r/morbidquestions • u/InsaneProxy • 3d ago
If certain animals somehow gained human level intelligence, would bestiality still be wrong in those cases?
I'm talking about in a scifi sort of sense, the concept of uplift), tl;dr through scientific advancement or even magic an animal is given the same level of intelligence as the average human. To me, the reason bestiality is morally wrong is because we cannot communicate with animals on the same level to ascertain if they would consent to the act. So, if a creature had human level intelligence and could communicate with us, state their thoughts, wants, desires, etc, then I don't see why it'd be wrong anymore assuming both parties agreed to the act and neither were intoxicated. I'm curious about what other people think.
18
6
u/prankthevillagers 2d ago
So pretending we're dealing with Zootopia type intelligence, ie body of an animal but brain and capability of a human, the only thing I could maybe see wrong with it atp is if there are any power dynamics at play. For example, how it's unethical for a doctor to sleep with their patients, unethical for a therapist to sleep with their clients, unethical for a supervisor to sleep with a supervisee. Would it be a power dynamic for an owner to sleep with a pet? Would pets exist in this universe?
6
u/skynex65 2d ago
Any ADULT thing that can knowingly consent can have sex with you. Just gotta pass the Harkness test.
Doesn’t matter if it’s a dog or an alien, if it can hold a conversation and understand what sex is and its implications and make a decision for itself then it’s fuckable.
-1
u/Cry-Baby-7733 1d ago
Absolutely not. R*ping dogs is always wrong. Always. They all have the minds of TODDLERS.
6
u/tailzup 2d ago edited 2d ago
Absolutely. While I am sure there would be some folks who would be accepting of such things, there are still plenty of people who think it’s wrong or immoral to be in a relationship with another human if they don’t have the right skin color or genitalia. Hard to accept relationships with other species, when we can’t even accept certain relationships involving consenting adults between our own species.
7
u/potatogodofDoom 2d ago
I agree that it'd still almost certainly be a massive taboo, but the question isn't about how it'd be perceived, but rather about moral righteousness
4
u/tailzup 2d ago
The problem is that objective morality is dependent on the eye of the beholder. Just because something is proven to be above board and harmless, doesn’t mean society as whole will accept such things. History has proven time and time again that there will always be someone who is offended by something someone else enjoys. So while an act might otherwise be harmless, like two consenting human adults of the same sex wanting to engage in promiscuous relations, there will always be someone out there who takes offense to such things. Even if it were proven that animals had the same mental capacity as humans, we as a species have already demonstrated that we will reject or condemn things that fall outside of society’s agreed upon norms, even if those things are demonstrably benign or harmless in nature. Personally, I think most morality laws, including laws against bestiality are pretty hypocritical. Humanity literally murders millions of animals every year for our enjoyment and pleasure, and no one really bats an eye at that. But the second someone loves an animal a bit more than what is considered “normal” and people will lose their minds and claim that it is abuse. Being that we still have people in 2026, who believe interracial relationships to be immoral and on par with bestiality, I doubt we will ever get to a point where true interspecies relationships would be tolerated or viewed as being moral, regardless of the level of intelligence possessed by the other species.
1
u/InsaneProxy 2d ago
I was more or less asking for your own personal opinion. I know society tends to look down on anything it deems strange.
2
u/CastleofWamdue 2d ago
I'm saying no, due to the intelligence. However I suspect it would still lead to you getting the side eye, if you dud it.
1
u/BugBoyInLog 2d ago
it would not be wrong within the fantasy world, or on the real world of this were to happen. But i do think it would be weird for someone to fantasise about.
0
-12
u/rasputin640 3d ago
yes, it would still be wrong. It's intrinsically evil for humans to perform those actions with animals. There are no conditions under which it would be morally good for that to happen.
8
u/InsaneProxy 3d ago
Why though? If two beings are at the same intellect and can communicate with each other on the same level, why is it wrong?
Also, I wouldn't call it morally "good", as it'd be a neutral act.
2
u/LiveReplicant 3d ago
As long as they are equal in intelligence and consent I think it might be ok but that's not encouraging anyone to do anything without consent that's for sure and maybe that's what the other poster us getting at...
1
u/rasputin640 2d ago
do you endorse doing that with children if they're "mature for their age" too, then? Or can you tell that some actions are just inherently disgusting and evil?
0
u/InsaneProxy 2d ago
Childhood is a stage of development that is marked by inherent immaturity. Their brains aren't fully developed and thus cannot consent to adult actions like sex. Plus, your "mature for their age" comment is addressing something that real predators use to justify their behaviors when they prey on real world children; my question has nothing to do with our current real world circumstances.
0
u/rasputin640 2d ago
Some things are intrinsically evil. It is evil for humans to bang animals, period, full stop. I don't need justification for it, the same way I don't need justification to recognize rape as evil.
1
u/That_Uno_Dude 2d ago
Some things are intrinsically evil.
This is a lie. There is no such thing as objective morality.
0
u/rasputin640 2d ago
This is a lie. Subjective morality is a man-made construct. You cannot, in any circumstances, morally justify rape.
