Thread: Incest

People keep confusing incest with rape and paedophilia on this topic! I think there is a rather strong argument involved in this, when looking at why or why not it should be acceptable.

The whole 'Civilisation vs. animal instinct' debate. One could say that incest is a primal action, and so since we're animals, it is reasonable, and the only reason it is considered wrong is because people tell us it is wrong. However, as we consider ourselves 'intelligent' life, and strive towards civilisation, we should be working towards intellectual enlightenment, and as far from such instincts as possible, as well as lesser taboos.

There are many kids, when they are younger that are just beginning to be curious about their bodies. A lot of times they watch their siblings to compare, not really incest...but if it was a genetic thing, we would look to other kids more often then we do our siblings.

Personally, I don't believe it is in our genetics to avoid such actions. I just think Society has it so deeply ingrained into our minds now that most people believe it to wrong and sick to even consider. There are side effects to it, but there are many side effects that can come from normal sex as well. There are risks in everything. If someone wants to express their love with another in such a way, then they should be able to as long as they take the proper precations to avoid birth. In some cases there isn't even a chance of birth to start with, those being Brother/Brother and Sister/sister.

God says sex is for a Man and woman united in marrige, or something to that effect...He also says that No man should needlessly spill his seed (Forgive me for not knowing exact quotes), but if he didn't want a man to needlessly spill his seed...why did he design males so that they have nocturnal emissions? Heh. I don't pay much attention to him so the mention of how Sex is only for those united in marrige doesn't apply to my outlook.

I don't feel a deep enough love to anyone in my family to even consider it, but for some people their family is all they have and they give all of their love to them. If they want to express it in their deepest form...They should be allowed to.

well, on the topic of evolution....

since evolution is driven by natural selection insest would in fact drive evolution faster.

how this works: mutations can be good or bad. The mutations that are bad make the person who has them less likely to mate or live long. The mutations that are good make the person more likely to mate or live longer.

Thus only the good mutations carry on. Therefore the human race ends up speeding up evolution.




but I still don't like it... unless of course its two sisters togeather ;P rawr!

i agree wiht the blue meenie


but

do nto mix up pedophilia adn rape with this topic. THEY ARE NNOT THE SAME

adn if your argument on this is religious, adn your of the christian faith, three words: ADAM AND EVE

Technically, they are the same person, (eve made form adam's rib)

woudlnt that be considered incest?

wouldnt hte sons adn doughters of Adam and Eve(Cain and Abel, adn the daughters, they had lke 5)
be a precipetate for incest seeing as hwo they are the only people in existeance???

adn also, whether you like to think of it or not, every genetic encoding we have in our bodies rigth now is all just an accident. none of this was "meant" to happen. life just happened to be som eproteins swimming in a Cespool for thousands of years being effected by chenicals, lightening, radiation and a bunch of other fun stuff to become the most insignificant, and most significant peice of life there ever waqs and will be(the first DNA)

RANT


RANT

(repeaq rant untill necesity for logic has been fulfilled)

Originally Posted by sargentpepper882

adn if your argument on this is religious, adn your of the christian faith, three words: ADAM AND EVE

Technically, they are the same person, (eve made form adam's rib)

woudlnt that be considered incest?
[/b]

'nough said on the christian argument!

Originally Posted by The

Firstly, I'd like to ask you a question, howetzer:

Why is there such a connection, in your mind and the mind of many others, between what is "natural" and what is "wrong"?

There are PLENTY of things in modern society which are unnatural and have negative effects on us, such as food additives and preservatives, and other stuff. But yet though we label these things as unhealthy, we do not call them "morally wrong". Why should we do so with cannabalism and incest?

