Yes, context is not quite everything, but it is important. Mr Hamilton fails in not elucidating distinction between the imperatives of Singer and Bernadi.

And the reference to free-market economics is somewhat misplaced, although a fine reductio ad absurdum.

Damn; for a second there i thought i was walking along in life all philosophically sly without knowing it (but thanks for clarifying)

Actually the rest of the intellect on display in the comments here was antidote to my delusions of secrete smarts!

Robert Nelson's point about arguments made in "good faith" is important, I think. Expanding the vista of (sometimes questionable) ideas is a more worthy position than narrowing the possibilities of minorities, as Bernardi's illogical musings are specifically attempting.

Well, if it is generating well-thought out comments, then you might be inclined to agree with David's assertion that is thought-provoking.

Indeed, it is possibly the case that the ideas we disagree with provoke more thought than those we assent to. Just a thought - not unprovoked.

... and you would prefer Bernard Finnigan on the front bench?

Fair call John.

I do have a great deal of contempt for Bernardi in general, but then again, I don't have a great deal of love for Singer either.

Bernardi's comments on the gay marriage issue were, to my mind, a lazy repitition of an argument that has little currency outside a certain segement of conservatism.

Maybe not so on a literal reading, but the unstated implication relied upon in this particular argument is that Gay Marriage, and in previous times inter-racial marriage, is akin to beastiality. The argument relies on establishing a false equivalence between that which is opposed and something generally held in disgust.

There is no logical reason why our permitting P should also require us to permit Q. The argument relies on elliciting a certian response, not on defensible logical implication.

"The fact that it does exist is the only way to explain why all people in all cultures find necrophilia repugnant and those who engage in it are regarded as sick or evil."

This is just affirming the consequent. You arrive at the existence of this non-rational principle by the existence of that which you seek to explain. Let me fix it for you.

IF it does exist IT MAY explain why all people in all cultures find necrophilia repugnant and those who engage in it are regarded as sick or evil.

I am sure one could develop any number of hypothesis that might explain the shared repugnance to necrophilia without a resort to hazy spiritualism - I wouldn't call what you have offered metaphysics.

I would start with facts such as:

a) the overwhelmingly vast majority of people have no interest in copulating with a corpse.

b) most people balk at things that are uncommon - think of our reaction to foreign dietary practices and the emotional response that it can evoke. "Drinking cows blood? That's just wrong!"

b) Most cultures have developed elaborate funerary rights which still see the corpse as a person with interests

c) People also have a general aversion to the decay and putrification associated with death

Once you start to pile these up you can develop a plausible account of how such "taboos" might arise across societies. Done so without reference to noumenal realms beyond biology, conciousness and, critically, beyond reason.

The obvious disadvantage for yourself is that no matter how plausible, they represent complex and historically contingent outcomes and do not readily lend themselves to verification. Also, they do not lend themeslves claims of Moral Absolutists who wish to advance their particular vision of the world.

Here is my prejudice:

Nothing is innately moral or immoral, only thinking makes it so. Once the origin of a prohibition is lost - it becomes 'taboo' . It takes on the patina of the sacred wisdom of the elders.

Morality is a useful heuristic, not a set of facts.

In my case at least John, your assumption is incorrect. I don't know Bernadi from a bar of soap but while he may be a top bloke, the views he expressed in parliament are bigotted (his political allegiancies are not relevant).

Firstly, Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy. My experience is people resort to logical fallacy either when their argument is weak or they do not know better.

I have not seen that much of Singer but the bit I have seen I have noted people love to misrepresent his view by only taking the bits that suit them. On that I would be surprised if the author is correct. I would doubt that Singer would resort to a slippery slope argument.

On the issue of Bernardi, he used slippery slope as a tool for argument. Bernardi is an educated man. I would contend, based on my first sentence, his argument was weak.

I except that both views are repugnant but if they are correctly argued in logic then they must be properly considered.

So to answer your question and I can’t speak for anyone else but my observation is based on the idea that one person deeply considers issues and comments. The other, clearly does not.

Leading from that, since logic does not appear to prevail, I would prefer he was not in the national parliament where he makes decisions that affect others.

