After hearing Steve Lebrasky's interview, I realized something about the Zeta Principles: the first few are, in effect, restatements of Kant's categorical imperative, one of the foundations of deontological ethics. The Zeta Principles, on the ZETA website, are:
- Bestow upon animals the same kindness one would wish bestowed upon oneself.
- Consider the well being of an animal companion as important as ones own.
- Place the animal’s will and wellbeing ahead of one’s desires for sexual gratification.
- Teach those who seek knowledge about zoophilia and bestiality without promoting it.
- Discourage the practice of bestiality in the presence of fetish seekers.
- Censure sexual exploitation of animals for the purpose of financial gain.
- Censure those who practice and promote animal sexual abuse.
Kant's categorical imperative, according to his works (I'm using this as a synopsis), is first stated, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." I think these rules are universalizable enough, since it would be a good thing if every person treated animals with kindness and respect. However, the connection becomes much clearer with the alternative formulations.
The first of these, "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.", is extended by the Zeta principles, treating nonhuman animals as persons in this sense.
The final formulation is a little abstract, but it's sensible: "A rational being must always regard himself as legislator in a kingdom of ends rendered possible by freedom of the will, whether as member or as sovereign." In other words, personal autonomy is regarded as the source of moral worth, and since nonhuman animals have it to a degree, this must be respected in interactions with them. This is best reflected by the last four principles, which disallow certain actions as violations of animal autonomy.
Regarding the ZETA priciples, I have to add that these ARE NOT the original zeta priniples created by the mid nineties IRC chat community of Lintilla And Sleepy´s. The ZETA rules, as quoted above, are indeed a very crippled and rudimentary version of what the original zeta principles were. The paragraphs about animal porn and animal prostitution seem to have gone missing, probably due to the "re creator´s" personal "taste".
Kant´s categorical imperative surely isn´t the wrong place to start from, but the original rules have become heavily distorted by translating them/trying to translate them into more sophisticated sounding sentences. For example, one original zeta rule was "Don´t talk ´em in, talk ´em out." This rule was aimed at undecided and mostly "zoo curious" newbies, but it only shines through partially in two of the ZETA rules, "Teach those..." and "Discourage...".
That´s just one example of how severe the differences between the original and the ZETA rules are. Anther thing to add: ZETA as an organisation seems to have no problems with their own, self given rules when it comes to defending people exploiting animals for their personal financial gain. It has happened in the Ramstein "animal brothel" case as well as in the "dog porn studio" case of Verl...in both cases, ZETA members were supportive, in the Verl case, some ZETA members even showed up at the trial held against the dog porn maker.
Having principles is nice. Throwing them away in an instant is vile and rotten. Don´t be fooled by these ZETA rules as nobody of ZETA seems to obey them when it gets uncomfortable to do so. These rules are used as a shield when attacked, but thrown away when the bedroom/barn door closes and pants are unzipped.
The idea that animal prostitution and animal porn are unethical even if practiced safely goes against the zoo belief that safe sex with animals is ethical. Why does it matter if the cameras are rolling? Why does it matter if someone else has sex with your dog? If the animal isn't harmed by it or even enjoys it like zoos claim, then there is no issue.
Bestiality porn is okay if the animal consents.
I don't agree with this version of the principles either. Actually, I find Kant really simplistic and unnecessary, and would derive guidelines like this from attempts to get the results best matching the preferences of the animals and people involved.
On these specific issues, porn doesn't seem to do anything different to the animals than sex without recording, so I have little problem with it. As for prostitution, I don't know how an animal can be compensated for their labor, and so it seems exploitative to me.
But do they think of it as work?
If it's just a simple pleasure for them, it'd be like a bunch of people coming over to play fetch with them.
Doing it occasionally with people they know and love is one thing. Doing it with strangers with no guarantee of good behavior or compatibility is another. I don't see it as workable, over all.
then can you call it prostitution?
