Incest...

[VivaHedone]

... any philisophical reasons against it?

[echidna]

You mean apart from birth defects and Jerry Springer ?

[meritocrat]

The primary opposition to incest would be from a moral viewpoint and not necessarily philosophical.

A negative aspect of incest is evidently deformed children resulting from genetic similarity.

[VivaHedone]

The primary opposition to incest would be from a moral viewpoint and not necessarily philosophical.
OK, any 'reasoned' argument against incest.

A negative aspect of incest is evidently deformed children resulting from genetic similarity.
OK, any 'reasoned' argument against incestuous oral, anal or safe penetrative sex.

[MollyMac]

No, I don't think there is a reasoned argument against it providing it's totally consensual. I'd find it extremely difficult to believe parent/child incest is consensual - somewhat easier between siblings and very easy between siblings who didn't meet eachother until they were adults. While I totally empathise with the 'yuck' feeling we get at the thought of doing it with a member of our own family, I'm amazed at the hysterical outrage and hatred expressed towards people who are voluntarily in incestuous relationships even, in some cases, towards people who didn't even know they were related until after they'd fallen in love.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by VivaHedone
... any philisophical reasons against it?
I am unaware of any. If the possibility of genetic deformity is removed from the picture, then it is a personal choice. I don't see how it impedes the rights of others.

Maybe I'd feel different, if I had grown up with a sister!

It would be fun to post the question on a theist board. They do seem to love to hate...

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by meritocrat
The primary opposition to incest would be from a moral viewpoint and not necessarily philosophical.

A negative aspect of incest is evidently deformed children resulting from genetic similarity.

Incestous childbearing is obviously wrong unless you're dealing with an adoption situation. That doesn't mean that all incest is wrong.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by MollyMac
No, I don't think there is a reasoned argument against it providing it's totally consensual. I'd find it extremely difficult to believe parent/child incest is consensual - somewhat easier between siblings and very easy between siblings who didn't meet eachother until they were adults. While I totally empathise with the 'yuck' feeling we get at the thought of doing it with a member of our own family, I'm amazed at the hysterical outrage and hatred expressed towards people who are voluntarily in incestuous relationships even, in some cases, towards people who didn't even know they were related until after they'd fallen in love.

I remember reading about one from France? They got married. One (I can't remember which) had some contact with their birth mother. They brought their spouse to meet the birth mother. The birth mother fainted. She had twins she had put up for adoption, they had gone to separate families.

[meritocrat]

Originally posted by MollyMac
No, I don't think there is a reasoned argument against it providing it's totally consensual. I'd find it extremely difficult to believe parent/child incest is consensual - somewhat easier between siblings and very easy between siblings who didn't meet eachother until they were adults. While I totally empathise with the 'yuck' feeling we get at the thought of doing it with a member of our own family, I'm amazed at the hysterical outrage and hatred expressed towards people who are voluntarily in incestuous relationships even, in some cases, towards people who didn't even know they were related until after they'd fallen in love.


As far as I am concerned no one's rights are violated. Incest is largely seen as being 'unethical' for biblical or religious reasons.

[Bob Stewart]

Incestous childbearing is obviously wrong unless you're dealing with an adoption situation. Will you elaborate, please! Its wrongness is not obvious to me. The possibility of bearing children with birth defects exists with any couple.

Bob Stewart

[Paperstreet]

Originally posted by VivaHedone
... any philisophical reasons against it?

Its icky!

Seriously though, its only wrong to have kids through incest. Increased chance of birth defects and retardation. Thats not something you want to do to a child.

Still though, it would be really disgusting.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Bob Stewart
Will you elaborate, please! Its wrongness is not obvious to me. The possibility of bearing children with birth defects exists with any couple.

Bob Stewart

(Note: Numbers for example purposes only, they are pulled from thin air.)
Consider: Course A has a 5% chance of great harm to an innocent, B has none. Few would not regard A as immoral.
Now, lets add a base 1% rate of harm to both A and B. I sure don't see how this changes A being an immoral act.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Paperstreet
Its icky!

But I don't see how that makes it immoral.

Seriously though, its only wrong to have kids through incest. Increased chance of birth defects and retardation. Thats not something you want to do to a child.

Is not retardation of genetic origin a birth defect??

[alek0]

Is having kids through incest more immoral than having kids if you know that you carry genes for some disease which would make your child's life short and difficult (for example cystic fibrosis)?

Is having kids through incest more immoral than woman with known BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations and family history of breast cancer having kids?

[Totalitarianist]

Incest is a crime against all mankind.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by alek0
Is having kids through incest more immoral than having kids if you know that you carry genes for some disease which would make your child's life short and difficult (for example cystic fibrosis)?

Is having kids through incest more immoral than woman with known BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations and family history of breast cancer having kids?

In the case of the CF gene, immoral. I would go so far as to class it as child abuse.

The latter isn't really that much of a risk--by the time it's an issue for them there will probably be something they can do about it.