Are you referring to this: http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/03/02/windsor-receives-death-threats-as-climate-of-hate-ramps-up/

If so, that's pretty poor form.

Clive, you seem awfully fond of the straw man fallacy. You are imputing something neither said nor implied from Fran's position and then 'arguing' (and I use the term very loosely indeed) against it. I do believe I also detect a whiff of argumentum ad hominem there as well.

And I hate to say this, but have you actually read the review of 'Dearest Pet', on which the misrepresentation of Singer as condoning bestiality is based?

If you haven't, it's not intellectually respectable to write about it. If you have, might I suggest that you've read what you wanted to read, rather than the actual content.

For what it's worth, and for those who are interested, here is the review in question. http://www.come-and-hear.com/editor/na-heavy-petting/index.html

It's standard denialist procedure Michael.

Sadly Clive seems to have learned too much when he studied the climate denialists. How many times do they bring up the 'false' Hockey Stick graph of CO2 and temperature after has been vindicated over and over and over again.

This is exactly the same.

When your position is based on dogma and refuted by the evidence all you can do is deny.

It's sad to see a once-progressive force in Australian society become exactly what he used to so powerfully oppose.

Clive, I only studied a few undergrad Philosophy subjects at uni, but even I can tell you simply do not understand Singer. Have you even read him? Singer is engaging in the ancient debate of whether there is a difference between a biological 'human being' and a 'person', and if so what role does consciousness play in defining this difference. This debate is at least as old as Aristotle, down through Aquinas, Descartes, Locke, and still rages today. As someone who supports both legalised abortion and gay marriage, I also recognise that Singer is precisely right to tease out the implications of allowing abortion, by excluding it from the definition of 'murder'. Singer is highlighting that this decision, does indeed demand of the philosopher, 'when do you draw the line'? a demand that has been taken up by philosophers through the ages. If you, yourself, do not have the analytic and philosophical chops to reflect on these implications that does not mean that those who DO have the smarts must be ethical monsters.

Similarlry, a politician who has the responsibility to vote on revolutionising the legal definition of 'marriage' would be derelict in their duties if they did not reflect on 'slippery slope' arguments. You seem to think there is very simple answer to the 'slippery slope' argument, yet you are not capable of showing the steps of your reasoning, which Singer does at great length and meticulously. Indeed, support for legal recognition of 'gay marriage' DOES open the question of other non-traditional relationships from polyamorous to inter-species. Now, our conclusions on the gay marriage question, which is actually before the legislatures right now, in no way, require a similar vote on polygamy or inter-species marriage. But that does not mean these questions are out of bounds for the philosopher. On the contrary.

As far as the current politics goes, I agree that the prospect of legalising marriage between people and animals may one day present itself. However, that prospect has nothing to do with the gay marriage.To any MP who raises that issue today, our response is simple: We can consider the merits of inter-species marriage when members of the equine, canine, and porcine communities lobby their local MPs to have their relationships with human beings legally recognised. Until that lobbying starts, teasing out how to answer those arguments is a very proper exercise for philosophers and their students.

Your own response of demanding censure and censor has become a far too common reflex of too many academics to the questions of the day. Your article here suggests that a lot of that creeping authoritarianism is a reflex of the intellectually lazy, rather than the ethically and philosophically engaged.

Clive, presumably, you will be calling on most of the world's non-human animals to be arrested tomorrow, given how much sex in the animal world is non-consensual?

This is a terrible attack on an excellent piece of work. Clive's piece is the first one I have seen which calls a spade a spade, and the outcome is people like you Fran who have no idea what they're talking about yet mount contorted counterarguments that have little basis in facts, and even less in reason.
The slippery slope argument stands, because there is evidence to show that gay marriage leads to it (e.g., polyamory demands follows gay marriage: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/three-in-marriage-bed-more-of-a-good-thing/story-e6frg6z6-1226218569577 and here: http://polyamory.org.au/media/2012-02-07-mardi-gras-polyamory-float-controversy-resolved). As for bestiality, isn't it already happening? - there's even 'rape' of animals!, e.g., here: http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/photogallery/top-ten-bestiality-arrests-of-2011.html?curPhoto=3
Bernardi, for all his conservative and Catholic values nevertheless spoke of something that remains unresolved as an issue within the polity. He represents those views, and if that upsets you and others here, that's just bad luck - such is the nature of democracy. He paid the price, so to my mind he is much more of a valuable politician to have than any of the Greens. I actually voted Greens for a number of years, until I realised that you are more of an interest group, pandering to a narrow section in society to divide, rather than work for consensus. So you're out for me and for many, many others I know. You'll end up as the Democrats have, if you don't do some serious navel-gazing, and soon!

