Response to "Shag the Dog"

In addition to showing how morality can have a "nonrational, emotional side," (Forsyth) William Saletan's article "Shag the Dog" also showed the role society plays in determining good and evil. In the article, Saletan introduces Peter Sieger's essay entitled "Heavy Petting," in which the philosopher makes moral arguments condoning bestiality. Sieger's essay, combined with news of recent scandals surrounding involving sex with dogs, has created a social outcry, condemming the actions as cruel and perverse. Despite the overwelming majority's moral condemnation of the actions, Saletan spends time in the article looking for a philosophical justification for the immorality of people having sex with animals. He exhausts many arguments that have been made, which state that sex with animals is unnatural, cruel, immoral, or even equivalent to rape, until he reaches the conclusion that since animals can't actually consent to sex with people, and since consent is neccessary to morally justify sex, that sex with animals must be wrong.

Personally, I found myself flabbergasted that Saletan would even give Sieger's arguments any consideration. Probably 99.99% of people would share my disgust towards bestiality, and would be emotionally unable to step back and consider the philosophical arguments justifying it. Besides sheer emotional disgust, we also have to consider the power our society's taboos about sex have over our own opinions. It seems to be part of our integration into society that we would unquestioningly adopt many of its views on good and evil. This point would support the idea that morality is a social construction. It seems that coolheaded philosophy is not always relevant in matters where right and wrong is decided simply because society says so.

One question: is "because society says so" a legitimate moral argument, or do we always need to use reasoned arguments to justify an action as good or evil? If you were born into a culture which accepted slavery, would you be able to view this as wrong, or would you simply accept it as the 'way things were meant to be' without any more thought? What drove American abolitionists to condemn slavery? They obviously had to use philosophical reasoning to challenge the status quo. The abolition of slavery certainly does not elicit a disgusted response today, but did people once have a visceral reaction to allowing former slaves to share the same rights as themselves? Food for thought...