AnimalZooFrance

Peter SINGER

< Lumière surLumière sur/Peter singer / (Redirigé depuis Peter SINGER)

Peter Albert David Singer (né le 6 juillet 1946 à Melbourne en Australie), est un philosophe Australien.

Peter Singer

Il est particulièrement connu pour son livre Animal liberation, largement considéré le fondement de la libération animal. Ses idées sur ce sujet comme d'autres sujets ont particulièrement attiré l'attention et un fort niveau de controverse.

Peter Singer est un peu le maitre à penser du véganisme, et a développer la notion d'anti-spécisme.

Ses positions sur la zoophilie sont très intéressantes.

Positions sur la zoophilie

2001 - Heavy petting

En 2001, ce philosophe utilitariste de la libération animale a publié dans la revue pornographique en ligne Nerve l'article Heavy petting sur l'ouvrage de Midas Dekkers, Dearest Pet, On Bestiality. Singer y déclare que des "activités mutuellement satisfaisantes" de nature sexuelle peuvent parfois avoir lieu entre les hommes et les animaux. Singer explique que Dekkers considère que la zoophilie doit restée illégale si elle implique la cruauté, mais que dans le cas contraire, il n'y a pas lieu d'être choqué ou horrifié.

Cependant Singer ne prétend pas endosser les vues de Dekkers ou de Soyka mais plutôt les expliquer. Singer pense que si les rapports sexuels entre les animaux et les humains ne sont pas normaux ou naturels, ils ne constituent pas une transgression de notre statut d'être humain, car les hommes sont des animaux ou plus spécifiquement de grands singes.

Face au torrent de critiques suscitées par sa prise de position, Peter Singer a adressé un email précisant sa position sur différentes listes de discussions de la protection animale. Comme vous pouvez en juger par les extraits qui suivent il y maintien très largement sa position:

"I agreed to review Midas Dekkers’ scholarly study of sexual interaction between humans and animals not because I support such practices, but because I wanted to reflect on what such sexual behavior tells us about the way in which we are like animals, and at the same time to seek to draw such sharp lines between ourselves and other species. I also wanted to suggest that, if our concern is for the welfare of animals, it is only too easy to find practices on every modern factory farm that are a great deal worse, for the animal, than some forms of sexual contact between humans and animals. (Sex, I might remind readers, does not only mean “intercourse.”) An objection to all forms of sexual contact between humans and animals, in other words, does not seem to be based on concern for animal welfare, in any obvious sense. Those who wish to sustain such a sweeping objection need to look for other grounds."

"I thought my review might provoke some people to think about the issue of why some behavior towards animals is viewed as obviously wrong, while other behavior seems entirely acceptable — killing and eating them, for example, or experimenting on them to test the safety of new cleaning agents. Obviously, sexual acts involving violence or cruelty to animals ought to be prohibited. And there may well be good accounts of why the proscription against all sexual acts with animals — including acts that are neither intrinsically violent or cruel — has outlasted many other prohibitions against non-reproductive sexual acts. But very few people seem to have read the article as raising questions. Many seemed to see no more than the fact that it mentioned sex with animals, and that fact was enough to send them into hysterical abuse, including accusations that I myself was a “zoophile.”"[1]

2019 - Interview par LePoint.fr

En 2019, à l'occasion de la Journée mondiale pour la fin du spécisme, le théoricien de la cause animale revient sur le combat pour les droits des animaux.

L'interview est publiée sur LePoint.fr

Dans cette interview, le sujet de la zoophilie est évidement abordé :

Dans un article écrit dans Prospect en avril 2001, vous évoquez le sujet délicat de la zoophilie. Que pensez-vous de cette pratique ?

