Morality of incest

[zorro_]

I'm wondering about people's opinions on this topic. Do you think there is an argument for the absolute wrongness of incest? Perhaps you think it is just perverse?

Also, let's not talk about the pregnancy issue because it is easily avoided/fixed.

Edit: I'll prompt more discussion though. A lot of what we propose as morally wrong is not obviously given and requires justification. For instance, if I argue that it is morally wrong to kill someone, I have to maintain that the right to life shouldn't be violated.
If we extend this to the problem of incest, is it a proper argument to say that it is morally wrong to perform incest because it violates the sanctity of the family arrangement and brings the parental and sibling relations into a state of chaos? Is this legitimate?

 

[Burntish]

It's the social norm of today. Most religions actually say the human race was spread by incest from the offspring of Adam and Eve. But because research of today proves that there is a big chance mutations happening to the children of closely related (Siblings, First Cousins) couples, we kind of shunned it and frown upon people who do it.

 

[Superfluous]

It's not inherently wrong, but it's socially taboo... if you want a discussion you're gonna have to prompt people more than that, op.

 

No harm no foul between consenting adult individuals. It doesn't matter if someone thinks its gross or not.

I don't think anyone could say that its objectively wrong from a purely ethical standpoint. Obviously people will disagree from various religious perspectives.

Also there is already a big thread on this, but I think avoiding the pregnancy issue is more conducive to a conversation.

 

Also, let's not talk about the pregnancy issue because it is easily avoided/fixed.

How about:

Do you believe in God? Let's not talk about the science issue because that's easily avoided/fixed.

You can't just brush off the biggest argument without any form of rebuttal. Please read the stickies: Your OP needs to involve an argument for either side. I'll give you some time to update OP with a proper argument or this will be locked.

 

[zorro_]

How about:



You can't just brush off the biggest argument without any form of rebuttal. Please read the stickies: Your OP needs to involve an argument for either side. I'll give you some time to update OP with a proper argument or this will be locked.

I brush off the "biggest argument" because it is not useful. I am talking about the incestuous relations themselves, and if we can find something wrong in them; to think about the results of the incestuous relations (pregnancy) is an easily preventable point via contraception or abortion.

Granted, you can't enforce that measure. But for the discussion's sake (focussing on the incest itself) I want to think about whether people think there is actually something wrong in that, in itself.

I'll prompt more discussion though. A lot of what we propose as morally wrong is not obviously given and requires justification. For instance, if I argue that it is morally wrong to kill someone, I have to maintain that the right to life shouldn't be violated.
If we extend this to the problem of incest, is it a proper argument to say that it is morally wrong to perform incest because it violates the sanctity of the family arrangement and brings the parental and sibling relations into a state of chaos? Is this legitimate?

 

But you can never prevent all possibly affected and abnormal/unhealthy children. Some people don't know they're pregnant until it's too late, some people even go in to labour before they know they're pregnant, some places don't allow abortions, some people wont have abortions; no matter what precautions you take there is always that risk.

That makes it morally wrong; you're playing with the life of a potential child.

Aside from that it's, besides possibly unsettling for some to think of, fine.

 

I brush off the "biggest argument" because it is not useful. I am talking about the incestuous relations themselves, and if we can find something wrong in them; to think about the results of the incestuous relations (pregnancy) is an easily preventable point via contraception or abortion.

Granted, you can't enforce that measure. But for the discussion's sake (focussing on the incest itself) I want to think about whether people think there is actually something wrong in that, in itself.

I'll prompt more discussion though. A lot of what we propose as morally wrong is not obviously given and requires justification. For instance, if I argue that it is morally wrong to kill someone, I have to maintain that the right to life shouldn't be violated.
If we extend this to the problem of incest, is it a proper argument to say that it is morally wrong to perform incest because it violates the sanctity of the family arrangement and brings the parental and sibling relations into a state of chaos? Is this legitimate?

