Thread by @KometSF

Time for a new thread. This time answering @TherzanH. First of all: thanks for taking the time and effort you took for your reply and thanks for engaging respectfully.
This thread discusses #zoophilia #utilitarianism #contractualism
1/16

https://twitter.com/TherzanH/status/1260965348628729857

Actually, no. Consent is a concept of contractualism, but my arguments are based on utilitarianism where you don't measure things based on consent but based on the happiness or suffering an action creates.

Contractualism is a political theory and can only be applied to those who can give consent as defined by that theory. Within that theory everyone who can't consent has no rights and the theory provides no reason to treat them morally.

So if you think that animals, children, etc. should be treated morally, you are applying utilitarianism, not contractualism. Within utilitarianism though, the consent metric doesn't make any sense.

So, measuring happiness and suffering caused by an interaction, cognitive abilities can't tell you anything about it. The reason children suffer from sex is not because of their cognitive abilities but because of their undeveloped sexuality. Unlike adult animals.

So since adult animals have a fully developed sexuality they are able to want and enjoy sexual intercourse with other beings. Also, studies of sexual behavior of animals have shown that animals actually decide who to mate with and that they communicate their yes/no very clearly.

A recent study found that dogs actually DO love their owners. The research measured the oxytocin level change caused by mutual gazes between dogs and their humans.
science.sciencemag.org/content/348/62…

Also, whatever studies you are referring to, I am pretty sure, that all they say is:

"We couldn't find evidence for X in animals" and not "we could prove that animals don't have X". You might want to look them up and read them again. (But I doubt that such studies exist at all. In fact there is no reason to believe that within the last ~10.000 years such

a fundamental biological system could have changed in any major way. That's why most rejection of emotions in animals look the way they do: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_i…

Language is just an arbitrary definition for the human way of communicating. No wonder, you don't find it in the animal realm, it's just defined that way. However, animal communication can be just as complex as human communication. Animals communicate in ways we can't even notice

For instance:
- ants using scents to inform others: antkeepers.com/facts/ants/com…
- elephants communicating via seismic waves: elephantvoices.org/elephant-commu…

Also since vocal language can attract predators, so animals like macaques only developed a very efficient one.

I'm not sure what this could be an argument for. Getting back to utilitarianism I'd would say that "understanding the world" is not necessary to do things that add to your happiness. In fact, "understanding the world" might even be counterproductive. ;)

Since animals DO have relationships to other animals (partner, children in a pack / other animals in a herd), it's basically necessary that animals can make and express such decisions. otherwise their complex social structures wouldn't work.

And since animals actually DO have sex, there is no reason to think that they don't understand it.
(Except you'd want to see animals as biological machines as they were seen in the 19th century. But then again, there would be no reason to treat animals morally)

They can make decisions on behalf of their happiness and based on their experience. If they like some kind of interaction (like "playing tog-o-war") they will try to engage in that kind of interaction more often. If they had a bad experience with something they will try to avoid

that.
So as long as the animal feels pleasure, joy, and/or happiness and they don't suffer, aren't injured, etc.. then within utilitarianism there's nothing that speaks against playing with an animal, petting them or having a sexual relationship. 16/16