But Singer did not get an AC for that.

He got the AC for "eminent service to philosophy and bioethics as a leader of public debate and communicator of ideas in the areas of global poverty, animal welfare and the human condition."

Besides, he merely philosophised about bestiality.

I didn't find the part in your article where you reference Singer's attitude towards homosexuality, am I missing something or was that just assumed?

If you wanted to make a point about social hypocrisy why didn't you mention Singer's comparison of bestiality with the way in which animals are treated for the ends of providing us with food?

These are excellelnt points, as is Graeme Macpherson's for pointing out that the AC was _not_ received specifically for "services to bestiality" or some such rubbish.

The author's arguments are greatly diminished by these disingenuous statements. Perhaps an article refuting Singer's arguments with some points of reason would get him on the way towards his own AC.

Hamilton's position does not allow him to explain why heterosexuality is acceptable but homosexuality is not. Therefore, in my view, Hamilton's worldview has a flaw.

I thought Bernardi was reviled because everyone saw that if homosexual marriage was a slippery slope to bestiality then by the same process of deductive reasoning hetrosexual marriage was on the same slippery slope and should likewise be condemned.

More seriously the whole notion of "bestiality" is based on the conceit that there is something categorical about being "human" as opposed to say "dog". An understanding of evolutionary processes shows what a nonsense this is on both the individual level and the level of the gene (which is the level at which evolutionary processes work).

So, for example, a human with type-A blood is "closer" genetically to a gorilla with type-A blood than the human is to another human with type -B blood, at least on that score.

And on the individual level, if we could exhume all our ancestors and those of all other living things we will discover a smooth continuum among our ancestors from man to snail to elm tree. A "species" in this light is nothing more than individuals on an island in a sea whose members are prevented by that sea (of lost ancestral lines) from being able to reproduce with anyone other than those on their own island.

So bestiality could only be morally wrong if the purpose of all sexual activity was procreation. Most of us no longer overtly accept this constraint to sexual activity (and I suspect none of us do in our quieter moments of self-inspection).

It is suggested that bestiality is morally wrong because the animal cannot give a true consent. But why should we be troubled by a horse being taken for a vigorous ride by a red-cheeked woman just because she is doing more than riding the horse as she goes up and down? Or why does Fido not consent to sex when it takes stern words and a raised hand to prevent him from ejaculating on one's leg?

This is not to suggest that bestiality should not be a taboo activity and I don't. It is hard to imagine that a human actively engaging in acts of bestiality is not missing out on important social activity. We are a gregarious species. We are likely to be more stimulated, positively affirmed and enriched in a whole range of other, not exclusively sexual, ways by intimate congress with our own kind.

But being "hard to imagine" does NOT mean it is impossible to imagine. Like picking one's nose in public I am sure that bestiality will properly be seen as a taboo activity - i.e. not to be encouraged. But to treat bestiality as being of itself and in all circumstances a moral wrong is a simple response in every sense of the word simple. And things are just a little bit more complex.

You'll have to settle for a new Twitter follower.

" a metaphysical reaction that is expressed as a visceral one" - Really your going to start talking about Metaphysics?

Interesting, how does intercourse with non humans affect our Chakra Clive?

Me thinks you use the word metaphysically loosely in the hopes of only reffering to emotional responses but also to imply some sort of spiritual nonsense.

So let me ask, How does intercourse with non humans affect our chakra? Metaphysically of course? what measurements have you taken to show the metaphyscial effects of beastiality on our chakra?