Relationships lead to intimacy, and intimacy can lead to pregnancy. If there are birth defects that come along with the act of incest, that itself should mean it's not right. What is right and what is wrong? We determine that, and in the public majority, it's not a favored subject in the slightest.

 

[Swan]

If people want to do it, let them. Rather than teaching children "this is taboo, don't do it" they should be educated in the consequences of such actions such that they can make an informed choice as well as take precautions to avoid those negative outcomes.

From a genetic point of view it isn't favourable, but from a moral point of view, who are we to judge?

 

If people want to do it, let them. Rather than teaching children "this is taboo, don't do it" they should be educated in the consequences of such actions such that they can make an informed choice as well as take precautions to avoid those negative outcomes.

From a genetic point of view it isn't favourable, but from a moral point of view, who are we to judge?

Is that really necessary? We learn this on our own without hearing the term incest and the negative effects that come with it.

In nature, there are forces which prohibit inbreeding. Adolescent males, sometimes females, are chased away from a family group to prevent an inbreeding depression.

 

On the contrary there are psychological studies that show we are attracted to people who look like us (more specifically someone who looks like an opposite sex parent).

 

[zorro_]

But you can never prevent all possibly affected and abnormal/unhealthy children. Some people don't know they're pregnant until it's too late, some people even go in to labour before they know they're pregnant, some places don't allow abortions, some people wont have abortions; no matter what precautions you take there is always that risk.

That makes it morally wrong; you're playing with the life of a potential child.

Aside from that it's, besides possibly unsettling for some to think of, fine.

Okay, maybe the pregnancy part is more relevant than I anticipated. But are you sure that you can call it morally wrong on those grounds? You're protecting the rights of a potential child, but that potential child is not even potential until you grant the two people the right to have sex. So you're trying to control the parameters of the sexual relations based on the possible outcome viz. the potential human life, but on grounds that have not yet been established (because we can't argue that the potential potential human life can have force).

Also, by this logic, should we not prevent disabled people from reproducing?

If people want to do it, let them. Rather than teaching children "this is taboo, don't do it" they should be educated in the consequences of such actions such that they can make an informed choice as well as take precautions to avoid those negative outcomes.

From a genetic point of view it isn't favourable, but from a moral point of view, who are we to judge?

This is a fairly airtight view.

 

[whaatitdo]

First of all, there has to be a definition on who is considered on the matter of looking at incest. I think its fairly obvious to anyone that any parental or blood sibling or relative relationship such as aunt is not right. Not judging here but its fairly certain that this has that immoral feel and "gross" level to it. The only relationship that is still banned as not allowed in the U.S I could disagree with are cousin-cousin. That being said, even if they are consenting adults, it might not be a smart move.

 

Okay, maybe the pregnancy part is more relevant than I anticipated. But are you sure that you can call it morally wrong on those grounds? You're protecting the rights of a potential child, but that potential child is not even potential until you grant the two people the right to have sex. So you're trying to control the parameters of the sexual relations based on the possible outcome viz. the potential human life, but on grounds that have not yet been established (because we can't argue that the potential potential human life can have force).

Exactly; why even let there be a potential child.

Also, by this logic, should we not prevent disabled people from reproducing?
.

A good point. But at least these disabilities can be predicted and the parents know what the disability will be, are prepared and have a suitable system in place on arrival.

A, to be more 'scientific', randomly mutated baby could have a life not worth living, I don't know of any disabled people who've had a life not worth living who reproduce. Then you have this issue of having to keep a child alive who's life isn't worth living and who could be totally vacant forever.

 

[Anavar]

The way I see it is it's a kind of a gamble if the women is to have a baby. You are gambling on whether or not the baby will have a birth defect. Due to this, I think it's immoral to do so. If the two partners are to have sex with each other and not aim for having a child/take certain precautions so no pregnancy occurs, then they are just like any two consenting adults.

 

[zorro_]

Exactly; why even let there be a potential child.


