Incest

[Donkey]

Couldn't decide which forum this belonged in, so I stuck it here, though it's not necessarily a religious issue.

So here's my question: is incest immoral?

I say, when it really comes down to it, no.

[wphelan]

This reminds me...

I'm sure most everyone has heard someone say he or she thinks abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape or incest. That always struck me as redundant. Aren't we assuming the cases of incest are rape? If not, we're talking a whole other ballgame. Which I guess is where this thread comes in. Anyway, I guess I don't really have anything to add. That's just the extent to which I've considered this topic in the past.

[partofme]

If two consenting adults want to have a relationship then I wouldn't say it's immoral even if they are related but it could be argued that if they have a child then that may be immoral.

[Margot]

I can't actually reconcile the consensual convergence of family love and, well, eh-hem love, but I don't really think it's wrong. Not if little 'uns aren't produced, anyway. What happens between two (or more) randy adults doesn't affect me in the slightest. It may gross me out (hey, I'm not in the Borgia family), but it doesn't affect me.
Children coming from the relationship brings up a whole new issue. We know what can happen if mommy and daddy are kin. There is no excuse for putting a child in that sort of danger. Even if the kid came out totally fine- the parents took the risk. That really is immoral.

[The Drunk Guy]

I can't actually reconcile the consensual convergence of family love and, well, eh-hem love, but I don't really think it's wrong. Not if little 'uns aren't produced, anyway. What happens between two (or more) randy adults doesn't affect me in the slightest. It may gross me out (hey, I'm not in the Borgia family), but it doesn't affect me.
Children coming from the relationship brings up a whole new issue. We know what can happen if mommy and daddy are kin. There is no excuse for putting a child in that sort of danger. Even if the kid came out totally fine- the parents took the risk. That really is immoral.
So, let's say that the siblings were using protection to prevent the immoral birth of deformed hellspawn, but the prophylactic had a tiny tear. Although they know this damnation should never be allowed to exist, their religion keeps them from aborting. Still immoral?

[Margot]

So, let's say that the siblings were using protection to prevent the immoral birth of deformed hellspawn, but the prophylactic had a tiny tear. Although they know this damnation should never be allowed to exist, their religion keeps them from aborting. Still immoral?

Bad things happen every day. Mistakes happen every day. Shit happens every day. Getting knocked up by your bother is really, really, really big shit.
Not terminating the pregnancy based solely on religion is immoral.
Terminating the pregnancy out of guilt, shame, or unwillingness to deal with Flipper is also immoral.
I'm going to have to say that at this point, mistake or not, there really isn't a way to do right by the child. That is immoral.
I know it seems unfair to the parents who were just a little horny and happened to have very similar genetic makeups. I don't know what I'd do in that situation (good thing I don't have a super-hot brother). I do know that I would find it immoral. This relationship no longer affects only me, now I've brought someone into this relationship who never asked to be there. I know this is going to sound weird, but that's like rape in my book.

[The Drunk Guy]

Bad things happen every day. Mistakes happen every day. Shit happens every day. Getting knocked up by your bother is really, really, really big shit.
Not terminating the pregnancy based solely on religion is immoral.
Terminating the pregnancy out of guilt, shame, or unwillingness to deal with Flipper is also immoral.
I'm going to have to say that at this point, mistake or not, there really isn't a way to do right by the child. That is immoral.
I know it seems unfair to the parents who were just a little horny and happened to have very similar genetic makeups. I don't know what I'd do in that situation (good thing I don't have a super-hot brother). I do know that I would find it immoral. This relationship no longer affects only me, now I've brought someone into this relationship who never asked to be there. I know this is going to sound weird, but that's like rape in my book.So their choice of morality is incompatible with your choice? Hmm...I knew reading Nietzsche would pay off someday. :D

[Donkey]

Bad things happen every day. Mistakes happen every day. Shit happens every day. Getting knocked up by your bother is really, really, really big shit.
Not terminating the pregnancy based solely on religion is immoral.
Terminating the pregnancy out of guilt, shame, or unwillingness to deal with Flipper is also immoral.
I'm going to have to say that at this point, mistake or not, there really isn't a way to do right by the child. That is immoral.
I know it seems unfair to the parents who were just a little horny and happened to have very similar genetic makeups. I don't know what I'd do in that situation (good thing I don't have a super-hot brother). I do know that I would find it immoral. This relationship no longer affects only me, now I've brought someone into this relationship who never asked to be there. I know this is going to sound weird, but that's like rape in my book.
I have four superhot brothers. ;)

Slightly less problematic for me though. :lol:

[Margot]

So their choice of morality is incompatible with your choice? Hmm...I knew reading Nietzsche would pay off someday. :D

I'm sorry? I don't understand.

What I'm trying to say is that any boy-girl sexual relationship could produce offspring. The vasectomy could randomly reverse; her tubes could untie; the condom could break; and the pill, even when used perfectly, doesn't guarantee anything. All of these things could happen, none of these things could happen. Knowing that Jr. could crop up (however unlikely) is part of a mature heterosexual relationship.
Incest-baby is the same kind of immoral as crack-baby. Go ahead and do whatever you want to yourself, but know that once a kid is thrown in the mix the game has totally changed.

[Greendruid]

Incest, specifically that between mother and son, and father and daughter, is one of those few human universals. A culture has not been found where these taboos don't exist. Breaking these taboos also occurs. Make rules and people will undoubtedly break them. The fact that they're human universals, regardless of culture or religion, makes me kind of revere them for the sake of their existence. The morality of them begs that the moral position be defined, whatever its source. In my case, a lot of my morality is religiously defined. Pagans have some pretty broad rules that cover a lot of ground and have some great swathes of interpretation they leave open as well. One is the wiccan rede which roughly says at the end of the long version, "An ye harm none, do what ye will". Not being a witch, this is not necessarily the path I always believe needs to be followed. But it gives some good advice at times. It's classical interpretation is to do what you wish as long as it doesn't harm others. You can take that to the extent of Buddhism, which seeks to literally not harm any other living thing or to the extreme of the Chaos Magicians who have a wandering morality based on the hedenistic desires of the self. I would say I fall closer to the end of the spectrum that seeks to harm fewer than my share allows but I'm certainly not a vegetarian. Posing the question of incest in this moral positioning I have to agree with MFCFM23 that a child resulting from incest (the other in this situation) is an innocent bystander to what amounts to a socially taboo situation at the very least, a possibly life-threatening set of genetic problems at the worst. I would have to morally disagree with incest on these grounds.

[The Drunk Guy]

I'm sorry? I don't understand.