[Jobar]

The science fiction writer Theodore Sturgeon once wrote an excellent short story called "If All Men Were Brothers, Would You Let One Marry Your Sister?" One of the most provocative story titles I've ever heard; it's in, IIRC, the original Dangerous Visions (ed. Harlan Ellison.)

The incest taboo is not just a human thing; surprisingly simple sexually-reproducing organisms have it. Over evolutionary time, inbreeding is a non-survival trait and is selected against fairly strongly. This explains the 'yuck' factor; we resist it instinctively. Our modern ability to control conception is far too new a thing for our instincts to take it into account.

The human incest taboo does not function by smell, as it seems to in many species. If you are raised closely from childhood with a completely unrelated member of the opposite sex, the taboo functions; you will treat him/her as a sibling, and any thought of sex will be more or less repugnant.

I think the purely moral arguments against it are empty, at least where reproduction is not happening; but the biological imperative is very strong, so I would say that ethical objections are pretty much moot.

[echidna]

On top of the genetic issues, further problems with incest are that non-incestuous relationships create a wider social network, by linking families. A society hypothetically relying entirely on incest, would become very disjointed & xenophobic towards non-family members. As such the taboo pushes society towards greater homogeneity and tolerance for other related & unrelated members of society.

At a personal level, family members generally share similar experiences and often traits. One of the benefits of the process of partnering, is to find experiences and traits different to one’s own, to find diversity to help with the issues of life. Partnering with a family member would tend to insulate one from that diversity.

[Dominus Paradoxum]

Well usually, with incest, you're talking about an elder family member abusing a younger one. But if you're talking about consenting adults, and they're planning not to have children, then no I can't think of any reason against it. In any case, I think it is certainly no business of the government to interfere.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by echidna
On top of the genetic issues, further problems with incest are that non-incestuous relationships create a wider social network, by linking families. A society hypothetically relying entirely on incest, would become very disjointed & xenophobic towards non-family members. As such the taboo pushes society towards greater homogeneity and tolerance for other related & unrelated members of society.

At a personal level, family members generally share similar experiences and often traits. One of the benefits of the process of partnering, is to find experiences and traits different to one’s own, to find diversity to help with the issues of life. Partnering with a family member would tend to insulate one from that diversity.
All valid points. I had similar thoughts.

However, they don't trump personal freedom. Do they? Is it immoral to behave in a fashion where, if everyone else did it, the human race would suffer?

[echidna]

Yes you're right. As long as public voyeurism exists, there's nothing inherently wrong with married siblings presenting themselves as Springer-fodder, just that eewww factor.

[Bob Stewart]

Loren Pechtel,


My request was, Will you elaborate, please! Its wrongness is not obvious to me. The possibility of bearing children with birth defects exists with any couple.

You responded, (Note: Numbers for example purposes only, they are pulled from thin air.)
Consider: Course A has a 5% chance of great harm to an innocent, B has none. Few would not regard A as immoral.
Now, lets add a base 1% rate of harm to both A and B. I sure don't see how this changes A being an immoral act.

Perhaps it is me, but I don't see an answer to my question in the above.

If I attempt to have a baby with my brother, and there is a 1% chance that 'great harm' will befall the offspring, am I doing something immoral?

Is anything that I do that has a 1% chance of harm to an innocent, immoral?

If I attempt to have a baby with my brother, is the chance that 'great harm' will befall an innocent 5% or only 2%. What counts as a 'great harm'? Are all and any birth defects great harms?

Is anything that I do that has a 5% chance of great harm to an innocent immoral? How about moderate harm?

Once again, could you explain what you think is wrong with incestuous childbearing?

Bob Stewart

[Bob Stewart]

Loren Pechtel,

The following occured to me after I had posted my last message. If it is the possibility of birth defects that make childbearing wrong, as far as you are concerned ("If" because I don't think you have said that this is what makes it wrong), then I assume that incestuous childbearing where there is no birth defect is not wrong. Then, if there is nothing immoral about abortion, the incestuous couple could go ahead and make a child. IF it turns out that there are birth defects (significant birth defects) they can just abort.

I acknowledge that I am describing arguments/positions that you have not endorsed, so these points may be irrelevant.

In any case, what is it that is wrong with incestuous childbearing?

Bob Stewart

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Bob Stewart
Loren Pechtel,


My request was,

You responded,

Perhaps it is me, but I don't see an answer to my question in the above.

If I attempt to have a baby with my brother, and there is a 1% chance that 'great harm' will befall the offspring, am I doing something immoral?

Is anything that I do that has a 1% chance of harm to an innocent, immoral?

If I attempt to have a baby with my brother, is the chance that 'great harm' will befall an innocent 5% or only 2%. What counts as a 'great harm'? Are all and any birth defects great harms?

Is anything that I do that has a 5% chance of great harm to an innocent immoral? How about moderate harm?

Once again, could you explain what you think is wrong with incestuous childbearing?

Bob Stewart

There is a substantial *ADDITIONAL* risk of a seriously defective child. That's the wrongness of it. I consider it to be child abuse--worthy of jail time.