(I'm guessing you think Chakra's are nonsense but that metaphysics is absolutely a real thing because...uhhh....because.... - fill in the blank mate)

That's better, Clive.

"Nietzsche was referring to Kant"

In that particular section of Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche was referring to "philosophers", everyone get's a shout out.

"prejudice"

You don't need the inverted commas. You are openly commited to a finding a Philosophy that agrees with your current position.

"So what's yours?"

Explicit starting points.

"Why the double standard here? Why does disgust at bestiality make it wrong, but disgust at homosexuality not make it wrong?" - There is no double standard, assuming you can get consent from your partner, what is wrong with beastiality or homosexuality?

Yes Clive does sounds like he is appealing to a spiritual/religious/noumenal reality. It sounds like he believes that homosexual relationships align with this supposed hidden reality, and thus are virtuous, and that bestiality and incest are violations of it, and thus are sins.

Yep, like the usual coterie of commentators here, Dan, you have misunderstood what Bernardi said. If you look carefully at the words, there is no comparison made between homosexuality and bestiality. Furthermore, Bernardi was simply asking about, what is then to follow? Would it be bestiality? In other words, it was a rhetorical question - a poor one, but nevertheless a rhetorical one. Of course the media and the invested minority sections in society would not see this as a possibility, but rather prefer to gleefully portray it in the worst light possible. This might be explained as politics, in which lying and misrepresentation is sometimes used, but the hate displayed on these threads towards anyone who dares to disagree and to challenge the new world view on such things as human life is not only unnecessary, but also a warning to some of us of worse things to come. As I have read the article, one of my first thoughts was, would Clive's piece be considered 'hate speech' in places like Canada? Would some of the commentators here go directly to the Human Rights Commission there, rather than engage in a dialogue?

Syllogism 1

- This, Clive, is called a strawman. The objection to Bernardi is generally the attempt to link homosexuality with bestiality. ie just like you, they consider one acceptable and not the other. The outcry is over that linkage.

Syllogism 2

- Another strawman. Arguing that Peter Singer is rightly respected a s a Philosopher does not imply support for bestiality or even support for Singer's ideas. I think Nietzsche is a fantastic contributor to the Philosophy, but that does not mean I agree with everything he says. That would be disrespectful.

"Instead of taking up my challenge to think through a philosophical position that can simultaneously support gay marriage and oppose bestiality"

- What? Create a philosophical system that confirms my prejudices. Really? Do you understand the concept "search for truth"?

And the left? What is it here that marks anyone as Left or Right? What was that about intellectual laziness? Condemnation for Bernardi has come from left and right. The defense of Singer here has been best carried by people who do not actually agree with him - not fanboys.

Talk about digging a hole.

I dunno Brad. That was pretty eloquent.

Are you the real Clive Hamilton? Or are you some imposter who has hacked his Conversation account?

Clive, I thought your article was much too pejorative and you might have used a more reasoned approach for wider endorsement. Singer's an intellectual adventurer and I'll never criticise him for that. As Peter de Lissa pointed out, he seems to be merely juxtapositioning the ethics of killing and eating animals and copulating with them, and it certainly does expose some ethical hypocrisy it seems to me. I'm sure he's not 'advocating' either one.

Even so, I can't disagree with most of what you say with regard to the '60s' left, which I call the 'loony left' and so do many others. They have become the conservatives of the modern era, with barely an original thought to pass around.

This is quite an extraordinary statement. I've seldom seen so many rigorously thought-out comments on a Conversation thread, nor such a proportion demonstrating no obvious ideological bias. Yet attacking a poorly-constructed argument, long on rhetoric and short on substance now becomes indicative of 'how intellectually lazy much of the left has become'.

Evidence, Dr Hamilton? Argument? Or merely the logic of assertion?

What nonsense. The bulk of the comments here take you to task on the actual shortcomings of your article (did you read Patrick Stokes's comment, for example?)

Your syllogisms here are unwarranted strawmen. Many commenters (myself included) have pointed out that we disagree with Singer's conclusions; this is hardly an interspecies love-in chatfest. As Geoffrey mentions above, the chief issues are (1) the false equivalence between comparisons of Bernardi and Singer based on a superficial topical link and (2) the implication that Singer received his AC explicitly for contribution to zoophilia/infanticide, or at least ought to be revoked because some of his more controversial ideas disgust you.