Morality is merely an interpretation of certain phenomena—more precisely, a misinterpretation.
Sorry. Just saying that this is a too gray of an area to define lines of morality.;)

[Sucre]

Couldn't decide which forum this belonged in, so I stuck it here, though it's not necessarily a religious issue.

So here's my question: is incest immoral?

I say, when it really comes down to it, no.
Why "no", and what do you mean by "when it really comes to it" - What does the "it" refer to ?

[Sucre]

Incest, specifically that between mother and son, and father and daughter, is one of those few human universals. A culture has not been found where these taboos don't exist.
Ancient Egypt ...

[Michael]

I have four superhot brothers. ;)

Slightly less problematic for me though. :lol:
Apparently, when people talk about "incest" they always completely ignore what is probably the most common instance of it - brothers and/or male cousins fooling around with each other as young teens.

Incest, specifically that between mother and son, and father and daughter, is one of those few human universals. A culture has not been found where these taboos don't exist.

As for the incest taboo, yes Egypt is an exception and I recall previously stumbling onto another few exceptions as well (I'll have to go find them) when I got into an argument a while back about "universality of morality" - they offered the "incest taboo" as example of a universal and I found it easy to give examples of its non-universality.

[Donkey]

Why "no", and what do you mean by "when it really comes to it" - What does the "it" refer to ?
I guess "when it really comes down to it" is a vague English idiom. It means, in this context, when I'm forced to make a determination. Hmm.

I say no, with the above reservation, because personally I find the idea of incest sort of nasty and would never engage in it (probably :p).

Nonetheless, I can't think up a particularly good reason why, in principle, to relatives snogging is inherently immoral.

I can think of oodles of contextual reasons for this though.

[Korimyr the Rat]

Yes, incest is immoral. The fact that it's "consenting adults" has no bearing on it whatsoever-- except that incest is at least not as immoral as rape.

Incest tangles and corrupts the bonds of family, and makes the entire web of family relationships surrounding the couple more volatile. Even leaving aside the dysgenic effects of incestuous breeding-- which are greatly exaggerated-- it exposes entire extended families to catastrophic failure.

[Donkey]

Yes, incest is immoral. The fact that it's "consenting adults" has no bearing on it whatsoever-- except that incest is at least not as immoral as rape.

Incest tangles and corrupts the bonds of family, and makes the entire web of family relationships surrounding the couple more volatile. Even leaving aside the dysgenic effects of incestuous breeding-- which are greatly exaggerated-- it exposes entire extended families to catastrophic failure.
That is assuming the integrity of the family involved.

Suppose estranged siblings meet, get their filthy on, find out the next day that they are related, and decide to go at it again regardless. How is that immoral? They aren't a functioning family.

I would say, by your rational, it is more immoral to bonk your adopted cousin than your biological but estranged sibling.

[Sucre]

I have to give a bit of thought to the subject matter of this thread. My ideas at the moment are quite confused. But for a start, I would like to say that I agree with Korimyr the Rat that whether the adults are "consenting" or not is irrelevant as far as incest is concerned.

I wonder what "consenting" means when it comes to sex with a person you are emotionally very close to ...

Do you think for example that Fritzl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritzl_case) (I am sure you have heard of this case in Austria where a father kept his daughter shut in the cellar for 22 years and had seven children with her ?) was raping his daughter each time he visited her ? Certainly not. He raped her a couple of times at the beginning of the relationship and after a while, she became consenting. (Between two options, yes or no, it is easier to say yes and yes is consent.)

Ancient Egypt is a case where Incest was not only allowed but actually promoted - at least within the families of the Pharaoes. But what does this have to do with "moral" ? Nothing. It had to do with keeping power within the reigning family. Moral has never been at the service of Power, quite the opposite. The brothers and sisters being wed for the sake of their dynastie were "consenting adults" too by the way ...

[Margot]

Yes, incest is immoral. The fact that it's "consenting adults" has no bearing on it whatsoever-- except that incest is at least not as immoral as rape.

Incest tangles and corrupts the bonds of family, and makes the entire web of family relationships surrounding the couple more volatile. Even leaving aside the dysgenic effects of incestuous breeding-- which are greatly exaggerated-- it exposes entire extended families to catastrophic failure.

In the perfect world there is mommy and daddy with two kids (and two cats in the yard- life used to be so hard!). We've got a white picket fence and apple pie and it is undoubtedly, unequivocally perfect. I won't knock it-- I want it. I want that ease and that perfection, even if it does kind of remind me of Camazotz in A Wrinkle In Time.

But it seems to me like the traditional family doesn't work 100% of the time. I'm not from a "traditional" family and I'm doing pretty well. I am, however, listening to the perfect family unit next door right now. Dad found Jr. with some pot yesterday and they haven't lowered their voices since. They always sound miserable.

I'm not saying that the "traditional" way of doing things is wrong (or that it is always a group of bickering rednecks), it's just a little narrow. So what if sister Carrie is so hot you wanna do the nasty? Yeah, it's not the normal way of going about things, but it doesn't necessarily have to be wrong, does it? It certainly doesn't have to be rape (so sayeth V.C. Andrews).

It seems to me that this "catastrophic failure" is a lot like the "catastrophic failure" in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner. Something out of the traditional bounds of acceptability is inherently weird or immoral.

Yeah, I can say without a doubt that incest is "weird" in my opinion. But so is S&M, Japanese porn and flavored fruit rollup panties. My opinion doesn't belong in whatever relationship is going on. Neither, I think, does the opinion of society. Not as long as no one is getting hurt (or there's a safe word involved...)

Saying that incest will sure-as-shit make family relationships "volatile" would require surveying every family on the planet. Maybe some families' boats just float on hanky-panky. Whatsittoya? Where, in that family, do you fit in?

[Korimyr the Rat]

I would say, by your rational, it is more immoral to bonk your adopted cousin than your biological but estranged sibling.

I would say that, too.

So what if sister Carrie is so hot you wanna do the nasty?

What happens if brother Bill also thinks Carrie is hot, and wants her for himself? What happens if they think they can sleep together under your nose? Or what happens when you and sister Carrie break up? Whose side are your parents going to be on?

I'm not objecting to it because it's abnormal. I'm objecting to it because it's wrong.

[Dominick]

Which, or more to the point, whose standards of morality are you all using ?
Innocent question :angel:

[Margot]

What happens if brother Bill also thinks Carrie is hot, and wants her for himself? What happens if they think they can sleep together under your nose? Or what happens when you and sister Carrie break up? Whose side are your parents going to be on?

I'm not objecting to it because it's abnormal. I'm objecting to it because it's wrong.