Laid out in standard form, your argument goes like this (I think)

P1) Cannibalism and Incest have bad natural consequences like diseases and genetic screw-ups
P2) Anything that produces negative side-effects like diseases and genetic screw-ups is unnatural.
THEREFORE
C3) Cannibalism and incest are unnatural
P4) Anything that is unnatural is morally wrong
THEREFORE
C6) Cannibalism and incest are morally wrong

Though I agree with you on Premise 1, I disagree with you on premises 2 and 4. I think this is where the difference of opinion lies.
[/b]

You are correct. That is indeed my argument and seemingly where we differ.

Why is there such a connection, in your mind and the mind of many others, between what is "natural" and what is "wrong"?[/b]

Simply put I feel that they are one in the same in many manners. Does not the natural progression of things seem correct, right? Does an unnatural act fall in place with wrong?

I would like to add though that I feel that you are not properly giving "moral" its correct place, for a lack of a better word.
Morals = Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Now how can that not be in ones mind also accountable for the concern of unnatural. As anyone with morals should be concerned with an unnatural act.
P2) Anything that produces negative side-effects like diseases and genetic screw-ups is unnatural.
THEREFORE
Albeit that this is nature. But is it not nature taking unnatural acts and balancing things out?

It just seems to me that you have misconstrued the entire concept with a flawed philosophical view.

The act of labeling some things asnotwrong should not open the door for the same labeling process of the above topics. Moreover when perhaps many of these things should be considered wrong.
Do you see my rationalization in this?

First-off, Howetzer, I'm glad we've managed to figure out the source of the disagreement... yay for stage 1 university logic actually being of some use. I find sticking out arguments in standard form helps occaisionally.

Now, Howetzer, am I correct in presuming that you believe in some form of objective morality? Me, I am a moral subjectivist. I dopn't believe in any objective concept of morality.

HOWEVER in the course of this argument, I'm taking the standpoint of one who DOES believe in objective morality.

So: Howetzer, I STILL think you've failed to explain why their should be a logical connection with natural-ness and morality. The connection you make seems to be based solely around the presumption that natural things "seem" right, and unnatural things "seem" wrong. You still haven't made any logical connection. This is the CORE point, and the one on which 3everything else rests.

You CANNOT make a logical, decuctive connection bewteen natural-ness and morality without positing further premises.

hm incest ... I would go fuck with my female cousin .. it's just that you shouldn't found a family with your sister I guess ..
But it acutally is, up to a certain grade, biologically possible to even fill whole towns with pretty much just one family ... the area I live in is very rural and there seriously are towns with 1000 inhabitants of which 750 are named Mueller.
Weird.

Originally Posted by The

First-off, Howetzer, I'm glad we've managed to figure out the source of the disagreement... yay for stage 1 university logic actually being of some use. I find sticking out arguments in standard form helps occaisionally.

Now, Howetzer, am I correct in presuming that you believe in some form of objective morality? Me, I am a moral subjectivist. I dopn't believe in any objective concept of morality.

HOWEVER in the course of this argument, I'm taking the standpoint of one who DOES believe in objective morality.

So: Howetzer, I STILL think you've failed to explain why their should be a logical connection with natural-ness and morality. The connection you make seems to be based solely around the presumption that natural things "seem" right, and unnatural things "seem" wrong. You still haven't made any logical connection. This is the CORE point, and the one on which 3everything else rests.

You CANNOT make a logical, decuctive connection bewteen natural-ness and morality without positing further premises.
[/b]

The Blue Meanie. I believe I have succeeded in looking at it from a moral subjective point of view.
I do however still not agree. I believe I can make a valid and what I believe you meant to say, deductive connection between the natural progression of events and morality.
My point. Natural. Nature would follow a coarse of events without hindrance. Now it is accompanied by OUR conscious, often conscience decision to alter these natural courses of events. Now as we proceed to make these decisions, nature still plays a role. This role now altered by our own action is now rendered unnatural. With that said I believe that a moral rendering can be in effect for us altering a natural progression. We have an awareness of this alteration that can now make us capable of a conscious choice.
With our progressed state and level of conscious awareness we are accompanied with a conscience.
I would think that there is no argument between the correlation of our conscience and morals.