Reproduction always carries risks but if you substantially increase them you are doing a great wrong.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Bob Stewart
Loren Pechtel,

The following occured to me after I had posted my last message. If it is the possibility of birth defects that make childbearing wrong, as far as you are concerned ("If" because I don't think you have said that this is what makes it wrong), then I assume that incestuous childbearing where there is no birth defect is not wrong. Then, if there is nothing immoral about abortion, the incestuous couple could go ahead and make a child. IF it turns out that there are birth defects (significant birth defects) they can just abort.

I acknowledge that I am describing arguments/positions that you have not endorsed, so these points may be irrelevant.

In any case, what is it that is wrong with incestuous childbearing?

Bob Stewart

It's akin to DUI--taking the risk is a crime even if nothing bad happens.

We lack the ability to detect all birth defects in utero. *IF* we could do so I would have no problem with the approach.

You are describing the situation as it is with certain birth defects. We know what causes cystic fibrosis, I regard it as immoral for two carriers to have a child without such testing.

[Paperstreet]

There are PLENTY of starving people in the world who would gladly give there baby up for adoption. Who would be so selfish that they would roll the dice on their baby's life. It is necessary to take a risk each time a baby is born, so the human race can continue living. With 6 billion other living human beings, do we really need to increase the chances of screwing a kid up? If you have a disease or are a carrier of a disease, and you don't want your child to suffer, just adopt. Having a child that you rolled the dice on IS immoral. Don't take the risk, because if the baby IS screwed up, guess whose fault it is? If you took no risk and neither parent is related or has a disease, then its just bad luck.

[Mashriqi Mercenary]

In my opinion, incest is largely an amoral situation. What makes it moral or immoral is the society and their respective viewpoints. I dont think social-benefit arguments suffice just as one can argue whether polygampous, polyandrous, hetrosexual marriages, monogamous, cohabitation etc. are better for the society one being superior to the other (and hence one "more" moral than the other :confused: ).

Secondly, while discussing the morality of any situation many times we view it (i:e: morality) in cosmic and universal paradigm, meaning that what is wrong today should be wrong for times to come for the sake of the action in itself. Now consider this scenario: Any union of a male and femlae carries potential for birth defects. So, those parents who did not get themselves tested for various diseases, have they all indulged in immoral acts? If tomorrow because of technology we can manipulate and get rid of any potential deleterious gene in an embryo resulted from an incestual copulation, would it then suddenly become moral to have incest marriages? (The bible would still say no)

Scietifically even, one cant prove the morality or immorality of the situation. Biologically, homozygosity would be close 99.9% if one mates with one self (Not 100% since one has to allow room for meiotic cross-over ). The homozygosity DEcreases as one then goes outward in human relations brothers/sisters, 1st cousins, 2nd cousins etc...and keep in mind that homozygosity (hence incest) is not the culprit initself rather than the "chances" of the deleterious genes becoming more pronounced in the next generation. Incest dooesnt cause any mutation in the genes.

In terms of siblings engaging in incest it would take approximately 3-4 generations of continual incest for homozygosity to become very pronounced. All non-human primates and especially our closest cousins anthropoids (chimps, gorillas, gibbons and orngutans) show incest between mother and male child or father and female child which is to some extent controlled by the increasing hostility of the same sex parent to the same sex child. But there is more or less no prohibition for siblings to engagng in incest. Hence in Nature sibling incest is very common . In humans, we have ancient egyptians specifically the pharoahs engaing in sibling incest and also the hindu brhmins.

Secondly, in our US culture we not only extend incest to sibling sex but also to first cousins getting married. In that case a whole bunch of abrahmic people muslims and ESPECIALLY the jews would be incestual and so would be the children of the biblical prophets. So, to them sibling incest is immoral but first cousin unions are OK.


Hence my rendering that incest is amoral in itself, what makes it moral or immoral is the society in perspective and I beleive it is ok for any society to make laws pertainign to morality in light of their traditions and heritage as cherished by its people.

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by Mashriqi Mercenary
In my opinion, incest is largely an amoral situation. What makes it moral or immoral is the society and their respective viewpoints.
By this definition, slavery is moral - if society says so. I disagree. While I don't assume there are objective morals, nonetheless there must be a higher standard than just popular opinion.

I dont think social-benefit arguments suffice just as one can argue whether polygampous, polyandrous, hetrosexual marriages, monogamous, cohabitation etc. are better for the society one being superior to the other (and hence one "more" moral than the other ).

Now instead of "society and their respective viewpoints", we have "are better for the society". I think our resposibility to our society is part of morality, but not all of it.


mor·al
1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL <moral judgments> b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>
2 : probable though not proved : VIRTUAL <a moral certainty>
3 : having the effects of such on the mind, confidence, or will <a moral victory> <moral support>


"Morals" are influenced by society, but not defined by it.

Hence my rendering that incest is amoral in itself, what makes it moral or immoral is the society in perspective and I beleive it is ok for any society to make laws pertainign to morality in light of their traditions and heritage as cherished by its people.
I think your premise is incorrect - morality is not defined by society.