Then you have yourself a cheating girlfriend and a bona fide love triangle. They happen. They happen all the time. Bill (or hypothetical you, or Carrie... Who was jilted again?) will get over it. Or he (or she, or hypothetical you) won't. The thing is that it's a relationship, and I haven't met a relationship in my life that isn't messy. Carrie acted wrongly, so did Bill, but so did my first boyfriend and the girl he's with now.

I remember the first time I looked at my Dad and thought "jeez! That was SO stupid! How could he do that?" We lived in a duplex with one garage (on our side). We owned the duplex, and Dad and a friend of his decided to pave a parking spot for the tenants. It was the most poorly crafted monstrosity ever. Why it is so ripply and screwed up I'll never know, but it seems like reading the instructions would have helped to avoid this scenario (and the thousands of stubbed toes that would ensue). Parents are human. To err is human. To not know how to lay pavement is human, and to not know what to do or how to react when your kid is having a love-life crisis is also human. To pick favorites is also, regrettably, human. It could happen. Who the parents side with is really up to them and who they are.

Every family is different and every family reacts to crises differently. It's not cool that my Dad plays favorites (or can't create a relatively flat surface), but it's not like it's some terrible crime. It's not cool that everyone has to deal with problems and have troubles and be unhappy at times- but that's how it goes. Who are Bill and Carrie without the incest. She still seems like a cheater and Bill still seems like a really crappy brother. How much did it change with the sex?

[Margot]

Which, or more to the point, whose standards of morality are you all using ?
Innocent question :angel:

:shrug:
Bad answer?
lol.

[Donkey]

I'm not objecting to it because it's abnormal. I'm objecting to it because it's wrong.
Only in the sense that being irresponsible toward others is immoral.

[Margot]

Which, or more to the point, whose standards of morality are you all using ?
Innocent question :angel:

I mean, it seems to me like if we're using societal moral standards (and where do morals come from anyway, but society?) then we have a pretty unanimous "EW, cooties!" on our hands. But if this is just personal opinion, I want to know why? What exactly makes this bad?

[Dominick]

:shrug:
Bad answer?
lol.

I mean, it seems to me like if we're using societal moral standards (and where do morals come from anyway, but society?) then we have a pretty unanimous "EW, cooties!" on our hands. But if this is just personal opinion, I want to know why? What exactly makes this bad?
Yes, we define morality by using societal standards. Though not those of all of the people in society, but only of the majority in case of a functioning democracy or those of the elite in most other cases. Apart from that we tend to completely disregard other societies in this respect.

So, I submit that the answer to any question of the form 'Is xyz immoral' is always : Depends.
Though ":shrug:" is a valid second :)

[The Drunk Guy]

Yes, we define morality by using societal standards. Though not those of all of the people in society, but only of the majority in case of a functioning democracy or those of the elite in most other cases. Apart from that we tend to completely disregard other societies in this respect.

So, I submit that the answer to any question of the form 'Is xyz immoral' is always : Depends.
Though ":shrug:" is a valid second :)
I concur. Morality will forever be subjective.

[Margot]

Yes, we define morality by using societal standards. Though not those of all of the people in society, but only of the majority in case of a functioning democracy or those of the elite in most other cases. Apart from that we tend to completely disregard other societies in this respect.

So, I submit that the answer to any question of the form 'Is xyz immoral' is always : Depends.
Though ":shrug:" is a valid second :)

How does "depends" come out of it? It seems to me in our modern society lovin' in the biblical way twixt siblings is pretty unanimously frowned upon. If that's our only way to define morality I'm going to change my answer from "ok by me" to "immoral". I can't think of any facet of our western society today that deems incest as kosher. Can you?

[Dominick]

How does "depends" come out of it? It seems to me in our modern society lovin' in the biblical way twixt siblings is pretty unanimously frowned upon. If that's our only way to define morality I'm going to change my answer from "ok by me" to "immoral". I can't think of any facet of our western society today that deems incest as kosher. Can you?
And why would one restrict oneself to Western society ? To have a good idea of just how much morality can differ amongst societies I suggest Supplément au voyage de Bougainville (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppl%C3%A9ment_au_voyage_de_Bougainville) by Denis Diderot which examines that of the Tahitians where, amongst other things, incest was unknown. That is, the taboo was unknown, the practice was common.
Note : The link is in French. The English article is just a stub. I'll see if I can find something else.

[Margot]

Apart from that we tend to completely disregard other societies in this respect.


That's why I limited myself to western society.

(your link makes me wish I'd paid more attention during my four years of French. whoops...)

[Dominick]

That's why I limited myself to western society.

(your link makes me wish I'd paid more attention during my four years of French. whoops...)
I know it's translated because I have it in this (http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521360449)book but I haven't found anything online. :shrug:
But four years of French should be sufficient for it, no ? :)

[Donkey]

I know it's translated because I have it in this (http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521360449)book but I haven't found anything online. :shrug:
But four years of French should be sufficient for it, no ? :)
Nothing against Freya, but US language education is garbage. One can breeze through class after class without retaining much.

Of course, you also lose it quickly.

[Margot]

Nothing against Freya, but US language education is garbage. One can breeze through class after class without retaining much.

Of course, you also lose it quickly.

Can't lie, four years of French is more like "four years worth of skipped classes and sneaked trips to the vending machine and the inability to conjugate the verb 'être'".

[Dominick]

Nothing against Freya, but US language education is garbage. One can breeze through class after class without retaining much.

Of course, you also lose it quickly.

Can't lie, four years of French is more like "four years worth of skipped classes and sneaked trips to the vending machine and the inability to conjugate the verb 'être'".
Okay, I'm horrified. :erm:
I'll translate the wiki article tomorrow. Copying the actual translation is a but too much work though.

*goes off incoherently muttering about monolingualism* ;)

[Donkey]

Okay, I'm horrified. :erm:
I'll translate the wiki article tomorrow. Copying the actual translation is a but too much work though.

*goes off incoherently muttering about monolingualism* ;)
Bah. I'm (nearly) bilingual! :p

But yes, the US language education is shameful.

[Margot]

I know it's translated because I have it in this (http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521360449)book but I haven't found anything online. :shrug:
But four years of French should be sufficient for it, no ? :)

It would be interesting to study incest through the ages and the corollary taboos; I'm sure one could find plenty of examples like these Tahitians. But that doesn't seem to affect the question of "is xyz/incest immoral." "Is" implies present tense, and that still makes me want to say that I can't think of a scenario in which any society today really condones incest. It looks like Supplément au voyage de Bougainville was published in 1796(?).
American society today and 1796 American society are pretty dissimilar- things change. How do Tahitians view incest now? Are they more in line with the western concepts of morality now?
OK, I'm sorry. I went off on a tangent.