Not responding to these charges, and inventing others, is almost childish.

Intellectual laziness indeed! Why not throw in a few more keywords to prick the ears of the religious right? Maybe then you can sell more copies of the book you keep spruiking. Talk about going to the dogs.

Oh dear. The 'yuck factor'. Allow me to employ a reductio. Pawpaw is immoral, because I feel a visceral disgust at the sight and smell of it. Sadly, arguments based on the yuck factor seldom - if ever - rise above this level to give any insight more compelling than (in Pauline Hanson's words) 'I don't like it'.

Clive it is actually the social hypocrisy element of your argument that is the weakest. I personally share some of your concerns with Singers utilitarianism and if your first comment (the one when you discussed Schopenhauer) had been the main basis of your article this would have been entirely reasonable (if a little high brow for the conversation).

However you contend not just that Singer's arguments are invalid but also that it is hypocrisy for Singer to be celebrated whilst Bernardi is criticisised. These two men are engaged in vastly different exercises. Singer is extrapolating a branch of philosophy and showing that if you accept its premises (which personally i don't completely) you are forced to reconsider some intuitively obvious ethical positions and question the ethical basis of many social norms. Whether you agree or not this ethical questioning of social norms is an entirely appropriate and valuable contribution that philosophy can make to public debate.

On the other hand Bernardi is at best using a lazy argument to attack a social group or more likely attempting to 'dog-whistle' (albeit with none of the subtlety more effective hard line conservative commentators manage) his views to people who share his predjudices but are unlikely to vocalise them in public.

There is no social hypocrisy in celebrating someone who challenges our beliefs with reasoned (if flawed) arguments and forces us to explore difficult ethical questions whilst decrying someone who resorts to entirely inaccurate slurs to express his prejudice against a social group.

As for for assertions about the left above you've pretty much managed to misinterpret the entirety of these comments.

Sorry Clive but how did we go from;

"Instead of taking up my challenge to think through a philosophical position that can simultaneously support gay marriage and oppose bestiality, I am accused of a "moral panic", "Christian moralising"......The left is often criticised for running out of ideas and having no coherent alternative"

all the way to;

"Well, what I try to do in the longer piece I posted above is precisely to try to explain the "yuck factor"

How did we get from "The Left have no arguments left..." to "What I try to do is exlpain the Yuk Factor" - do you still maintain your original criticism or is that inconvient now? I mean it does seem a little bigoted and closed minded, "Us vs Them", liberal vs conservative, THEY are wrong WE are right, so im not supriseed if you would want to distance yourself from those comments.

Either the commenters here did not address the "Philisophical Position" as you put it and we are all naive to your greatness or we did, you cant have it both ways.

also how well do you think you did at explaining this "Yuk" factor - cos by my reading you failed to even address it as you were too busy mis-characterising and slandering Peter Singer

Those syllogisms are formal fallacies, Clive.

The first draws an affirmative conclusion from negative premises and the second contains an undistributed middle fallacy and an illicit minor fallacy.

I guess if you wanted to attack Singer for his alleged moral repugnancy you should have just come out swinging, rather than trying to sneak through the back door via a flimsy comparison with Bernadi (they are after all different...errr...animals).

No he wasn't. You're making things up - it's a style. It is you who above here has used others' comments as a stick to beat up Christians. Stop making things up.

"I recommend moral anti-realism"

The problem is that it can make you less "moral". I fluctuate between moral realism and moral anti-realism. I find I can cheat and steal* a lot more easily when I believe morals are flexible inventions than when I believe morality is a genuinely binding thing.

* The usual stuff - pirated movies, music, office stationery, etc

Marriage as recognised by the Australian government is a contract, and is about assets. It won't ever extend to animals in Australia because they can't enter into legal contracts.

End of story.

Cristophobic and heterophobic much? Bernardi represents a good proportion of society who believe that marriage ought to describe formal unions between two persons of opposite sex, so get over it. Stop your gay propaganda and lies, please.