Also IMO the conclusion is wrong, also - laws themselves may be immoral, even if popular.

[Mashriqi Mercenary]

Thanks for giving the defination of morality from an english dictionary. You must have noticed that in the defination there is time and again emphasis on certain things such as expressing or teaching a CONCEPTION of right behavior and
conforming to a STANDARD of right behavior
sanctioned by or OPERATIVE on one's conscious and ethical JUDGEMENT

Now, let me tell you that I think you're quite right when you say that slavery too comes within a relative paradigm. It has been a very ancient tradition found in almost every single civilization. Today it is non-existent. In retrospect we call all those peoples and nations who had slavery that they had "moral blindspots" which is another thing for saying that they deemed it quite normal and A-OK to have slavery. Talk about the greeks, Persians, egyptians, Arabs, Chinese, Assyrians and in every centre of civilization where it was an accepted and justified institution, not even the slaves questioned it. There were debates over how a slave should be treated and what rights does he have but not on slavery itself.

But there is slight difference that existed between the slavery as it existed in the US and among nations of yore such as Greeks and Arabs and Persians. First offs, there arguments for slavery were not embedded in racism nor were they directed agianst a particular slavbe hence a greek would have a nordic barbarian as slave, a captured ethiopian, a persian, a hebrew as slave, An arab could be a slave to another arab, or he could have a jewish, a byzantium or egyptian slave etc...

Here in the U.S at a time when Lockeian liberals (Hamilton, Jefferson, Jay....) sought to establish a liberal society and proclaimed equality for all men, then treating an entire race of men as slaves was quite immoral especially when done by unsound arguments and that too when done in the face of prevalent abolitionst views in the western World when plenty of literature was available on the grossness of the western conception of slavery. I say this because if one reads essays by Jefferson a learned and intelligent man on why itis ok to have slavery one doesnt need DNA studies or social anthropologists to see the hollow ness of his arguments and see straight at the absolutist position he takes based directly on skin color and physical features. Given the JudeoChristian background of the US political elite and that too a highly liberalized one as compared to the old world, one can argue that this was pretty much straight out hypocrisy and immoral.

BUt one cant make such arguments for people of earlier ages. This is because for the sheer reason that we cannot know what is the ultimate morality ever.
WHat you are saying is that morality lies outside of the society when you say, "
"Morals" are influenced by society, but not defined by it. " and laws themselves may be immoral, even if popular."

That is a quite moral absolutist position or Kantian stand.

On the contrary I beleive morality is defined by prevalent times and society in general. There may be difference in moralites as for example is the case of difference of marriage customs between hebrews and christians. It could also be that one is "superior" to the other in some esoteric way but there is no way we can know for sure which is the best way OR if there IS any best way. Catholics are in majority and jews in minority, that doesnt necessarily make Catholics and their opinion superior to the ones on jews regarding marriage, or the other way round, just like the catholic position on divorce (cant have divorce) is not necessarliy superior to Protestant position (can have the right of divorce). Neither the fact that Anglo Saxon Protestants because of being the dominant peoples in World political forums can have more of a say in what is right and wrong to their relatively less economiclly viable catholic neighbours.
The only way we can come to a sorta quasi universal morality is by standardizing certain behaviours such as UN mandate to which all member countries agree to uphold (and we in the US recently vehemently violated) or something like the geneva convention etc... But try explaining geneva convention to the Vandals, visigoths, mongols and huns.
In case of incest marriages, one may take an ethical position about the chances of incresed inherited disease (which are quite less in first generation sibling incest marriage anyways) but that means one is arguing for the rights of the fetus, that would mean that abortion too(as practiced in the US) is immoral cause it impedes upon the rights of the father and most of all the fetus and lets forget about the eldorado of social benefit social ill arguments that can follow. But thats another Q for another day.

Hence my earlier staement still holds," quote: I dont think social-benefit arguments suffice either just as one can argue whether or not polygampous, polyandrous, hetrosexual marriages, monogamous, cohabitation etc. are better for the society in terms of one being superior to the other (and hence one "more" moral than the other?? ).

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by Mashriqi Mercenary
Thanks for giving the defination of morality from an english dictionary. You must have noticed that in the defination there is time and again emphasis on certain things such as [B]expressing or teaching a CONCEPTION of right behavior and
conforming to a STANDARD of right behavior
sanctioned by or OPERATIVE on one's conscious and ethical JUDGEMENT

Notice that no source of these standards is given - other than to say on "ONE'S conscious and ethical judgement". Your premise that these standards are defined by society is then seen to be incorrect, except to the extent that societal moral standards are derived from individual moral standards.

It seems to me that morality is defined on an individual basis.

Now, let me tell you that I think you're quite right when you say that slavery too comes within a relative paradigm.
There may be situations where slavery is perhaps the lesser of evils (captured enemy soldiers, for example) but still it is evil - slavery does not become "moral" merely because society accepts it.

It seems we're dealing with semantics.