[Sucre]

OK, OK : Morality is relative to a society i.e Morality is per se BS and may be questionned anytime.

What if instead of asking whether Incest is moral, we were asking "ought" incest to be immoral ?

Since Morality builds the backbone of a Society, what should it look like in Utopia ? Would fathers be allowed to sleep with their daughters, mothers with the boyfriend of their daughters and brothers and sisters ?

There are different kinds of Incest and each question needs to be answered separately.

[SMadsen]

How does "depends" come out of it? It seems to me in our modern society lovin' in the biblical way twixt siblings is pretty unanimously frowned upon. If that's our only way to define morality I'm going to change my answer from "ok by me" to "immoral". I can't think of any facet of our western society today that deems incest as kosher. Can you?
I can safely say that people with at least a Christian mindset fully accept incest when it is necessary. I have met absolutely no one who have frowned upon the incestuous relationships in the Bible. Neither in case of the Adam and Eve myth nor in the one about Lot and his daughters.

This is reflected throughout worldwide mythology. Whenever there is a creation myth, there's necessary incest. Whenever there is divine or semi-divine procreation at stake, there's necessary incest. And it doesn't need to be a myth. Especially the Polynesians must have started populations thousand of times from a limited number of persons. Hence, probably, the lack of taboo in Tahitian culture. Often, when there is inheritance at stake - usually of status, power and property - there's also necessary incest. In Western societies as well as elsewhere. So it does indeed depend.

[Margot]

I can safely say that people with at least a Christian mindset fully accept incest when it is necessary. I have met absolutely no one who have frowned upon the incestuous relationships in the Bible. Neither in case of the Adam and Eve myth nor in the one about Lot and his daughters.

This is reflected throughout worldwide mythology. Whenever there is a creation myth, there's necessary incest. Whenever there is divine or semi-divine procreation at stake, there's necessary incest. And it doesn't need to be a myth. Especially the Polynesians must have started populations thousand of times from a limited number of persons. Hence, probably, the lack of taboo in Tahitian culture. Often, when there is inheritance at stake - usually of status, power and property - there's also necessary incest. In Western societies as well as elsewhere. So it does indeed depend.


I like this; you're absolutely right.
But again, aren't we talking about the present tense? I mean, sure, go ahead and populate a planet, or an island, or a royal family. In the way-back-when. What if it suddenly came out that Barbara and Bush Sr. were closely related, and poped out six kids to ensure a legacy (or something). How would we view a contemporary example like that? We don't frown on creation myths or even Mr. Lot because these examples have a sort of divine get outta jail free card. Doesn't everything else fall under Leviticus' "no touchy touchy" policy? And doesn't contemporary culture reflect that?

[Korimyr the Rat]

Which, or more to the point, whose standards of morality are you all using ?

Mine. Always.

Only in the sense that being irresponsible toward others is immoral.

I believe that there are certain others to whom we owe a debt of obligation and responsibility, and that being irresponsible toward them is indeed immoral. Family is first and foremost among those others.

Then you have yourself a cheating girlfriend and a bona fide love triangle. They happen. They happen all the time. Bill ... will get over it. Or he ... won't. The thing is that it's a relationship, and I haven't met a relationship in my life that isn't messy. Carrie acted wrongly, so did Bill, but so did my first boyfriend and the girl he's with now.

...

Who are Bill and Carrie without the incest. She still seems like a cheater and Bill still seems like a really crappy brother. How much did it change with the sex?

Bill and Carrie, without the incest, are brother and sister. What changes is that when Carries cheats on her boyfriend, she is only betraying a lover-- and likely, a lover who will soon be gone from her life. If her lover is also her brother, then when she cheats she is not only betraying her lover, she is also betraying her brother. And if her brother is soon gone from her life, she has broken her family.

You do have one point, though. If Alex and Bill fight over the affections of a woman, I suppose it doesn't make a lot of difference whether that woman is their sister or not.

[Donkey]

What makes family inherently sacred?

[Margot]

Bill and Carrie, without the incest, are brother and sister. What changes is that when Carries cheats on her boyfriend, she is only betraying a lover-- and likely, a lover who will soon be gone from her life. If her lover is also her brother, then when she cheats she is not only betraying her lover, she is also betraying her brother. And if her brother is soon gone from her life, she has broken her family.

You do have one point, though. If Alex and Bill fight over the affections of a woman, I suppose it doesn't make a lot of difference whether that woman is their sister or not.

This is all correct. Things are indeed more complicated. It still doesn't make it immoral.

[SMadsen]

I like this; you're absolutely right.
But again, aren't we talking about the present tense? I mean, sure, go ahead and populate a planet, or an island, or a royal family. In the way-back-when. What if it suddenly came out that Barbara and Bush Sr. were closely related, and poped out six kids to ensure a legacy (or something). How would we view a contemporary example like that? We don't frown on creation myths or even Mr. Lot because these examples have a sort of divine get outta jail free card. Doesn't everything else fall under Leviticus' "no touchy touchy" policy? And doesn't contemporary culture reflect that?
I think the moral concept of incest is an alter ego of the biological concept of inbreeding. Given multiple options it's always the least desireable option but, given only the options of extinction *) and inbreeding, it's the most desireable.

This doesn't matter if it's past, present or future sense. If we accept incest when it has been necessary in the past then we accept it when it is and will be necessary. This criterion of necessity seems to be pretty constant while it's the notion of what constitutes necessity that varies.


By the way, as for the biological concept, I don't necessarily agree with Korymir that the biological argument is greatly exagerrated. It of course depends on what exactly the exagerrations are (emotional matters will always be escorted by an amount of silly and biased arguments based on pure sophistry). However, I'm convinced it is the sole underlying factor for opposition to incestuous relationships. The effectiveness of things like immune systems depends on the effectiveness of sexual recombination and that again depends on genetic diversity. Multiple copies of identical genes reduce the effectiveness of sexual recombination.

*) extinction not always being in the sense of biological populations when it comes to the moral alter ego but extended to include institutions such as social status, wealth, customs etcetera.

[Korimyr the Rat]

What makes family inherently sacred?

You either believe that family is inherently sacred or you do not. No offense, but I consider any moral system which does not to be worthless.

Things are indeed more complicated. It still doesn't make it immoral.

It contributes to the destruction of your own family. That is the basis of all immorality, and partaking in incestuous relationships is one of the most direct and devastating methods of destroying your own family.