In order to make a deductive connection between "natural-ness" and morality, Howetzer, you've put forward a number of other premises: (And yerah, the deductive thing was a typo, sorry)

Originally Posted by Howetzer

I do however still not agree. I believe I can make a valid and what I believe you meant to say, deductive connection between the natural progression of events and morality.
My point. Natural. Nature would follow a coarse of events without hindrance. Now it is accompanied by OUR conscious, often conscience decision to alter these natural courses of events. Now as we proceed to make these decisions, nature still plays a role. This role now altered by our own action is now rendered unnatural. With that said I believe that a moral rendering can be in effect for us altering a natural progression. We have an awareness of this alteration that can now make us capable of a conscious choice.
With our progressed state and level of conscious awareness we are accompanied with a conscience.
I would think that there is no argument between the correlation of our conscience and morals.
[/b]

Here's how I see this argument:

P1) "Nature" would normally try to follow a course of events without hinderance.
P2) Humans can make conscious choices which hinder or interrupt this course of events.
P3) Hindering nature's course of events is "unnatural".
THEREFORE
C4) Humans make conscious choices which are "unnatural".
P5) Humans have a conscience, or a sense of conscience.
P6) Our conscience makes us aware when we do something that is "unnatural"
THEREFORE
C7) If something is unnatural, it will be against our "conscience".
P8) There is a correlation between morality and conscience
THEREFORE
P9) If something is unnatural, it will be against our conscience and therefore immoral.

Okay. First off, Howetzer, I completely and wholly disagree with EVERY ONE of these premises. So, that's the main cause of our disagreement.

But, even were I to accept these premises:

Your logic is not deductive, it is inductive: A correlation between two things does NOT neccessarily result in a causal link, or identity: In this case, the correlation between morality and "conscience" does not mean there is any direct link between the two.

Secondly, even if one accepts your argument is deductive: By your argument, anything unnatural will be against our conscience, and anything which is against our conscience, is immoral. This forms a chain of identity such as the following:

All A's are B's, all B's are C's, therefore all A's are C's. BUT you have not excluded the possibility that some B's might not be A's, and that some C's might not be B's. What does this mean for your argument?

There may be some things which are immoral which are NOT against our conscience. There may also be some things whcih are against our conscience which are NOT unnatural.



So, Howetzer: For the record, I do not think my position is at all compromised by your arguments: because, though your logic itself is mostly sound, the premises on which you base your logic, I mostly disagree with. However, I do think you have made a few leaps of logic which, at best, need a lot of other premises to sustain, and at worst, are pretty tenuous and not neccesarily deductive but rather inductive.

If you bring morality into this topic of discussion then it needs to be addressed. For the record Morality as the dictionary would have it = concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct That in itself brings about the right and wrong scenario. Do you argue that right and wrong are not significantly in concert with Moral judgement and conscience?

As the beginning of this topic incest and cannibalism were two targeted topics. You have made the assumption that by my argument of (the natural way) I become vague and make a casual distinction. I have however made this argument to pertain to the topic at hand. Can you believe it to cover a much broader area? Of coarse. But when argument this topic I would like to here you premise on why and how you disagree with what was outlines;
P1) "Nature" would normally try to follow a course of events without hinderance.
P2) Humans can make conscious choices which hinder or interrupt this course of events.
P3) Hindering nature's course of events is "unnatural".
THEREFORE
C4) Humans make conscious choices which are "unnatural".
P5) Humans have a conscience, or a sense of conscience.
P6) Our conscience makes us aware when we do something that is "unnatural"
THEREFORE
C7) If something is unnatural, it will be against our "conscience".
P8) There is a correlation between morality and conscience
THEREFORE
P9) If something is unnatural, it will be against our conscience and therefore immoral.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("The Blue Meanie")</div>

I believe that incest is quite comparable to cannabalism. There is nothing "wrong" about either, morally or socially. Rather, the disgust we feel is due to a tabboo... social conditioning, an irrational, conditioned response. Animals can fuck their family and eat each other - I do not believe there is anything objectively wrong about it.[/b]

This is where I feel your argument has a loop whole.
And thus the reason I also associate within our conscience awareness.
Animals would of coarse not see a moral distinction from their acts. We on the other hand do have more than social acceptance to hold accountable for our actions.