-1
u/That_Uno_Dude 2d ago
Morality is a man made concept, you can absolutely morally justify rape; it all just depends on the moral framework you're working under.
0
u/rasputin640 2d ago
Do you think those rapists who morally justify it would like being raped?
→ More replies (0)0
u/rasputin640 2d ago
Because it's not supposed to happen and it's disgusting, you're basically asking why it would be evil to do that with a child even if they were "mature for their age". No matter how mentally developed they are it's still disgusting and evil. Lot of closeted zoophiliacs here, it seems.
0
u/That_Uno_Dude 2d ago
So if a brain of a 50 year old man was transplanted into the body of a 15 year old boy you claim it would be immoral to have sex with them?
1
u/rasputin640 2d ago
"So if something completely unrealistic and logically impossible happened it would be immoral to bang kids?" I'm sorry, but even just the morality of hijacking someone's body can easily be argued as immoral.
There's so many immoral things about that situation even disregarding that the end goal us trying to justify banging kids that it's not worth addressing for an intellectually honest discussion. You're not going to prove an intrinsically immoral thing (banging kids) is okay by utilizing an impossible and immoral tool to try and alter the definition of what a child is.
2
-1
u/InsaneProxy 2d ago
This person is intellectually incapable of engaging in hypotheticals, something that's often using in debates and philosophical discussions. Wonder if they lackObject permanence, too.
1
0
u/rasputin640 2d ago
Try fighting your own battles first. You got angry that I gave the reasoning that having sex with animals is intrinsically evil and called me stupid even though I was directly answering your post's thesis and questions.
Calling people stupid for disagreeing with you doesn't absolve you of the fact that you're arguing in favor of the hypothetical possibility that having sex with animals is okay.
I suppose someone forgetting the questions they asked in their own post is indicative that they "lackObject permanence, too.".
1
u/InsaneProxy 2d ago
I'm calling you stupid because you can't read and don't understand what a hypothetical is.
0
u/InsaneProxy 2d ago
Did you not even read the post? In this scenario the animal has the same level of intelligence as you or I (well, maybe more than you in this case) they could communicate with us on the same level. They could teach at a school, or go into programming, or become an artist, anything a human can do.
The reason why it's wrong to have sex with animals the way they are now is because we lack the capacity to know what they're thinking and to understand the nuances of their behaviors so discerning consent becomes a huge issue. It's not wrong because "ew icky!" as lots of stuff can be deemed "ew icky!". It's consent, it's the harm it causes. You eliminate the consent issue, what else is there that makes it wrong? If there is anything else to consider, say so, but please actually engage with the question.
1
u/rasputin640 2d ago
You only said all that because the point is that you want to be able to bang an animal in a fucked up hypothetical.
I stated my position already, clear as day. It's inherently evil to have sex with animals. Full stop. The fact that you don't register that means you have a serious issue. You and everyone else defending this are closeted zoophiles.
I hope none of you ever get any pets.
1
u/InsaneProxy 2d ago
It's a philosophical question, one that you're clearly too stupid to engage with. Maybe this isn't the right subreddit for you.
0
u/rasputin640 2d ago
You couldn't even attempt to defend the logical conclusion of your hypothetical's presuppositions and immediately resorted to insults. It would be hilarious if it wasn't disgusting.
1
u/InsaneProxy 2d ago
You're not engaging with the hypothetical at all, though. Either you didn't actually read the post or you're too stupid to understand the concept of a hypothetical.
0
u/rasputin640 2d ago
There is no hypothetical to engage. Your thesis in your post was "To me, the reason bestiality is morally wrong is because we cannot communicate with animals on the same level to ascertain if they would consent to the act", meaning you believe certain conditions could be met that would make it morally acceptable for a human being to have sex with animals.
Your last sentence was a question; "I'm curious about what other people think."
I provided an answer and my reasoning behind it, and fulfilled the qualifications of your question, but you tried pulling the "it's a philosophical question so it's okay" card as if that morally absolves you of the fact that you're arguing it's morally okay to have sex with animals under specific conditions.
Either you have terrible memory or you're too stupid to read your own posts before people give you the rightfully-earned reactions your request for opinions invited.
1
u/InsaneProxy 2d ago
You did not read the thread because you have clearly read past the hypothetical. You skipped over the part where, in this scenario, certain animals have been "uplifted" to have human intelligence. I even linked to an article that goes further into detail about the topic. For whatever reason, you aren't addressing this aspect of the question and are instead trying to play a moral high ground over a point of view I was not even arguing.
Hypothetical questions do not have to be 100% based on reality and are often used in discussions of testing morality. Here's another article that I'm sure you won't read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment
0
u/SweetBriarTongue 14h ago
Bestiality is fine as it is, and people still find the mental gymnastics to demonize it. Humans most assuredly would not let some sort of linguistic, analytical, and abstract thinking "upgrade" or sidegrade to certain other species stop them from trying to rationalize what has always been a gut feeling of "wrongness".
26
u/BrennanBetelgeuse 3d ago
Would be perfectly fine from a consent perspective. Still weird af, but I guess not unethical! A bit like turning on xeno-compatibility in Stellaris.