Incest is practically akin to fratricide.

[Margot]

I think the moral concept of incest is an alter ego of the biological concept of inbreeding. Given multiple options it's always the least desireable option but, given only the options of extinction *) and inbreeding, it's the most desireable.

This doesn't matter if it's past, present or future sense. If we accept incest when it has been necessary in the past then we accept it when it is and will be necessary. This criterion of necessity seems to be pretty constant while it's the notion of what constitutes necessity that varies.


By the way, as for the biological concept, I don't necessarily agree with Korymir that the biological argument is greatly exagerrated. It of course depends on what exactly the exagerrations are (emotional matters will always be escorted by an amount of silly and biased arguments based on pure sophistry). However, I'm convinced it is the sole underlying factor for opposition to incestuous relationships. The effectiveness of things like immune systems depends on the effectiveness of sexual recombination and that again depends on genetic diversity. Multiple copies of identical genes reduce the effectiveness of sexual recombination.

*) extinction not always being in the sense of biological populations when it comes to the moral alter ego but extended to include institutions such as social status, wealth, customs etcetera.

Up until this point I'd never alloted for incest in my zombie contingency plan... You have made a good point. I must now go make room in my survival team for a pair of boy/girl twins.

[Greendruid]

Apparently, when people talk about "incest" they always completely ignore what is probably the most common instance of it - brothers and/or male cousins fooling around with each other as young teens.



As for the incest taboo, yes Egypt is an exception and I recall previously stumbling onto another few exceptions as well (I'll have to go find them) when I got into an argument a while back about "universality of morality" - they offered the "incest taboo" as example of a universal and I found it easy to give examples of its non-universality.

This is a thread I wanted to drive back to the OP and address the points given to counter my statement. The existence of a taboo in a society does not mean that no one practices it. Because the Egyptian royalty had a hard time keeping their hands off of each other does not imply that the society didn't have a cultural rule about the practice. The royalty are an exception. So were the Emperors of Rome - many examples there of the practice of incest in several ways. I'd bet (but have not explicitly read about) Ancient Greek kings and leaders involved in the same way - Oedipus Rex wasn't written without context I'm sure.

The reasons for the powerful engaging in incest all seem to point to a jealous greed of keeping their power "in the family" as it were. There are many versions of this around the world and an incest taboo doesn't mean that incest isn't practiced. It simply means that rules about incest exist and that there are cultural practices, some ritualised, some not, that reinforce this taboo. In many Papua New Guinean groups, the children of your father's brother are considered unmarriageable, while the children of your father's sister are considered to be the ideal mates. This is an incest taboo. North Americans, by their rendering of the family organisation system that they generally have, would consider both sets to be not ideal mates and, in fact, marriage to same is outlawed in most parts of North America and even considered disgusting by many.

Like all cultural rules, whether they concern mating or food or dancing or speaking, exceptions are often made. These can often follow exceptional circumstances themselves. The sanctions for breaking the rules can vary quite a bit - everything from social shunning to capital punishment. This doesn't make an incest taboo any less universal. All societies have had and do still have them. The fact that the rules aren't hard and fast makes the human species my favourite subject and is one of the reasons I'm an anthropologist.

[Donkey]

I would actually like to get my hands on this film. It looks pretty good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DVa2DKSnU0

I also think it blurs some of the lines that Korimyr is drawing on the sacred family.

[Korimyr the Rat]

Can you explain how? I am interested in the argument, but video is problematic for me at the moment.

[Donkey]

Can you explain how? I am interested in the argument, but video is problematic for me at the moment.
Well it's just a movie preview actually, but it is about a deep love between two brothers that (implicitly, at least in the preview) leads to an incestuous relationship. I think it is arguable that (sometimes) sexual activity is the pinnacle of demonstrated affection.

[rthmcmpsr]

This is a really interesting discussion. I was hoping to contribute a few thoughts but I will start with one.

Korimyr the rat:

Under your reasoning for the immorality of incest, what prevents other relationships between relatives from being defined as immoral? Entering into a business relationship, for example, can result in divisive conflicts. In fact, having political views or potentially conflicting values can also be divisive. I really can't see any argument that treats a sexual relationship as potentially divisive in a way that other relationships are not. This seems like a serious problem for your view.

I would argue that fratricide is only immoral because it is murder. If you are concerned about particular acts that destroy family bonds, perhaps you mean that breaking up with or cheating on an incestuous lover is the immoral part. I don't think this makes sense, and it also does not support the idea that incest itself is immoral.

[Korimyr the Rat]

I really can't see any argument that treats a sexual relationship as potentially divisive in a way that other relationships are not. This seems like a serious problem for your view.

It is a matter of degree. Sexual relationships are much more emotionally intense and emotionally volatile-- simply compare the rate of homicide over sexual relationships to that of any other cause except gang conflict. (Which I consider a form of warfare.)

I would argue that fratricide is only immoral because it is murder.

I'd argue that murder itself isn't immoral unless it is made immoral by the inclusion of another factor-- such as creating disorder, bushwhacking, or fratricide.

[Michael]

I'd argue that murder itself isn't immoral unless it is made immoral by the inclusion of another factor-- such as creating disorder, bushwhacking, or fratricide.
How can murder not be considered immoral in itself?

[Americano]

How can murder not be considered immoral in itself?

For the US by rationalizing it as spreading democracy.

[wphelan]

This is a really interesting discussion. I was hoping to contribute a few thoughts but I will start with one.

Korimyr the rat:

Under your reasoning for the immorality of incest, what prevents other relationships between relatives from being defined as immoral? Entering into a business relationship, for example, can result in divisive conflicts. In fact, having political views or potentially conflicting values can also be divisive. I really can't see any argument that treats a sexual relationship as potentially divisive in a way that other relationships are not. This seems like a serious problem for your view.

I would argue that fratricide is only immoral because it is murder. If you are concerned about particular acts that destroy family bonds, perhaps you mean that breaking up with or cheating on an incestuous lover is the immoral part. I don't think this makes sense, and it also does not support the idea that incest itself is immoral.

That's an interesting point. There are plenty of examples of family bonds being torn apart in business relationships. In a similar manner, inheritance can be a dicey issue. I would think any time money or wealth is involved would have to be similar to sexual relationships as far as intensity goes and potential for divisiveness go. Look at the number of relationships/marriages that break apart because of monetary problems.

[Donkey]

It is a matter of degree. Sexual relationships are much more emotionally intense and emotionally volatile.
Not inherently... I mean, who here hasn't had meaningless, emotionless, physically driven sexual experiences?

