> From a moral standpoint,

You mean from your (current) moral standpoint. "Moral" is not exactly something fixed, it is varies greatly depending on both space and time.

are you saying it's not non-consensual sex because the point is not for the horse to enjoy it but it is non-sensual sex with the dolphin because the point is for the dolphin to enjoy it.

I'm saying that intent informs morality. eg: Murder and Man Slaughter.

The intent here seems to have been to discover if the dolphin could get high.

The shocking thing is the way that Lilly started with the assumption that dolphins were sentient and worth communicating with, and ended with "It's just a dumb animal, so why should we care how it feels?"

The turning point seems to have been the observation that it didn't start turning cartwheels - metaphorically or otherwise - when dosed up on acid.

Basically he dismissed it when it didn't turn into an acid freak - ignoring the fact that it was demonstrating curiosity, the ability to relate and form attachments, and many human-like elements of language.

All of which were far more convincing as evidence of real sentience, and more worthy of research, than the fact that it failed to trip balls on cue.

so if i rape someone and i didn't intend for them to enjoy it then it's not rape? or is it that the person hasn't been raped?

You escalated your example a bit fast (putting it squarely in the territory of a maybe overly emotional argument), but you touch on a not unreasonable question. Does the horse's right to decide who it has sex with not factor into this decision at all?

In an amusing twist of fate the horse would probably not exist had it not been for a long line of humans deciding which horses bred with which other horses to produce the breeds we know today.

i'm sorry i escalated? the person i was responding to cited the distinction between murder and manslaughter?

>I'm saying that intent informs morality. eg: Murder and Man Slaughter.