Si beaucoup de gens ont un problème avec ça, au point que l'on a même du mal à en parler, c'est parce que l'idée que des humains aient envie d'avoir des relations sexuelles avec des animaux vient menacer la différence qu'on se plaît à entretenir entre les animaux et nous. La zoophilie menace l'idée de notre supériorité sur les animaux. Évidemment que certaines formes d'interactions que l'on a avec les animaux peuvent être cruelles. Mais vous pouvez aussi trouver des situations dans lesquelles les animaux sont libres d'aller et venir, sans être attaqués d'aucune manière.

Cette liberté d'aller et venir s'apparente pour vous à du consentement ?

Je crois que oui. Les gens ont longtemps considéré d'autres types de sexualité comme tabou avant de mieux les accepter. Ces pratiques avaient pour conséquence d'envoyer des gens en prison pour avoir commis des crimes sans victimes. Si la zoophilie est un crime, même si aucun acte de cruauté n'est commis, et que l'animal est libre de partir si il ou elle préfère le faire, il s'agit aussi d'un crime sans victime.

Cette interview donnée au site LePoint.fr a faire réagir l'association Animal Cross sur sa page Facebook[2]: 

Peter Singer déraille et justifie la zoophilie. 
Notre association a beaucoup de respect pour Peter Singer et son livre « La libération animale » qui a lancé le mouvement de l’anti-spécisme en Occident. 
Mais nous ne pouvons pas le soutenir dans sa justification de la zoophilie. Dans un entretien au journal Le Point, le philosophe évoque le sujet de la zoophilie. Si l’animal n’est pas forcé, ce ne serait que notre conception archaïque des relations entre espèce qui nous ferait condamner la zoophilie. L’ « amour » entre espèces semble le point ultime de l’égalité entre espèces. 
Pour ceux qui ne connaissent pas le sujet de la zoophilie, voici quelques informations. La zoophilie moderne est issue d’un courant libertaire qui proclame que les êtres humains ont le droit de jouir sans entrave. Les chiens et équidés, principalement mais pas seulement, sont devenus de nouveaux objets sexuels pour êtres humains en panne d’émotion personnelle. Sur internet des milliers de petites annonces sont publiés pour des ébats zoophiles. Pénétrer un chien ou se faire pénétrer par un chien est le sujet à la mode des sites d’échange. La zoo-pornographie abonde et les films libres d’accès sont vus chaque mois par des centaines de milliers de visiteurs.
Rappelons que depuis 2004 les sévices sexuels sur les animaux domestiques sont un délit. La cour de cassation en 2007 a précisé que la pénétration sexuelle sur un animal était une infraction indépendamment du soi-disant consentement des animaux. 
Dans de nombreux cas aussi, les animaux des zoophiles sont entraînés pour produire le résultat escompte. Sélectionnés pour avoir le bon comportement, affamés quand ils ne répondent pas, voire même battus,  récompensés quand ils obéissent, ils ne sont que des esclaves dressés. La question du consentement de l’animal est à peu près la même que le consentement des enfants en cas d’acte pédophile. Placés sous la domination, l’autorité, lé dépendance vis-à-vis de leur gardien, les animaux peuvent à un moment donné accomplir les actes qu’on attend d’eux.  
Qui plus est, un certain nombre d’étude font le parallèle entre zoophiles et prédateurs sexuels. Nombre de zoophiles sont des pervers sexuels abusant un jour d’un chien, un autre d’un enfant.
La zoophilie n’est pas une orientation sexuelle mais une perversion sexuelle.
L’association Animal Cross condamne ces propos déplacés et irresponsables de Peter Singer et vous donne rendez-vous dans les semaines à venir pour faire découvrir le vrai visage de la zoophilie.

2023 - Peter Singer - Zoophilia Is Morally Permissible (Journal of Controversial Ideas)

En 2023, Peter Singer publie sur son compte Tweeter un tweet sur un article intitulé Zoophilia Is Morally Permissible publié en 2023 sur le site Journal of Controversial Ideas (Lien vers l'article)

Voici le résumé de l'article en question : 

La zoophilie, l’un de nos tabous sociaux les plus profondément ancré, est largement considérée comme quelque chose de négatif et les relations sexuelles avec des animaux sont illégales dans de nombreux pays. Dans cet article, je voudrais aller à l’encontre de ce consensus de facto et soutenir que la zoophilie est moralement permise. Cela aurait des implications majeures sur la manière dont nous traitons légalement et socialement la zoophilie.