[Michael]

Not inherently... I mean, who here hasn't had meaningless, emotionless, physically driven sexual experiences?

Who here hasn't had meaningless, emotionless, geographically driven friendship experiences?

(sorry, I couldn't resist!) :lol:

[Korimyr the Rat]

How can murder not be considered immoral in itself?

What is inherently wrong about killing other people, if they are not your family and not your tribesmen? Worst you can say is that you might be starting a war, but if your tribe is that afraid of war, they'll just bundle you off to the offended tribe as a peace offering.

Other tribes exist only as sources of trade goods, plundered goods, mates and adopted children. Sometimes, they're useful as allies, or at least as a buffer against more aggressive tribes.

[Americano]

Not inherently... I mean, who here hasn't had meaningless, emotionless, physically driven sexual experiences?

I remember those fine experiences.

[Donkey]

Who here hasn't had meaningless, emotionless, geographically driven friendship experiences?

(sorry, I couldn't resist!) :lol:
Well it's true. I'm not going to lie and say that all of my friendships were about the other person. Sometimes it's about what you offer the other person. I know it sounds crude, but Let's be honest. While I may also love a given individual, they may also provide stimulating conversation, or beer, or a sega dreamcast (ok that one was a while ago).
What is inherently wrong about killing other people, if they are not your family and not your tribesmen?
Well I would consider it the foundation of my morality...

[SMadsen]

What is inherently wrong about killing other people, if they are not your family and not your tribesmen? Worst you can say is that you might be starting a war, but if your tribe is that afraid of war, they'll just bundle you off to the offended tribe as a peace offering.

Other tribes exist only as sources of trade goods, plundered goods, mates and adopted children. Sometimes, they're useful as allies, or at least as a buffer against more aggressive tribes.
I guess it can be looked at in the way that species in general don't kill unless necessary, regardless if they're family or not. Now, I know that if the argument concerns not killing members of the same species, any which species can be regarded as a family - sometimes an incredibly huge family - and in that respect you might have a point. However, the strategy of not killing when it's not necessary (for meat, as last resort etc.) but chasing off first if possible, or, in some cases, appeasing, is not restricted to infraspecies relationships but goes interspecies as well.

As many other behavorial manifestations, it's a survival strategy and, as most such strategies, it's purely egocentric. It comes down to the following, very simple question: What happens to your own safety if it's commonly accepted that individuals kill each other?

Hence, I contend that, as a norm, it is immoral to kill - family members or otherwise - because if it wasn't, a person could never do anything but trying to escape random people, - and random animals. Or in other words, no other living organism could be approached without the risk of a fatal outcome, including approaches to fellow human beings. Social interaction would simply cease to exist. And with that, of course, social species. Not because of decimation (the silly argument that it's immoral to kill because all would eventually be killed is surprisingly common!) but because of insurmountable obstacles to basic needs.

[Korimyr the Rat]

I guess it can be looked at in the way that species in general don't kill unless necessary, regardless if they're family or not.

Far as I know, the males of most species, especially predatory mammals, will kill the offspring of females they wish to mate with. Look at the portion of murdered children that were murdered by their mothers' boyfriends or husbands, and you'll see we're not much different in that regard. I do consider this fratricide and thus immoral, but I'd hardly say that your general rule holds.

Primates kill each other all the time. I've been chastised before for equating chimpanzee inter-pack conflict to human warfare, but the behaviors are similar. Felines will torture prey animals to death out of boredom when they're not hungry.

However, the strategy of not killing when it's not necessary (for meat, as last resort etc.) but chasing off first if possible, or, in some cases, appeasing, is not restricted to infraspecies relationships but goes interspecies as well.

Oh, certainly. I'm not arguing that killing is always desirable, that it is either morally necessary or morally praiseworthy-- just that, barring other factors, it is not itself immoral. Killing is morally acceptable unless there is another reason which would disallow it.

As many other behavorial manifestations, it's a survival strategy and, as most such strategies, it's purely egocentric. It comes down to the following, very simple question: What happens to your own safety if it's commonly accepted that individuals kill each other?

This is why humans by nature form tribes, and it is immoral to kill members of your tribe without cause. It is commonly accepted that members of different tribes will kill each other, in the absence of agreements to the contrary-- agreements which, universally, can be broken given just cause. And, for that matter, are frequently (and expectedly) broken without cause.

This provides for our basic needs and fulfills an essential psychological function.

[Donkey]

The fact that we have disagreeable instinctual predilections, to me, is only an indication that we can overcome them should we choose.

We are potentially moral animals.

[Margot]

Korimyr, what do you know about sociopathy?

[Michael]

We are potentially moral animals.
I agree. Nietzsche said humans are inclined to express morality, not that that they are inherently moral animals. ;)

[SMadsen]

Far as I know, the males of most species, especially predatory mammals, will kill the offspring of females they wish to mate with. Look at the portion of murdered children that were murdered by their mothers' boyfriends or husbands, and you'll see we're not much different in that regard. I do consider this fratricide and thus immoral, but I'd hardly say that your general rule holds.

Primates kill each other all the time. I've been chastised before for equating chimpanzee inter-pack conflict to human warfare, but the behaviors are similar. Felines will torture prey animals to death out of boredom when they're not hungry.
Yes, good point. Males of many species and sometimes females, too, will kill the offspring of potential mates. Notice, though, that this is not arbitrary behavior but a pattern that hints that there is a reason for such occurrences. Since my contention was that individuals of living organisms don't kill unless it is necessary, the only question, as I see it, is therefore whether or not the reason is compelling enough for the occurrence to be considered a necessity.

As Donkey points out in his post above, we may, as self-aware creatures, judge such reasons in more arbitrary manners but when it comes to instinct driven behaviors, I will indeed put such reasons under the necessity clause.

The same goes for warfare (many more species than one would probably think are actually engaged in warfare).

As to felines, you'll find it hard to sell the idea that prey is tortured out of boredom. I think the usual proposal is that such behavior exists to provide the predator with learning experiences.



Oh, certainly. I'm not arguing that killing is always desirable, that it is either morally necessary or morally praiseworthy-- just that, barring other factors, it is not itself immoral. Killing is morally acceptable unless there is another reason which would disallow it.

This is why humans by nature form tribes, and it is immoral to kill members of your tribe without cause. It is commonly accepted that members of different tribes will kill each other, in the absence of agreements to the contrary-- agreements which, universally, can be broken given just cause. And, for that matter, are frequently (and expectedly) broken without cause.
[/size]
This provides for our basic needs and fulfills an essential psychological function.
I don't think that this is entirely accurate, - neither regarding why we 'tribe up' nor the part about the killing. Members of different tribes will indeed kill each other given due cause. However, it is the cause that must be commonly accepted and not the killing.