Unless the animal engages in sex with a reasonable understanding that they're being "paid" in food or other goods for engaging in sex, I wouldn't. Perhaps there is no such thing and it should be more accurately be called sex slavery when "customers" coerce animals like that.
On the other hand if you meet with someone you trust and let the animal decide completely on his own whether he wants to have "a simple pleasure", that's something different.
Hey, just letting you know, your account's been shadowbanned by the Reddit admins. Not sure why, but you can contact them here. Your comments/submissions only show up if a moderator manually approves them.
https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Freddit.com
A friend of mine recently turned Christian†, and he's told me some interesting things about Old Testament laws.
There are laws to forbid "sinful" things, and there are laws to forbid risking accidentally sinning. This way of thinking also explains some (but not all) of the oddities in modern laws, for example the UK's "extreme porn" laws forbid female ejaculation just in case it's urine instead of cum (no I don't know why they have a problem with golden showers). People's ethics have been demonstrated to loosen when money is involved, so banning commercialised sex is reasonable regardless of if the sex is inter-species or intra-species. Non-commercial porn is a separate question, and I have no problem with it regardless.
† His beliefs seem very different from every branch of Christianity I was familiar with, I don't know if he's making it all up.
I also fail to understand what's the big deal with pornography and "prostitution," and how I feel personally towards these subjects is not what I base my opinion upon. Animal abuse and exploitation of any sort is contemptible. But if these acts are done without abuse and in accordance with the animal's agency, I don't really understand what is morally and ethically reprehensible about them. Like /u/Frostfedora said, it is indeed inconsistent with other beliefs frequently held by zoos based on the "no harm principle."
These are animals we are talking about, not humans. Animals have no sense of pudeur. They have sex in the open for all to see. And only very few animals have a sense of monogamy. Most animals (and this is true for dogs in this case) have multiple sex partners over the course of their lives. Why should it be any different when humans get thrown into the equation?
Forget the "no harm principle". Just do it. There also isn´t harm involved when medics abuse an anaestethized person "gently"...the harm principle is only one part; one step, not the entire ladder. I´d also suggest to get rid of the kinda childish perception that animals are per se polygamous fuck machines. When they roam in their natural habitat uninterfered by humans, horses form some kind of monogamous bonds. What else than monogamy is it when one stallion drives off any other male? I also think that superimposing the human idea of "animals must have animalistic sex" is counterproductive and fogs the clear view onto what is real.
The reasons why AP isn´t zoo: When published, the animal involved in the flics is undeniably turned into cash. Sites like BF even make "special contracts" with "amateurs" frequently uploading new material, offering them cooperation and money. It´s not so much about whether the animal cares if its porn flic is published, it´s more of "what kind of human does publish that stuff?". We zoos are already firmly intertwined with the international illegal porn mafia, or at least all the outsiders think that way. Another problem with AP is that you only get to see what the cutter wants you to see; there is NO way to determine if the animal was abused in the process of filming or not. I´d like to tell you a little BF story about a user named kmarko. This guy uploaded several vids showing him having anal intercourse with stallions. I haven´t seen these vids due to the fact that I´m not interested in gay AP at all, but several users stressed how "caring" he was with his horses. Another user PM´ed kmarko until those two met at kmarko´s location. Shortly after the visiting user returned from his trip, he wrote that the "reality" in kmarko´s porn and the factual reality couldn´t differ more...he accused kmarko of hitting his horses, forcing them into the acts and such. Please remember that in porn you´ll only get to see what you are supposed to see....the actual reality hiding behind is only unveiled by accident. Same goes for animal prostitution...if you all continue to deny the simple fact of the inherent anthropocentrism of AP and animal prostitution, we can forget about tolerance from society once and for all. If you insist on forcing your libertarian sexual morals down the throat of society, then this won´t end well for us.