Et le tweet de Peter Singer[3] : 

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 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.

Read and ponder: https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/3/2/255

Art generated by Open AI’s DALL-E.

Face au tolé généré par son tweet, Peter Singer reviendra à la charge avec un autre tweet[4] sous forme de questions / réponses: 

Q: You posted an article indicating that sexual intercourse with animals is morally permissible. You've also in the past published a book arguing for veganism.

That being the case, is it your official position that eating animals is not okay but having sex with them is?

A: I didn't write the article on the permissibility of zoophilia.  It was published in the Journal of Controversial Ideas, a journal that pushes back against "cancel culture" by providing an outlet for controversial ideas, which authors can publish under a pseudonym.  I am a founding co-editor of that journal. The fact that we judge an article worthy of publication does not indicate that I or my co-editors agree with the views contained in it.  We send articles submitted to us out for peer review, and if the reviewers consider that the article contains controversial ideas that are defended by argument of a sufficiently high standard to warrant publication, we publish the article. The Journal of Controversial Ideas is free and open access, for everyone to read.  We rely on donations from supporters of freedom of thought and discussion to sustain it.

You asked me whether it is my view that eating animals is not okay but having sex with them is. Here is one way of thinking about this question.  

Imagine that you are an animal locked up all of your life in a factory farm stall too narrow for you to even turn around, let alone walk a single step, so that you have nothing to do all day except stand up and lie down on a floor consisting of bare metal slats. Then you are crammed into a truck and driven for many hours to a place where you will be slaughtered. This is what happens to millions of pigs in the US today, and the lives of billions of other factory-farmed animals are no better. 

Now imagine that you are an animal living with a person who cares for you and loves you in all the ways that most people love their companion animals, but in addition, this person sometimes has sexual contact with you, making sure that the contact does not hurt you, and leaving you free to move away if you don't like it.  You live out your natural lifespan like this, and when you get old and terminally ill and are in distress, the person who cares for you, full of sadness, takes you gently to a veterinarian who puts you to sleep.

Which animal would you rather be?

Critiques de Peter Singer

Plusieurs religieux[5] et groupes de défense des animaux[6] ont condamnés cette prise de position. Tandis que l'organisation de défense des animaux PeTA, par l'intermédiaire de sa présidente Newkirk (Ingrid) a exprimé un soutien prudent avant de se rétracter face au tollé engendré par sa position.

Les positions de Singer sont généralement critiquées pour un certain relativisme moral. Ainsi son positionnement utilitariste l'a conduit à adopter des positions douteuses à l'égard des enfants handicapés. Il est accusé de justifier infanticide et l'euthanasie dans certains cas.

Extraits de critique par les militants de la cause animale

Friends of Animals president Priscillia Feral wrote,

"Friends of Animals, an interntional non-profit organization with 200,000 members throughout the world dedicated to promoting the rights of animals and concern for wildlife and the environment, denounces Princeton philosophy professor Peter Singer, for an essay in which Singer maintains that under some circumstances, it is acceptable for humans and animals to have sex with each other. FoA finds Singer’s position shocking and disgusting. Bestiality is wrong in part because the animal cannot meaningfully consent to sex with a human. In this sense, bestiality is wrong for the same reason pedophilia is wrong. Children cannot consent to sexual contact and neither can animals. Contrary to a statement from a spokesperson for PETA, Singer’s essay isn’t an intellectual issue, and his thinking isn’t logical. It’s a moral issue. Singer and his apologists just need to stop repeating every annoying idea they’ve developed for shock value."


