es. And that's a problem, not something that can be glossed over. I would need a better definition of a human in such a case. Now colloquially, you can use this definition to give a rough idea of something, but if this definition seeks to explain why something is or isn't moral, then it 100% needs to be a definition you can't poke holes in. Your definition fails because of this.
In general, moral rules have to be consistent. If X is bad because X is Y, then if Z also is Y, Z also needs to be bad, or you need a load of reasoning. This can't just handwaved away.
In short: Your argument was "Beastiality is bad because they can't have kids". This having bad implications means your argument needs fixing.
I was arguing based on natural law ignoring any religious reasons. The reason why we beings mate is because it feels good, it feels good to incentivise life forms to do it and pass on their seed/offspring.
The point of marriage is a union for the parents to raise children together so there is a better chance for offspring to live. It also functions as a union of two separate families to encourage clan and village growth and the growth of society.
The definition comes from that, infertile women are not relavent. They are still women, they are just disabled, disabled are not included in the definition of a group, if it was possible to make the infertile fertile and cure them then it would be great to do so.
Yes, that would be morally okay. That's an actual person (not human, but a rational person). Personally, I'd think it was kinda gross, but it doesn't warrant arresting them.
I completely disagree again it's a disorder the point of reproduction is to pass on you genes your DNA. She may be a person but that's not relavent. Again you thinking it's gross as well as most other people is proof that it is wrong.
Nope, the reverse. If the person is really so dumb they can't consent (think a severely mentally disabled person, I'm not sure if the person in the movie qualifies), we call sex with them rape even if they say yes. It's illegal because of this. Note, though, it would be rape, not beastiality, but the reasoning would be the same: inability to consent.
Consent explains nearly all sexual rules: Why can't you have sex with a child? They can't consent. Why can't you have sex with a severely mentally disabled adult? Can't consent. Why can't you rape people? No consent. Why no bestiality? Can't consent.
Nope under that logic animals when they mate are raping each other and we should stop them just like we do to children. Consent has little to do with why pedos are evil. It's evil because it's damaging the child they could die, or be infertile since they can't carry a child to term, hell they might not even be developed enough to have intercourse without horrible damage. Again naturalism is what I'm arguing for what is good for the species and how it acts in nature not high minded liberal "rights of man"
I mean look at planet of the Apes. Let's say that disease that deevolved humans only worked for one gender, would you think humanity should stop reproducing and just take a monkey lover? At this point your enlightenment ideology about rights, equality, and consent between equal partners has just become an anti human and anti life ideology like communism.
This is actually quite a multi-faceted issue.
- It's bad to fuck aliens/anthromorphic animals because they're not human.
- What is "human?" Can a non-human possess something akin to humanity, or is personhood located strictly in the body itself? Is there such a thing as a form of undifferentiated personhood separate from the human body? What if I were to upload my mind into the body of a different species? Would I still be a human person on the inside, or an intrinsically different kind of person?
- This also, naturally segues into a much deeper and thornier argument about what a person is, what identity is, whether or not non-humans can even be treated as persons or acquire personhood, or possess a form of personhood that is in any way comprehensible to us, and so on.
- It's bad to fuck aliens/anthropomorphic animals because they have a different body plan from humans, which makes them something more akin to animals, regardless of intelligence.
- This argument would also necessarily apply to people with extreme birth defects that alter their body plan, like Myrtle Corbin, who was born with four legs, two pelvises, two sets of functioning genitals, and so on.
- It's bad to fuck aliens/anthropomorphic animals because you can't reproduce with them.
- Well, neither can infertile people or gay people, technically.
Don't quote Torchwood. It's hyper liberal.
Anyway a human can be defined a few ways mostly based on how it's DNA is sequenced. But to make it simple I'd say any being that can reproduce with other humans as we are now and have been the past thousand years is a human.
If you change your body drastically then you are no longer human but some AI abomination. If you are another species then you now are that species and not human.
I agree with the second one. I looked up this Myrtle girl, apparently she could have children. She had a horrible mutation but again she can have kids with humans so I'd say human.
As for the infertile thing that was already discussed above, when someone mates with an infertile person they aren't doing so knowingly on purpose(even if you know they are infertile, your eyes and other senses can't tell that the person is "damaged" so a human animal will just go for it. After all there are animals that could have that disease that affects fertility and they won't act differently. You can't tell someone is infertile unless you use medical tests. Or it's obvious like castration.
As for gay unions yes under a naturalistic argument it's wrong.
Transhumanists have a concept called "morphological freedom", where they believe that humans should be able to alter ourselves into whatever, up to and including fragmenting ourselves into completely different subspecies. Anders Sandberg wrote a long essay on it (which is unfortunately paywalled):
I disagree with transhumanism I support humanity as it has been the past 10,000 years and more. Anything that threatens that should be wiped out.
This is kind of a monism versus dualism thing. It really boils down to whether or not you perceive a person as their body, or as a disembodied, sexless, identity-less mind that's just using a body as a type of vehicle.
This same ontological debate is the same thing that underpins transgenderism and the bioconservative backlash against it. These are two separate and irreconcilable ontological stances. One holds that you inhabit your body and that your identity is whatever you decide it is, internally. The other holds that you are your body and your identity is decided by how you are perceived by others, and so on.
Of course, there are a lot of inconsistencies with the woke stance. For instance, if being transgender is okay, then why can't people be transracial? Why can't I wake up one day and decide that I'm black?
You'll hear a lot of nonsensical, incongruent arguments against this:
I don't really care about how a person feels on the inside. Such questions are pointless for society. That is something that a person should only share with themselves, family, and close friends. However you should obey the social mores of where you are. So if you are a male you should act as such socially if society sees you as such(even if you don't "feel like a man" whatever that means) Same for women we have physical bodies and that's how we interact with society, I believe in a soul and am not a mateialist. But I don't know if a soul has a "gender" so it does not matter sure maybe men's and women's souls are the same and there is no disntiction. But our physical bodies are and our society lives in the material so deal with it.
Disgust?! What kind of psycho wants to base a moral system around what disgusts us?
I'm disgusted by 99% of medicines. So is medication unethical? What an idiot.
Yes we base it off disgust because that hind brain has that reaction for a reason. We do this even if Germanic pseudo robot wannabees pretend otherwise. Let's look at incest(brother sister pairings of equal age so there is no unequal power balance) it's illegal. The argument against it is that it can lead to increased chance of hereditary disease and that is true. But also it's not like every pairing will have that happen, and we also don't prevent OTHER pairings with increase chance of inferior genes being propagated.
That is eugenics and current society doesn't like that. Even though we do perform eugenics people always try to go for the best mate they can that is eugenics it's natural selection in action.
It's the sort of argument that arises from the faulty assumption (which a lot of intellectuals sadly make) that everyone has, or should have, exactly the same value system as you do.
I mean most things that cause disgust are universal eating poop for instance. It's very rare.
There are universals(a Christian will say it's the law of God written on the hearts of man) a biologist will say that these are things that are universally disadvantageous to human life. But you have to separate the universal morals from cultural ones. Many things people claim are universally reviled are only because of cultural socialization.