It is commonly accepted that we don't kill and we do not have to make specific agreement to the contrary in order not to kill. That's what moral codes provide us with.

It is basically immoral to kill but can be accepted in certain circumstances. Or, to use your phrasing above: Killing is morally unacceptable unless there is a reason which allows it.

[Korimyr the Rat]

Korimyr, what do you know about sociopathy?

I can quote the DSM-IV on antisocial personality disorder and discuss what are commonly believed to be the root causes of it. I can also point out the mandatory diagnostic criteria for the disorder that I do not meet. If we are going to have a discussion about whether or not my system of moral reasoning is a function of an underlying personality disorder, we should start the discussion with the fact that I am under questionable diagnoses for Narcissistic and Borderline personality disorders, but it has never been suggested that I am Antisocial.

I am not suggesting that a lack of empathy or a penchant for sadism are moral virtues. I am suggesting that the basis of all moral virtue lies in one's duties to one's family and one's tribe; relationships with other beings are matters of convenience and should be morally prioritized accordingly.

[Michael]

I can quote the DSM-IV on antisocial personality disorder and discuss what are commonly believed to be the root causes of it. I can also point out the mandatory diagnostic criteria for the disorder that I do not meet. If we are going to have a discussion about whether or not my system of moral reasoning is a function of an underlying personality disorder, we should start the discussion with the fact that I am under questionable diagnoses for Narcissistic and Borderline personality disorders, but it has never been suggested that I am Antisocial.

I am not suggesting that a lack of empathy or a penchant for sadism are moral virtues. I am suggesting that the basis of all moral virtue lies in one's duties to one's family and one's tribe; relationships with other beings are matters of convenience and should be morally prioritized accordingly.
I dearly love you Rat! :D

[Margot]

I can quote the DSM-IV on antisocial personality disorder and discuss what are commonly believed to be the root causes of it. I can also point out the mandatory diagnostic criteria for the disorder that I do not meet. If we are going to have a discussion about whether or not my system of moral reasoning is a function of an underlying personality disorder, we should start the discussion with the fact that I am under questionable diagnoses for Narcissistic and Borderline personality disorders, but it has never been suggested that I am Antisocial.

I am not suggesting that a lack of empathy or a penchant for sadism are moral virtues. I am suggesting that the basis of all moral virtue lies in one's duties to one's family and one's tribe; relationships with other beings are matters of convenience and should be morally prioritized accordingly.

Lol, I can quote the DSM-IV, too. I'm not accusing you of anything. I've lived with a sociopath for most of my life (an illustrious heritage comes in two parts) and from what I know of you I find that you are lacking the necessary criteria. I was thinking more of societies and how we handle sociopathy.

Martha Stout's book The Sociopath Next Door claims that 4 out of every 100 people have antisocial personality disorder. Stout (Ph. D) has a lot of trouble in defining where sociopathy comes from. Are sociopaths simply born that way, or does one become a sociopath? She waffles on this in a way that would shame John Kerry. Stout does, though, come up with an interesting suggestion. She says that different cultures control and maintain sociopaths in different ways. Some cultures are more effective than others. In capitalist America- where the "by any means" strategy isn't necessarily frowned upon- a sociopath can thrive. In a Buddhist culture- where a lack of empathy is more likely to be spotted- sociopaths wind up conforming and acting the part. They're still vicious loons, but they're less dangerous ones.

That got me to thinking. If sociopaths can exist in cultures so inhospitable to their lack of empathy then doesn't it seem most likely that they're just born that way? That would seem to lend itself in favor of the idea that humans have evolved emotions as Richard Dawkins and others assert, which totally agrees with your moral duty to protect the tribe.

Then I started thinking that we do not what is best for the tribe, but what is least detrimental. As I previously discussed with SMadsen and others, our culture generally says "EW! Incest!" except for when it is "necessary". We slap a big old "SOCIOPATH" label on anyone who kills without reason because the "other factors" that you mentioned are inherent to us. We define our "tribes" in concentric circles: self, self and family, self and family and friends, self and family and friends and neighbors, etc. Another person may come along and threaten our inner tribe and we retaliate because we are reacting against a renegade tribesman. That retaliation is moral (just like Incest Flipper Baby) because it was what was least detrimental to the tribe.

See, I'm just trying to figure this out, too.

[The Drunk Guy]

Lol, I can quote the DSM-IV, too. I'm not accusing you of anything. I've lived with a sociopath for most of my life (an illustrious heritage comes in two parts) and from what I know of you I find that you are lacking the necessary criteria. I was thinking more of societies and how we handle sociopathy.

Martha Stout's book The Sociopath Next Door claims that 4 out of every 100 people have antisocial personality disorder. Stout (Ph. D) has a lot of trouble in defining where sociopathy comes from. Are sociopaths simply born that way, or does one become a sociopath? She waffles on this in a way that would shame John Kerry. Stout does, though, come up with an interesting suggestion. She says that different cultures control and maintain sociopaths in different ways. Some cultures are more effective than others. In capitalist America- where the "by any means" strategy isn't necessarily frowned upon- a sociopath can thrive. In a Buddhist culture- where a lack of empathy is more likely to be spotted- sociopaths wind up conforming and acting the part. They're still vicious loons, but they're less dangerous ones.

That got me to thinking. If sociopaths can exist in cultures so inhospitable to their lack of empathy then doesn't it seem most likely that they're just born that way? That would seem to lend itself in favor of the idea that humans have evolved emotions as Richard Dawkins and others assert, which totally agrees with your moral duty to protect the tribe.

Then I started thinking that we do not what is best for the tribe, but what is least detrimental. As I previously discussed with SMadsen and others, our culture generally says "EW! Incest!" except for when it is "necessary". We slap a big old "SOCIOPATH" label on anyone who kills without reason because the "other factors" that you mentioned are inherent to us. We define our "tribes" in concentric circles: self, self and family, self and family and friends, self and family and friends and neighbors, etc. Another person may come along and threaten our inner tribe and we retaliate because we are reacting against a renegade tribesman. That retaliation is moral (just like Incest Flipper Baby) because it was what was least detrimental to the tribe.

See, I'm just trying to figure this out, too.What are Stout's requirements? Can I take an online quiz? Do daydreams of shooting idiots count?


Sorry. I'm in "mountain country" right now and I would just like to shoot these apes that claim to be people.

[Margot]

What are Stout's requirements? Can I take an online quiz? Do daydreams of shooting idiots count?