Megan Metzellar, program coordinator for Friends of Animals weighed in as well,

"Singer is basically condoning rape and molestation as long as one (presumably he?) can find a way to interpret the situation as being “mutually satisfying.” I suppose Mr. Singer can find a way to justify any base behavior in his mind via his meaningless hypotheticals. Singer has been put on a pedestal by the animal rights movement for a very long time but this essay is a wake-up call to those who have blindly idolized him. Moreover, since women are often sexually abused and exploited in conjunction with acts of bestiality, feminists should be outraged by his position on this issue. Child advocates should also be alarmed since Singer is condoning sex acts in which one party is basically incapable of giving consent. Singer is in dangerous territory here and if he has any sense left he will realize the potential fallout from this essay and retract his position."


Theodora Capaldo, president of the New England Anti-Vivisection Society, was worried about the damage that Singer’s views will have on the animal rights movement.

"As someone who has played and continues to play a high profile and influential role in the animal rights movement, I believe your responsibility changes. The success of animal liberation depends not only on the ideology, the legal arguments, and the philosophical reasoning but perhaps more importantly on the sophisticated strategies that will allow mainstream populations to hear the message, accept the message and act on the message. Heavy Petting will come back to haunt us and is a step backwards. Unchallenged, this essay will serve to further marginalize and, therefore, damage the animal rights movement. The consequences of it will push us back into the bubble-gum bottomed recess of prejudice that hell hole of ridicule that remains our greatest obstacle and enemy. Some people may care about your thoughts on bestiality from some perverse unconscious desires. More significantly, however, many others will study your every word not to better ground their arguments in support of animal rights but rather to find new ways to discredit our efforts. They have been given new ammunition and new accusations with which to boost their arguments about the absurdity of our beliefs. Heavy Petting will be used against us. Have no doubt."


Gary Francione, who seems to have laid low after shutting down his animal law center, reminded animal rights activists that Singer’s argument is beside the point since the existence of pets is an abomination itself, regardless of whether or not anyone is having sex with the animals.

"Even if animals can desire to have sexual contact with humans, that does not mean that they are “consenting” to that contact any more than does a child who can have sexual desires (or who even initiates sexual contact) can be said to consent to sex. Moreover, Peter ignores completely that bestiality is a phenomenon that occurs largely within the unnatural relationship of domestication; a domestic animal can no more consent to sex than could a human slave. Therefore, since the threshold requirement–informed consent–cannot be met, sexual contact with animals cannot be morally justified….It is bad enough that Peter defends the killing or other exploitation of those humans whose lives he regards as not worth living, and, through his pop media image, he has succeeded in connecting the issue of animal rights with the very ideas that were promoted by some academics as part of the theoretical basis for Nazism. It is bad enough that the “father of the animal rights movement” regards PETA’s sell-out liaison with McDonalds as “the biggest step forward for farm animals in America in the past quarter of a century” (a direct quote from Peter) and that PETAphiles are pointing to Peter’s approval as justification for the sell-out. It is bad enough that Peter continues to support and promote those whose unethical actions have actually harmed animals. Bestiality merits nothing more or less than our outright and unequivocal condemnation. Peter’s disturbing view that humans and nonhumans may enjoy sexual contact as part of “mutually satisfying activities” will only further harm the cause of animal rights, and I can only hope that those who care will register their strong dissent."

Notes

  1. ↑ Peter Singer’s Last Word on the Bestiality Controversy
  2. ↑ https://www.facebook.com/animalcrossasso/posts/10156046670245882/?locale=fr_FR
  3. ↑ https://twitter.com/PeterSinger/status/1722440246972018857
  4. ↑ https://twitter.com/PeterSinger/status/1723269850930491707
  5. ↑ BLOOM Moly, "Church group to protest Singer and homosexuals", The Daily Princetonian, 18 mai 2001.
  6. ↑ Animal Rights Activist Attack Peter Singer Over Bestiality Stance

Sources

Articles connexes

Récupérée de « https://www.animalzoofrance.com/index.php?title=Lumière_sur/Peter_singer&oldid=10140 »