But there is slight difference that existed between the slavery as it existed in the US and among nations of yore such as Greeks and Arabs and Persians.
An irrelevant difference, because the issue of slavery comes down to personal rights - the reasons for slavery (racism, for example) are mere rationalizations.

BUt one cant make such arguments for people of earlier ages.
Statements like this make me wary...

This is because for the sheer reason that we cannot know what is the ultimate morality ever.
Ah. Okay. We don't even know that there IS an "ultimate" morality.

WHat you are saying is that morality lies outside of the society when you say,
""Morals" are influenced by society, but not defined by it. " and laws themselves may be immoral, even if popular." "
No, I have not implied that, since I claim morality is defined by individuals, who are within society.

That is a quite moral absolutist position or Kantian stand.
Now you can see this conclusion is false. Also, I had already said that "While I don't assume there are objective morals, nonetheless there must be a higher standard than just popular opinion."

So I reject the charge of moral absolutism. The question becomes, "what is a higher standard"?

I see it this way - morals are defined by using reason and empathy. We as a group may be more reasonable and more empathic (we know more) then our ancestors. We see now that slavery is immoral.

On the contrary I beleive morality is defined by prevalent times and society in general.

Try this: substitute "science" for "morality". Of course the understanding of science depends on the general times - but the truth or falsity of scientific findings does NOT so depend. And this in no way implies that "science" has some sort of objective reality - science is just a tool.

In the same way, the understanding of morality depends on the general times - but the truth or falsity of moral findings does NOT so depend. And this in no way implies that "morality" has some sort of objective reality - morality is just a tool.

It could also be that one is "superior" to the other in some esoteric way but there is no way we can know for sure which is the best way OR if there IS any best way.
This is crux, I think. Basically, I agree, but I don't see this as support for your argument. We poor humans can never REALLY know ANYTHING, apparently, but that doesn't keep us from trying.

I see "truth" as something like a mathematical asymptote - all we can do is continue to approach it.

I claim that the "best" way to define morality, so far as we can tell, is through the use of reason and empathy. This tells me that our current view of slavery, for example, IS superior. We are wiser now.

Hence my earlier staement still holds: "In my opinion, incest is largely an amoral situation. What makes it moral or immoral is the society and their respective viewpoints. I dont think social-benefit arguments suffice just as one can argue whether polygampous, polyandrous, hetrosexual marriages, monogamous, cohabitation etc. are better for the society one being superior to the other (and hence one "more" moral than the other )."
I disagree. Not necessarily with the opinion ("incest is amoral") but with the idea that "what makes it moral" is popular opinion.

What "makes it moral" is our understanding - based on knowledge gained by using our reason and empathy.

So your statement does not hold, IMO.

I claimed that "...and laws themselves may be immoral, even if popular." I'm interested in how you would address this claim.

BTW I don't claim to be a philosopher or a logician - I'm just an explorer who finds the subject of morality fascinating.

[Mashriqi Mercenary]

It seems to me that morality is defined on an individual basis

we are not talkin about individual morality here. On a macro scale morality is considered wholistic. Individuals may have there own personal ideals but when a nation makes laws or legislates, that is done on what it the society considers moral or ethical. As an individual one has he power to influence others, if one's view, discordant with the prevalent thinking catch on then the standard of how people in the society judge things may well change.


There may be situations where slavery is perhaps the lesser of evils (captured enemy soldiers, for example) but still it is evil - slavery does not become "moral" merely because society accepts it.



yeah its much easier to say that now, just like we have legislated that minimum age for marrying should be 18. It is also possible that tomorrow we might come to the conclusion that abortion was immoral or that to kill any animal for research is immoral.


An irrelevant difference, because the issue of slavery comes down to personal rights - the reasons for slavery (racism, for example) are mere rationalizations

No the difference is very relevant because thats how we judge how is one thing less moral or outright immoral than the other (in most of the situations) in any given time. For example, today occupying another's land or subjugating a population is condered wrong by international consensus and provisions are made against such a thing in the UN charter. In yester years this WAS the norm. Those who occupied others land certainly didnt think of themselves as immoral or their actions wrong.
Similarly, let me give you the example of two Afghan Kings Mehmood Ghaznavi and Mohammad Ghauri who would each carve out an empire for themselves in India and central Asia. Both were brutal at times and were contemporaries of each other. Ghaznavi is well known among hindus as the destroyer of their temples and pillager of the villages, he did even more exploits to his turkic cousins in southern turkistan and khwarizm. Ghauri too was a conqueror and a patron of arts and architecture he too occupied northern India. But as compared to Ghaznavi he was quite benevolent and accpted as such by his non muslim subjects. By todays stanbdards both were tyrant and both indulged in immoral behaviour, but given the standards of their time Ghaznavi was outright brutal and cruel in his actions and is recognized as such by muslim historians of his time.