A good point. But at least these disabilities can be predicted and the parents know what the disability will be, are prepared and have a suitable system in place on arrival.

A, to be more 'scientific', randomly mutated baby could have a life not worth living, I don't know of any disabled people who've had a life not worth living who reproduce. Then you have this issue of having to keep a child alive who's life isn't worth living and who could be totally vacant forever.

How can you argue that the randomness of the mutation (if it is indeed even random) is a basis to call life less worth living for the baby than a predicted mutation? It's all in the perspective of the child and not really able to be at all figured out before that.
Also, you could just attempt to prepare for any mutations in an incest relationship (although I don't even think there's a legal requirement for disabled parents to prepare for their children).

To the potential child thing: because it's not even begun development, I don't know how you can limit people's actions based on a right of that "thing" - it doesn't exist at all yet.

The way I see it is it's a kind of a gamble if the women is to have a baby. You are gambling on whether or not the baby will have a birth defect. Due to this, I think it's immoral to do so. If the two partners are to have sex with each other and not aim for having a child/take certain precautions so no pregnancy occurs, then they are just like any two consenting adults.

Technically you are always gambling with birth defects. At what percentage of likelihood should it become prohibited?

First of all, there has to be a definition on who is considered on the matter of looking at incest. I think its fairly obvious to anyone that any parental or blood sibling or relative relationship such as aunt is not right. Not judging here but its fairly certain that this has that immoral feel and "gross" level to it. The only relationship that is still banned as not allowed in the U.S I could disagree with are cousin-cousin. That being said, even if they are consenting adults, it might not be a smart move.

Obviously the "gross" level should not hold any weight, and so if the moral restriction stands on that, it is very weak. Grossness is subjective (and even if it was objective, which it isn't, it's not strong enough to compel people to act a certain way).

 

[malakadang]

It's social taboo, but I haven't heard any real convincing argument as to why it should be regarded as morally unjustifiable. As an action however, it probably isn't something you ought to undertake, since the consequences of other people finding out, given that it is a social taboo probably aren't in your self-interest. Furthermore, incestual relationships do not necessarily require incestual pregnancies, so if you are against incestual pregnancies because they can produce bad consequences for the future potential child, you need not necessarily be against incestual relationships, and furthermore, you are actually against any relationships whos parents biology may result in bad consequences for the future potential child.

In short, it's morally justifiable, but you probably shouldn't do it, like drugs, or bestiality (animal rights notwithstanding).

 

[SmokeHut]

Well first of all it's a mathematical impossibility for us to not be related in some sort of way or another.

However, speaking in immediate family terms, it's up to them really. If they're two consenting adults, whatever. It just seems from my point of view, I could not be sexually attracted to any of my family members, and I guess that is the view of the majority. So therefore, the minority are criticised for it.

When it comes to birth defects, I think it's pretty cruel to bring a child into the world that way. However, that child wouldn't ever exist without that particular act between them two particular people. So, at least the child was given life.

 

Strictly in terms of morality - whether something is right or wrong, or should or should not be done, you really just have to look at the biology. Intercourse has one purpose, which is for reproduction. If the spawn of siblings has an extremely high chance of being mutated, then nature dictates that that intercourse should not take place as it interferes with the sole purpose of reproducing a healthy spawn. A lot of people argue that morality is not universal, but when it comes to things like this you really just have to look at the science.

 

[zorro_]

Strictly in terms of morality - whether something is right or wrong, or should or should not be done, you really just have to look at the biology. Intercourse has one purpose, which is for reproduction. If the spawn of siblings has an extremely high chance of being mutated, then nature dictates that that intercourse should not take place as it interferes with the sole purpose of reproducing a healthy spawn. A lot of people argue that morality is not universal, but when it comes to things like this you really just have to look at the science.

Why should we favour the natural explanation? Could we not say that it is more important to morality that people have choice in selecting their mates than it is to restrict their choices in the name of biology?