As long as you show off this anthropocentric,egocentric way of thinking so blatantly without even realizing that your "advanced" sexual morals aren´t shared by the vast majority of people, we all are stuck in the current status. You all seem to have it mixed up: Not love is a teeny tiny part of sex, but sex is a tiny part of love,folks. You surely will start complaining about my antiquated morals, but that´s how most of the folks you demand tolerance from run. How long will you deny that the harm principle is only one part of the equation, not the entire equation itself? How long will you smash your skulls into thick concrete walls before you realize that the first thing to break is your fucking heads, not the wall?
Just transfer AP and Animal prostitution to "normal", human relationships: do you know the common perspective on those fellas publishing their private sex life online? Do you realize how vile and distanced from real love soliciting your partner for sex online is perceived or have you disconnected from those you demand tolerance from so much? But I forgot, it´s "inconsistent" to be a zoo and not embracing porn and "sharing" of animals...guys, please wake up. This is not how we will win anything; you certainly can change society with this stubbornness when you are the majority or have a significant amount of folks backing you up, but we zoos are a fuckin´ tiny, barely nonexistent minority! We simply do not have a position powerful enough to dictate our morals to Joe Average like you all seem to imply.
If you can´t answer it by yourself why "it should be any different when humans are thrown into the equation", then you seriously are lost in zoo folklore and narration...humans are greedy, humans are selfish beyond the point animals know selfishness, humans do silly and nasty things for reputation, personal gain and friendship, humans are THE most inept species to deal with sexuality in a non obsessive and natural manner. Only mankind abuses sex as a weapon, as a drug, as a recreational thing without any connection to love. Even bonobos, the most "horny" species that´s doing it to release stress and social anxiety, don´t do it in such a totally disconnected way as humans.
Please stop thinking like yoomans. It´s a big and vital step of being a zoo to quit the human obsession with sex. If you want TRUE equality, you gotta have to get lost of this horrible anthropocentric illusion of "free sex", this idea isn´t true for mankind and not even for animals. Make love to your animal as an animal, not as a human. That way, the connection is quickly established.Especially dog people seem to fall for this illusion, probably because dogs have been around humans so long now that they have become more human than any other species, domesticated or wild.
BTW: how do you know that animals have no sense of pudeur? Can´t you see that it´s exactly that way of thinking that´s anthropocentric and you could easily mistake your image of what an animal is like for what an animal is really like? I know that some species prefer to mate out of the sight of their herd members. Can´t exactly tell you why, but this is real for quite a lot of species. Who know why these animals like to hide from others when they´re doing it...maybe animals do have a sense of pudeur. Unless someone invents an animal-human translator that´s working accurately, we will never know and your image of what an animal is like is no more than selective perception to reassure you of your tunnel reality residing inside your head.
The only chance zoos have of acceptance is playing the utilitarian card. How do you justify your behavior if it is not by claiming you do no harm?
Um... Lemme think... Could it be that it is a basic evolutionary reflex? They do it because of instinct. They do it because such behavior increases the odds of their genes making it to the next generation when compared to the males who have been chased off and therefore denied the chance to procreate...
You got it backwards. Animals have simple, pragmatic sex lives. Humans (of the Western World) are the ones responsible for making sex into something that is complicated and shameful. Pudeur, monogamy and even romance to some extent are all human constructs that are projected unto animals. This is what fogs the clear view onto was is real.
Yes, BF is a fucking cesspool. I am certainly not disagreeing with you on that front. But equating all animal porn producers to the sleazy bastards of BF just doesn't seem all that well-founded to me. There are people out there who simply want to share their loving frolics to the world and I fail to see what is wrong with that. I never found myself interested in horses or horse porn, so there's nothing I can contribute on the subject. But in dog porn, it's easy as hell to see if the dog is comfortable or not or if it trust its partner or not.
And the same goes for animal "prostitution." As a zoo, I believe animals have agency over their sexuality. They have agency over who they open up to and who they chose to be intimate with. And as a matter of fact, it is that exact belief that prevents me from seeing myself as a rapist. Animals can chose when it comes to sex. So naturally, it makes no sense for me to think that this agency should stop being relevant when an animal decides to step out of the little monogamous playpen its owner has forced it into. That doesn't mean I agree with people pimping out their dog at brothels or furry conventions, because it's sexual objectification and there is no way in hell the animal is safe and respected in such a relationship. But to brand all "sharing" of animal as unethical does not come off as valid reasoning to me.
