Princeton professor Peter Singer, a philosopher who has been writing about animal rights for several decades, published and commended an article that argues zoophilia (commonly known as bestiality) is morally permissible.
Calling the piece “thought-provoking” and urging his followers to “read and ponder” it, he said it “challenges one of society’s strongest taboos and argues for the moral permissibility of some forms of sexual contact between humans and animals. This article offers a controversial perspective that calls for a serious and open discussion on animal ethics and sex ethics,” Singer wrote. He added a drawing of a human hugging a wolf to his X post, noting that it was “generated by Open AI’s DALL-E.”
Another thought-provoking article is "Zoophilia Is Morally Permissible" by Fira Bensto (pseudonym), which is just out in the current issue of @JConIdeas.
This piece challenges one of society's strongest taboos and argues for the moral permissibility of some forms of sexual… pic.twitter.com/32fIaJEJ1J
— Peter Singer (@PeterSinger) November 9, 2023
The piece was published in the most recent issue of the Journal for Controversial Ideas, which is edited by Singer. It essentially grounds its case on a radically utilitarian understanding of ethics: if an action does not cause pain to other beings, then it cannot be considered immoral.
This line of thinking, which aligns with the doctrine that has informed Peter Singer’s lifetime body of works, was criticized by conservative essayist Roger Scruton. Scruton, in his book On Human Nature, argued that Singer’s books like Animal Liberation (1975) “contain little or no philosophical argument. They derive their radical moral conclusions from a vacuous utilitarianism that counts the pain and pleasure of all living things as equally significant and that ignores just about everything that has been said in our philosophical tradition about the real distinction between persons and animals.”
Learn the benefits of becoming a Valuetainment Member and subscribe today!
The paper goes on to cite some questionable authorities to make its case for bestiality. “Despite this social consensus against zoophilia, there is evidence of zoophilic practices and representations in many societies,” the anonymous author of the paper justifies. The paper cites a 1948 paper by Alfred Kinsey, the infamous “sexologist” who is said to have used the diary of a single pedophile that chronicled his sexual exploitations of 317 pre-adolescent boys as “evidence” for his scientific claims about the general human population.
The paper continues:
zoophilia does constitute a more fullfledged sexual orientation for other people. With the advent of the Internet, groups of zoophiles have coalesced into a budding social movement, sometimes represented by the Greek letter ζ (Zeta), which puts animal welfare and preferences on center stage and firmly condemns any form of zoosadism and abuse. Calling themselves “zoos”, they urge that their orientation be acknowledged as a legitimate sexual identity alongside other already recognized sexual identities.
The paper denies that any harm is caused by bestiality nor is it “risky for the long-term well-being of animals”:
Moreover, it is unclear why this argument would apply only to sex. If the risk of harm is high enough when having sex with them, would it not be high enough too when engaging in other kinds of interactions with them? I agree that we should treat animals with great caution because it is not easy to understand how they feel – especially when we do not know them well – but it is an overreaction to infer from this that having sex with animals is wrong
The paper concludes that the case for bestiality is “fairly robust” and counter-arguments “fall flat.” It says objections are “often imbued with anthropocentrism, dubious appeals to naturalness, overly pessimistic views on what we can know, as well as untenable standards for interacting with animals.” It says critics of ‘zoophilia’
need more than outrage, they need better arguments. I suggest that the permissibility of zoophilia should now be taken as the default position, with the burden of proof belonging to its critics. The practical implications of this conclusion remain fairly open, though ensuring that people have the legal right to engage in zoophilia seems to be a straightforward next step to discuss. The stringent crackdown on all forms of zoophilia that has accompanied the improvement in the legal status of animals in the last decades may turn out to be a mistake. At any rate, it is time for philosophers, animal rights activists, and decisionmakers to reconsider their view on zoophilia. Hopefully, this article can contribute to opening this overdue discussion.
Peter Singer, occasionally referred to as the world’s most influential living philosopher, was born in Melbourne, Australia in 1946 and attended the University of Melbourne for his BA and MA and Oxford for his PhD. He has worked as a professor of bioethics at Princeton University since 1999. He still teaches there in the fall semesters.
He was awarded the $1 million Berggruen Prize for Philosophy and Culture in 2021. He has written more than a dozen books on animal rights and ethics since 1970, is a committed vegetarian, and a left-wing political theorist and activist who has worked with numerous left-of-center nonprofit groups and political parties.
Add comment