I see it this way - morals are defined by using reason and empathy. We as a group may be more reasonable and more empathic (we know more) then our ancestors. We see now that slavery is immoral.


well any human action can be defined by reason. Morals are defined by human sentiments. Reasoning is not the path to decipher the truth. What we know today may chnage tomorrow and slavery (or contract servitude) may become the norm. Hence those slave holders of ancient times didnt think they acted in an immoral manner, they acted immoraly only relative to us. Certainly we cant say all the folks of the middle ages including christians, jews and muslims were immoral people. Same goes for Child labour issue, which unlike slavery hasnt really caught up with the rest of the world yet. Many countries even advocate the use of their children (3rd world ones) in industries. It is their way of keeping them off the streets, and continuing a way of life that has been going on for many many years until recently when certain segments of neo- western liberalism suddenly decided that it is immoral. It may catch on and child labour may become eradicated from the World (not because of industrialization of 3rd world countries) but because ppl may genuinely come to think that it is an immoral thing for child to work even. Or it could be the other way round too, people may leave other societies on their own to eveolve rather than pushing them to do what they seem as fit or it could be that if a study suggests that a child who works at an early age makes more dendrite connections, develops better leadership skills and matures faster than one who doesnt, it may even become a recommended thing.

Hence, incest cant be termed moral or immoral by using reason alone. It has to do with the sentiments of a particular people with their own social and cultural experience. My statements hold.

I claimed that "...and laws themselves may be immoral, even if popular." I'm interested in how you would address this claim.


well , the case with the US elite and their justification of slavery given the prevalent views and their liberal claims was immoral. The Nazi persecution of jews was immoral not because of their reasoning skills but because of their invalid premises. Their arguments for pure aryan race is another immoral argument because of the immediate false premises which led to false claims. Aryan has never been used or found anywhere near the teutonic or kurgan indo-europeans. The only ones to use aryan as an ethnic desgnation were the indo-iranians. This case of outright plagirism and creating into a mumbojumbo knowingly inorder to persecute others was immoral on their part.

[Nowhere357]

we are not talkin about individual morality here. On a macro scale morality is considered wholistic. Individuals may have there own personal ideals but when a nation makes laws or legislates, that is done on what it the society considers moral or ethical. As an individual one has he power to influence others, if one's view, discordant with the prevalent thinking catch on then the standard of how people in the society judge things may well change.
[/B]
We are not really in disagreement - this is a semantic issue.

You define morality as popular opinion, and I disagree that is the most useful definition. If I use your definitions, I basically agree with your points. Your definition denies individual responsibility for acquiring morals however.

yeah its much easier to say that now, just like we have legislated that minimum age for marrying should be 18. It is also possible that tomorrow we might come to the conclusion that abortion was immoral or that to kill any animal for research is immoral.
We'll eventually outgrow the need to do either of these things. Some people already see the immorality of both these actions.

And the age of consent - like many of our laws - is just slightly wrong. There are young men in prison for having consensual sex with a 17yr old. The law is intentioned well, and then sometimes misused.

No the difference is very relevant because thats how we judge how is one thing less moral or outright immoral than the other (in most of the situations) in any given time.
Based on your definition of "morality" then yes. But again, popular opinion is not a useful definition. Your definition removes personal responsibility from the equation, and adds nothing substantial in exchange.

Morals are defined by human sentiments. Reasoning is not the path to decipher the truth.
No, morals are defined by conception of right behavior, which comes straight from the dictionary definition. Your claim here - that morals are defined by sentiments - is not supported by the standard definitions at all.

What reason do you have for re-defining the word "morality" in such a not-standard way? What benefit does your view provide?

ALSO, if "reasoning is not the path" to understanding truth, then please explain what is. I am at a loss to understand this statement.

Hence, incest cant be termed moral or immoral by using reason alone. It has to do with the sentiments of a particular people with their own social and cultural experience. My statements hold.
Using my definition, yes we can term slavery immoral. We are wiser than our ancestors.

I agree that "sentiments" are involved - reason and empathy are the correct way to understand morality. IMO.

Concerning the morality of laws:
well , the case with the US elite and their justification of slavery given the prevalent views and their liberal claims was immoral.
I fail to see what "liberal claims" have to do with the morality of human bondage.

The Nazi persecution of jews was immoral not because of their reasoning skills but because of their invalid premises.
This is very wrong. Persecution of Jews is immoral because of the action, and not the "reasoning skills". By your definition, persecution is acceptable if we think we've got a good enough reason.

Their arguments for pure aryan race is another immoral argument because of the immediate false premises which led to false claims.
There is nothing immoral about ideas! Only actions and intentions involve morality.

Explain why we should accept your non-standard definition of morality.

[Excidius]

I've already posted my opinion on the morality of incest on another thread, but here I'll present them again, as they are probably more relevant to this thread than the other:

I do not think that incest is immoral. It's certainly not something to be encouraged (for biological reasons), but if people choose to do it, I won't condemn them from a moral standpoint. It is a mathematical fact that you could not exist without lots and lots of incest somewhere in your family tree. If you assume no incest, your direct family tree increases by powers of 2 with each generation (ie. you have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great grandparents, 16 great-great grandparents, and so on). If you go back 100 generations, there had to be 2^100 = 1267650600228229401496703205376 people to give rise to you. But of course, there were never that many people on earth, ever. The only way to reconcile this is to concede that there was A LOT of incest necessary to make you (incest between siblings causes the family tree to increase by factors of 2, rather than powers). You wouldn't be here without it. Incest should not be morally condemned; if anything, it should be thanked.