And what about the tunnel reality residing inside your head? You realize that all you have offered me to debunk my selective perception was your own selective perception?
By that logic, every zoosexual in a relationship with an animal is an animal abuser and rapists as they only show what people want to see. Your augment can pretty much be used to outlaw all sexual interaction with animals as people have no way to corroborate if the animals are being abused/raped.
Should I browse through the vast archive of animal porn out there and give you some examples of rape and abuse? You´re totally biased and not interested in finding out the truth about it. Selective perception, paired with ignorance. Also, you seem to have a tendency to simplify things so they fit into your black-and-white weltbild. Your replies give me cancer, dude.
I know rape and abuse happens, you act as if all sex is rape and abuse. That is the problem. PC: Your replies gives cancer to almost everybody. So you win when it comes to that.
Can you post a list of your Zeta Principles?
Rest assured that the original principles will be published in my very first official pamphlet.
Any ideas where or when this will be released?
What does that mean? Does it means no making and selling zooporn and no animal prostitution? Because those 2 are not synonyms of something bad. Look how human porn and human prostitution is legal and regulated in some places as is ethical for the humans. The same can be applied to animals. There are animal protection laws that protects animals from abuse I see no problem with making zooporn or prostitution as long as those laws are not broken.
I don't fully agree with this either, but I have difficulty seeing how one would regulate animal sex as a business. I absolutely agree that with proper supervision, training, and animal care, the animals could be kept healthy and happy in such work. The problem arises, in my mind, when you consider the animals as employees requiring proper compensation for their work. After being well cared for, which doesn't require all that much money even for the best care, how can the animals get a slice of the profits as, for instance, porn stars or expert lovers.
I get that the same objection applies to animals in other professions (most notably, bomb or drug sniffing dogs, or service animals for the disabled). But these aren't profitable endeavors, and so a wage in the form of good care and the occasional treat is all that can be expected. But in media (including ordinary movies and TV shows), it's odd to me that they are treated as assets belonging to their trainers or caretakers, and that these caretakers will take all profits "earned" (for lack of a better word) through the animal's work.
Have cameras recording when sex that happens at all time as to make sure any abusive sex is not happening (and any abusive sex will be recorded and used as evidence to punish the person) have a veterinarian working in the place making sure the animals are healthy. Have some one pay random surprise visits to make sure nothing illegal is happening. Only allowing sex with the animals for X amount of times a day.As to not annoy them or tire them.
With legal options for people to have zoosex, less people will trespass to have zoosex or have abusive sex out of ignorance or frustration. You could give like an education class to people before they are allowed to have zoosex. Maybe even give zoosex licenses proving that they know what to do and what not to do.
I rather people go to a regulated place with no abuse than them seeking zoosex in internet adds with people who may whore their pets (and let abuse happen) just to make money out of it. If you give a legal and safe and healthy option, then people will rather use that than risk using the internet.
Do horses that are used for joy rides gets compensated for their work? Other than food and water, I don't think so. And sex is something that if regulated, it would be enjoyable or neutral to the animal. Unlike horse ridding, I don't think horses enjoy having a human on their back, specially a fatso human.
Thanks for answering. Those are all quite sensible options. As for the second quote, I address that in my second paragraph, and it really is a pedantic point of economics and social rights. I don't claim that my intuitions about compensation here are right: maybe, in light of the animals' simpler priorities, the idea of compensation or wages should be reconsidered. It's just so far-fetched an idea given the current state of things (the act itself being a misdemeanor or felony in much of the first world) that I have trouble meshing it with the way the rest of society works.
Yea, I know this is more of a "what if" scenario, considering the current states of the laws. But if laws where rational and secular, such scenario is totally doable.
Lets just hope humans evolve to be more rational and secular and less irrational and religious.