You want to know what premises I disagree with?

Mmmmkay. Fine:

I don&#39;t agree, to start with, that:
P1) "Nature" would normally try to follow a course of events without hinderance.
Making such a statement goves nature a sort of sentience, and also supposes that any "hinderance" is not in itself part of nature.

I also don&#39;t agree with:
P2) Humans can make conscious choices which hinder or interrupt this course of events.
Firstly, I&#39;m a fatalist, so I don&#39;t believe in absolute choice. Secondly, any "choices" which humans make do not HUINDEr nature, but are part of it. Humans are part of nature. They cannot DO anything unnatural, because as animals, albeit (more) intelligent ones (most of the time), they are part of nature, and their actions are therefore also part of nature.

I also don&#39;t agree with:
P3) Hindering nature&#39;s course of events is "unnatural".
For reasons similar to my disagreement with P1 and P2.

I also don&#39;t agree with:
P5) Humans have a conscience, or a sense of conscience.
I don&#39;;t believe that humans have a "conscience". "Conscience" implies that there is some sort of systematised moral code from which that conscience implies, similar to saying "Humans can sense gravity". As I am a moral subjectivist, the word "conscience" I believe to be inappropriate. All that can be said is that humans have feelings of guilt which manifest after certain actions.

I also don&#39;t agree with:
P6) Our conscience makes us aware when we do something that is "unnatural"
Firstly, because of the problems associated with the word "unnatural", and secondly because of my already explained disagreement with the idea of "conscience".

I also don&#39;t agree with:
P8) There is a correlation between morality and conscience
Well, first off, I don&#39;t BELIEVE in EITHER morality or conscience, in the objective sense. So this presise is totally pointless for me.

Thanks for your explanation TBM.
I think we have both made our arguments towards our perspective on Incest.
To dabble any farther we would have to go into greater lengths, which would probably still have the same end result.
Our opinions differ with regard to the underlying reason to how we have came to our own conclusions.

You know, I usually have an instinctive distate for any "agree to disagree" type situation. But, in this case, I think I&#39;m satisfied enough that wee&#39;ve isolated the root causes of the disagreement. And, if we disagree on the premises, than any argument is kind of... silly, really, unless there&#39;s a massive flaw in your logic. Which, I don;t think there is. So... yeah. Agree to disagree, well put, Howetzer.

I see nothing wrong with it. Genetic problems, its called birth control. who you bang shouldn&#39;t be restricted by someone who has the same bloodline, we are all humans.

Originally Posted by xcrissxcrossx

I see nothing wrong with it. Genetic problems, its called birth control. who you bang shouldn&#39;t be restricted by someone who has the same bloodline, we are all humans.
[/b]

OK then. Regardless of how I view incest. By you advocating birth control, do you admit that genetic defects occur or just for general populus issues?
So long as I use a condom my sister is fair game?

Originally Posted by Howetzer

OK then. Regardless of how I view incest. By you advocating birth control, do you admit that genetic defects occur or just for general populus issues?
So long as I use a condom my sister is fair game?
[/b]

I see what you mean. I mean isent the purpose to reproduce. So then since me and my sister get down I must use control because of defects.

Originally Posted by Howetzer

OK then. Regardless of how I view incest. By you advocating birth control, do you admit that genetic defects occur or just for general populus issues?
So long as I use a condom my sister is fair game?
[/b]

yes i admit that genetic defects occur, but they aren&#39;t as likely as most people think. and yes, I think that as long as you use a condom your ister is fair game, as long as she accepts too...