Morality of Bestiality

Bestiality, having sexual relationship with non-human animals, has been a controversial topic all these years. Some think that is an abuse towards animals and that people in practice of bestiality are mentally ill. Peter Singer, writer of the article Heavy Petting, argues the otherwise. Sees ethical issues in preference utilitarian perspective, he promotes actions that fulfill the interests of people involved. As in the case of bestiality, since both human being and animals can both get the pleasure of sex, this action can be ethically moral if the sex performed is not cruel, two partners are mutually favored and that best consequences are made for the greatest number of people involved.

“We copulate, as they do; they have penises and vaginas, as we do”. In Singer’s article, he mentioned the great resemblance between human and animals, mammals in particular, and that a man can be sexually satisfied by a calf’s vagina. With this resemblance and satisfaction gained, animal sex is not much different from other non-reproductive sex, such as oral sex. Yet, “bestiality” and “oral sex” can be put into same category only if they are on the same basis. Although human and animals have structural similarity, it does not make it correct to copulate. Like bestiality, oral sex may not lead to fertilization by the action itself. But in many cases, oral sex is regarded as foreplay, which then leads to sexual intercourse that can serve the aim of reproduction. Hence, due to the functional difference between human and animals, despite of the structural similarity, the argument that bestiality is like other types of non-reproductive sex is not supported. Moreover, the satisfaction that Singer mentioned is rather unilateral. Due to the language b...

... middle of paper ...

...ored and that both can gain pleasure as consequences, that do not mean it is moral to have sex with children. Hence, with respect to the similarities, if we cannot justify sex with children as moral, we cannot justify bestiality as moral either.

To conclude, Singer’s standpoint as bestiality is moral under the conditions where the sexual activity is not cruel, mutually favored and best consequences for the greatest number of people involved does not hold. One major reason is that the species barrier made animals difficult to communicate, and there is no way human can know the actual thoughts of animals. In reverse bestiality, human being the passive participant may not have the strength to fight off the powerful animals. To justify bestiality as moral, one must be able to get informed consent from animals. Otherwise, no ethically correct outcomes can be resulted.