The only reason we think incest is "gross" or "disgusting" is because our society indoctrinates us with the idea (just as few of us would eat what other cultures eat; disgust is relative). Left to our own natural devices without having ever been indoctrinated with the "eeewww" factor, we would have sex with our relatives, especially if we didn't even know the relation. Most of us living in the Western world would gross out at the idea of incestual relations with first cousins, but it is a very common and accepted practice in many other parts of the world today.

[Excidius]

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
There is a substantial *ADDITIONAL* risk of a seriously defective child. That's the wrongness of it. I consider it to be child abuse--worthy of jail time.

Reproduction always carries risks but if you substantially increase them you are doing a great wrong. It is not necessarily true that the risk of defects is increased. That idea is based on the idea that if your family has a lot of bad recessive genes, incestual relations will increase the likelihood of these bad recessive genes expressing their phenotype. If your family doesn't have these recessive genes, incest will not necessarily increase the odds of having defective children.

Now don't take this as a defense of incest, I certainly think that it should be discouraged, since biology has shown us that genetic diversity is an evolutionary advantage (those lucky bacteria with antibiotic-resistant genes can testify to that, for instance). However, I'll stop short of saying it is morally wrong, and certainly won't go so far as to declare it worthy of jail time. As I stated in a previous reply in this thread, if you or anyone else traces their family tree back far enough (maybe not even far for some people), you will inevitably find incest, and lots of it.

[Kenneth]

Originally posted by Loren Pechtel
Incestous childbearing is obviously wrong unless you're dealing with an adoption situation. That doesn't mean that all incest is wrong.

Aside from the biological problem, there is also a moral problem which is more important.

Contrary to Loren, all Incest are wrong. It is abuse of power. Incest is a rape case where the absence of physical threat or violence is not necessary.

How can a dependent child say "no" to a parent?

[Nowhere357]

Originally posted by Kenneth
Contrary to Loren, all Incest are wrong. It is abuse of power. Incest is a rape case where the absence of physical threat or violence is not necessary.
How can a dependent child say "no" to a parent?
Incest is not pedophilia, so I don't understand your point. Incest can be between adults; between siblings; and so on.

[MollyMac]

Originally posted by Kenneth
Contrary to Loren, all Incest are wrong. It is abuse of power. Incest is a rape case where the absence of physical threat or violence is not necessary.

How can a dependent child say "no" to a parent?
I'm inclined to agree with this when the incest involves parent-child relationships. I think of this as child abuse. But the word 'incest' to me, rightly or wrongly, conjures up a relationship between siblings who are close in age. Provided it is a mutally consensual relationship I don't see anything morally wrong with this. It is incomprehensible to me if it's between two siblings who've grown up together but totally comprehensible when it's between two siblings who only met each other in adulthood, which happens to be the case in all the cases of incest I've personally been acquainted with.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Excidius
It is not necessarily true that the risk of defects is increased. That idea is based on the idea that if your family has a lot of bad recessive genes, incestual relations will increase the likelihood of these bad recessive genes expressing their phenotype. If your family doesn't have these recessive genes, incest will not necessarily increase the odds of having defective children.

Any recessive gene you have will have a 25% chance of expressing if you have a child by your offspring. That's *FAR* higher than the odds of expressing it with a partner who is not a relative.

As I stated in a previous reply in this thread, if you or anyone else traces their family tree back far enough (maybe not even far for some people), you will inevitably find incest, and lots of it.

Yeah, there must be incest to some degree in history. That's actually to your advantage. Incest in one's ancestors removes bad genes--but at a high price.
In fact, it's one of the standard means of improving a bloodline--inbreed, culling the weak ones. Then cross with other such bloodlines.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Kenneth
Aside from the biological problem, there is also a moral problem which is more important.

Contrary to Loren, all Incest are wrong. It is abuse of power. Incest is a rape case where the absence of physical threat or violence is not necessary.

How can a dependent child say "no" to a parent?

Hey! You're mischaracterizing me!

Dependant child/parent is an area that must be approached with extreme caution if at all. I would say absolutely that any initiation of such a relationship by the parent is wrong. Even if the offspring is the initator it would require treading *VERY* carefully.

However, this isn't the only form incest can take. How about parent/indepednant adult offspring? How about adult siblings?

I would have no problem with an age of consent of 21 for incest.

[Excidius]

Any recessive gene you have will have a 25% chance of expressing if you have a child by your offspring. That's *FAR* higher than the odds of expressing it with a partner who is not a relative.
That 25% chance of a recessive phenotype is based on a simple 4 piece Punnett square. Not all phenotypes are that simple and some require multiple genes to activate. Also, you would end up with the same odds of producing a child with bad recessive traits if you did so with a non-relative who had the same bad recessive traits in the same quantities, which is a scenario that is not at all unlikely, especially if you marry within your race.

