Why does the Princeton professor known as the father of the animal rights movement object to humans eating animals but not to humans having sex with them-and why does PETA defend that position?
2007-08-18 10:20:38 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
hi katie, i have no clue as to why these nuts do what they do, i've grown tired of trying to figure out their motivation. i think maybe they do it just to draw attention.
2007-08-18 10:28:44 · answer #1 · answered by andy c 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Having sex with animals probably didn't even cross his mind, so it was probably an oversight rather than an endorsement of bestiality. Since you didn't post a link or any quotes, we can't really judge that, but I can't picture a Princeton professor actually encouraging people to have sex with animals. It sounds like you're taking it out of context.
2007-08-18 19:02:31 · answer #2 · answered by ConcernedCitizen 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is a very good question. It is a case of someone not thinking a position clearly and logically. If the basic premise is that animals have the right to exist without being consumed as food then it should logically follow that animals have the right to exist without being made into sexual objects.
One would believe that an organization whose name is an acronym for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals would support that animals should be protected from such practices. It makes one wonder then doesn't it.
2007-08-18 10:36:24 · answer #3 · answered by lacey 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Several ideas:
1) PETA says the animal-man sex was consentual.
2) PETA says the animals like it.
3) PETA knows that "spunk" from vegetarians tastes terrible.
2007-08-18 10:29:27 · answer #4 · answered by Julie H 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
contrary to popular belief, this is not illogical. it's a moral theory that's structurally sound, if not uncomfortable for most people.
the professor you're talking about is peter singer. hes' a utilitarian. since this is yahoo answers, a utilitarian is a person who thinks the only things you should consider in morality are pleasure and pain.
in that system, people have no rights, animals have no rights, etc. it's all about maximizing well-being.
singer points out that animals are indeed capable of feeling both pleasure and pain.
if you're a utilitarian, then you must admit that maximizing pleasure should always be your goal. since animals feel pleasure, you should consider them in your ethical decision making.
so this isn't illogical. this is actually really thought-provoking. but since people seem to think it's a great idea to make claims about an argument without knowing its contents, i can see the disagreement.
2007-08-18 10:49:18 · answer #5 · answered by brian 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Wait? Tjhis man and PETA Are ok with having sex with animals but not eating them? Thats sick. No wonder I think PETA members are stupid.
2007-08-18 10:29:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's called the 'ol bestiality paradox.
Actually, I think you're over thinking this one. All he said was that he ...loves chicken .
2007-08-19 10:09:57 · answer #7 · answered by The Uncanny Comic 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why should we believe you if you don't even post a link?
2007-08-18 11:11:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Oh Lordy, what kind of spin have you been reading?
.
2007-08-18 10:28:17 · answer #9 · answered by Kacky 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