existentially sustainable, animals are not. This entire paragraph is of topic. In the unlikely event of a global pandemic or asteroid collision, we may be able to survive- including taking sufficient living foodstuffs past the crisis to sustain us. In either event, the permissibility of sex with animals is not related. Pros II Difference between Ethical and Pragmatic Concerns: Pros A> "debate is not about pedophilia or the mentally disabled". I'll stipulate to that as well. Hey look at that, three entire paragraphs we both agree belong in another debate! Pros B> This is actually the question at hand, which I hold has not been sufficiently addressed. 1 and 2. These statements seem to be flatly contradictory, in fact I think I must not understand these points- unless Pro is arguing that Reason and Ethics are subjects forbidden forever to all other animals? [3] If so he is wrong, both as far as the far as the future is concerned (an excellent SF series on Uplifting is available from David Brin's Uplift . http://www.davidbrin.com...) and right now. Having known (as I alluded to) a large variety of farm animals up close, I find it impossible to credit the claim that animals don"t have such feelings as we do. Unlike our intellect, there is not even a discernible difference between our emotional [4] and moral [5] capabilities and those of several different species, rather far apart cladistically. Pros III Argument from Common Sense Pros A: 1. The impositions of fertilization may not be different from one of gratification, which unfortunately for Pro, opens the question of whether artificial insemination is part of an ethically abhorrent "sex with animals" topic. 2. Again, a very fundamental "is ought" problem is not being addressed. Even if sex approaches "nothing" in the spectrum of human cruelty to animals, Pro has not given a rationale why a lesser evil is somehow not evil. Pros B: 1. It is a simple fact that humans use animals for food, however that is subsumed by the fact that all animals eat other living things- by definition that"s what animals are. That impositions is axiomatically necessary by the dictates of survival. However, the existence of vegetarianism is a proof that that we don"t need to eat animals- again raising the specter of whether we should. 2. Stipulated, but again pointless. Defending ourselves is not anywhere near the question of whether we can commit an offense against an animal. One question, though- would and animal have a right to defend itself against a rape? IV. Pros conclusions A. Ethics are NOT shown to be for people alone and I hold that the opposing argument is more compelling [6] B. I'll stipulate to this, but note again' that ethical acceptability is is not shown by the arguments so far. C. Some imposition may be acceptable by necessity (not demonstrated so far) but I deny the ethics of adding anything to that necessity by choice. D. Having sex with animals is not ethically permissible. --------------------- 1 . http://books.google.com... 2 . http://books.google.com... 3 . http://books.google.com... 4 . http://books.google.com... 5 . http://books.google.com... 6 . http://books.google.com...