Take for instance, Tay Sachs disease, which is common among Jewish people. It is highly likely that two non-related Jews can produce children with this genetic defect. Should such a coupling be condemned for the same reason as incest? After all, they can reduce the likelihood of this defect by coupling with non-Jews.

I think some people in this thread were trying to argue that if a couple (regardless of their relation) knew that they would increase the likelihood of their children having a "defect," then they should not couple for moral reasons. I'm inclined to disagree with this notion. I once watched a documentary on a married couple, both of whom were born deaf. When they settled down to have children, they both insisted that they hoped their children would be born deaf, just like them. They consider their deafness not to be a curse, but a blessing that has enabled them to sharpen their other senses and still lead meaningful lives. To them, silence is a beautiful thing, and they wanted their children to appreciate it too. Would anyone condemn these parents for wanting "defective" children (and as it turns out, their children did end up being born deaf)? I wouldn't, because not being deaf, I couldn't possibly know how "terrible" it is to be deaf.

[dk]

I have a question...

If a married gay couple in Canada adopted a 14 year old boy, where the age of consent is 14, then had sex with the 14 year old boy who consented, would that be incest, or intergenerational love?

[livius drusus]

It would be off-topic. I suggest you take it to one of your gay obsession threads, dk.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by Excidius
That 25% chance of a recessive phenotype is based on a simple 4 piece Punnett square. Not all phenotypes are that simple and some require multiple genes to activate.

True, although most that I've heard of only take 1.

Also, you would end up with the same odds of producing a child with bad recessive traits if you did so with a non-relative who had the same bad recessive traits in the same quantities, which is a scenario that is not at all unlikely, especially if you marry within your race.

But the odds that a stranger has the same bad recessive as you is *FAR* lower than the odds a blood relative has it.

Take for instance, Tay Sachs disease, which is common among Jewish people. It is highly likely that two non-related Jews can produce children with this genetic defect. Should such a coupling be condemned for the same reason as incest? After all, they can reduce the likelihood of this defect by coupling with non-Jews.

1) The odds of a Jewish couple having a Tay-Sachs baby is still quite low. I don't remember the number but it's far, far below 1%. For the sake of argument lets say 1% of Jews carry the gene. Marry another Jew and there's 1 in 10,000 chance you both have the gene, x.25 that the baby takes the double hit. 1 in 40,000. Now, you're a Jew who marries a gentile and then has a child by your child. 1 in 100 x 1 in 2 that you pass it to the child x 1 in 4 that the baby takes the double = 1 in 800. 50x the risk.

2) I consider a Jewish couple who doesn't have the tests to be severely negligent. The incidence of Tay-Sachs should be zero.

I think some people in this thread were trying to argue that if a couple (regardless of their relation) knew that they would increase the likelihood of their children having a "defect," then they should not couple for moral reasons.

I have said they should not have a child for moral reasons. I have no problem with them marrying, though. In cases like Tay-Sachs they can have children so long as they abort the defectives.

I'm inclined to disagree with this notion. I once watched a documentary on a married couple, both of whom were born deaf. When they settled down to have children, they both insisted that they hoped their children would be born deaf, just like them. They consider their deafness not to be a curse, but a blessing that has enabled them to sharpen their other senses and still lead meaningful lives.

Their insanity isn't justification.

To them, silence is a beautiful thing, and they wanted their children to appreciate it too. Would anyone condemn these parents for wanting "defective" children (and as it turns out, their children did end up being born deaf)? I wouldn't, because not being deaf, I couldn't possibly know how "terrible" it is to be deaf.

To wish *ANY* defect on your children is heinous.

[xorbie]

So is the general consensus that there is nothing inherently immoral about protected incest between two consenting individuals.

In terms of an age line, I think since this is a moral and not legal issue, we can just say it is probably between 16 and 21, but basically whenever the people involved are mature enough.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by xorbie
So is the general consensus that there is nothing inherently immoral about protected incest between two consenting individuals.

So long as they are truly consenting, there's no power issues involved.

The 16 year old daughter is going to have a hard time saying no to her father--thus the question should not be asked in the first place.

[xorbie]

And if she initiates? Or if it is her 21 year old brother? Or her uncle? Or cousin?

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by xorbie
And if she initiates? Or if it is her 21 year old brother? Or her uncle? Or cousin?

Cousin I have no problem with so long as there's no children created.

The other cases must be treated with great care to ensure that it's truly consensual. They are all power-imbalance situations. Absolutely she must be the initiator, I'm not sure what precautions are needed beyond that.

[xorbie]

But that is from a legal perspective (or am I reading you wrong?). I am just saying, so long as it is consentual (which we assume to be true), there is nothing morally wrong about it.

[Loren Pechtel]

Originally posted by xorbie
But that is from a legal perspective (or am I reading you wrong?). I am just saying, so long as it is consentual (which we assume to be true), there is nothing morally wrong about it.

I'm talking about the moral aspect. She must be truly consenting, not pressured into it one bit.