Sorry. I'm in "mountain country" right now and I would just like to shoot these apes that claim to be people.

That's fine so long as you feel bad about it afterwards.

And while this online test isn't strictly for Antisocial Personality Disorder it's pretty awesome anyway: http://www.4degreez.com/misc/personality_disorder_test.mv

And for a chaser you can take my other favorite:
http://www.4degreez.com/misc/dante-inferno-test.mv

[Donkey]

I agree. Nietzsche said humans are inclined to express morality, not that that they are inherently moral animals. ;)
Well for something to be inherently moral you would first have to justify an intrinsic morality... ;)

I never got around to reading any Nietzsche, but I think the most recent person I've read making the "potentially moral animal" argument was a dude named Harold Pinker or something. Can't remember for sure.

[Dominick]

That's fine so long as you feel bad about it afterwards.

And while this online test isn't strictly for Antisocial Personality Disorder it's pretty awesome anyway: http://www.4degreez.com/misc/personality_disorder_test.mv

Just a side note on this quiz. One of the questions is
"Do you often see things in black and white terms? In other words, something either is or it isn't, with no gray area inbetween".
The possible answers are 'Yes' and 'No'.
Hmm.

[Michael]

Well for something to be inherently moral you would first have to justify an intrinsic morality... ;)
Justify? I don't think so.

It would be sufficient to demonstrate that morality is universal to establish it as "inherent".

One doesn't get the opportunity to justify your mother's milk.

I never got around to reading any Nietzsche, but I think the most recent person I've read making the "potentially moral animal" argument was a dude named Harold Pinker or something. Can't remember for sure.
Nietzsche is an acquired taste. But if one is interested in the topic, he's the master that others can only be pale or flawed copies.

[Donkey]

I have a question about the words inherent and intrinsic. It seems to me from the apparent root that "inherent" means it is a quality natural to you by virtue of your ancestry. Intrinsic would then be a quality that is otherwise natural to you?

So the universe can't be inherently anything...?

[Dominick]

I have a question about the words inherent and intrinsic. It seems to me from the apparent root that "inherent" means it is a quality natural to you by virtue of your ancestry. Intrinsic would then be a quality that is otherwise natural to you?

So the universe can't be inherently anything...?

inherent adj. 1 existing in something as a permanent or essential attribute. 2 law [...not relevant]

intrinsic adj. belonging naturally; essential
Unless I'm misreading this, the universe would be both inherently and intrinsically relativistic.

[Michael]

Unless I'm misreading this, the universe would be both inherently and intrinsically relativistic.

Yes, I agree.

And just to make the distinction clear, "expansion" is an intrinsic property to the universe, but it is not necessarily inherent to the universe since it is a temporal condition.

[Dominick]

Yes, I agree.

And just to make the distinction clear, "expansion" is an intrinsic property to the universe, but it is not necessarily inherent to the universe since it is a temporal condition.
Expansion is not necessarily a temporal condition so it may be both. This option is called an 'open universe'.

[SMadsen]

Wow, from incest to sanctity to the morality of killing to the universe in less than 80 posts. This thread has got it all :)

[Korimyr the Rat]

One doesn't get the opportunity to justify your mother's milk.

No, but if you're a vicious enough little bastard, you can refuse it.

[Arkady]

Couldn't decide which forum this belonged in, so I stuck it here, though it's not necessarily a religious issue.

So here's my question: is incest immoral?

I say, when it really comes down to it, no.

Morals are subjective. Person A's morals may differ from Person B's morals. There is no right or wrong answer here.

As morals are subjective, I believe that incest is neither moral nor immoral, therefore morality cannot be used as an excuse to prohibit it.

Is it moral to allow incestuous couples to procreate? Knowing the risk of birth defect is abnormally high, it is moral to allow an ill child to be born to two close relations, especially as those close relations are aware that the risk of birth defect is significantly high?

I would argue yes, in this case. IMO, close relatives should be able to enter into a consensual, sexual relationship, but should stop short with procreation.

[Donkey]

Morals are subjective. Person A's morals may differ from Person B's morals. There is no right or wrong answer here.

As morals are subjective, I believe that incest is neither moral nor immoral, therefore morality cannot be used as an excuse to prohibit it.

Is it moral to allow incestuous couples to procreate? Knowing the risk of birth defect is abnormally high, it is moral to allow an ill child to be born to two close relations, especially as those close relations are aware that the risk of birth defect is significantly high?

I would argue yes, in this case. IMO, close relatives should be able to enter into a consensual, sexual relationship, but should stop short with procreation.You say that morals are subjective and thus can't conclude that incest is immoral.

Then you go on to make a moral evaluation of something else. Quoi?

[Arkady]

You say that morals are subjective and thus can't conclude that incest is immoral.

Then you go on to make a moral evaluation of something else. Quoi?

Okay, point taken.

If one cannot determine either way whether incest is moral or immoral, how do we decide whether to make it legal or illegal?

[Zarquon]

Okay, point taken.

If one cannot determine either way whether incest is moral or immoral, how do we decide whether to make it legal or illegal?
Well, if no offspring is produced, its private sexual conduct, and should be legal.
If offspring is produced(conceived), then it should be illegal and they must have to report and abort fetus within 3 months of conception and pay a fine, as a potential burden has been placed on society, healthcare and welfare wise.
If they do manage to give birth to offspring(or if pregnancy is in third trimester, in which case abortion would be murder), they must serve a 2-year sentence and the baby becomes a ward of the State.

[dilettante]

Well, if no offspring is produced, its private sexual conduct, and should be legal.
If offspring is produced(conceived), then it should be illegal and they must have to report and abort fetus within 3 months of conception and pay a fine, as a potential burden has been placed on society, healthcare and welfare wise.
If they do manage to give birth to offspring(or if pregnancy is in third trimester, in which case abortion would be murder), they must serve a 2-year sentence and the baby becomes a ward of the State.

A legally mandated abortion because the child has the potential to require social assistance?
That's down right horrifying...

[Michael]

Well, if no offspring is produced, its private sexual conduct, and should be legal.
If offspring is produced(conceived), then it should be illegal and they must have to report and abort fetus within 3 months of conception and pay a fine, as a potential burden has been placed on society, healthcare and welfare wise.
If they do manage to give birth to offspring(or if pregnancy is in third trimester, in which case abortion would be murder), they must serve a 2-year sentence and the baby becomes a ward of the State.

I think one can make a legitimate argument that permitting 'intimate' relations between close family members of the opposite sex is really bad public policy and therefore all such 'unions' ought to be discouraged with the full force of the law and public reprobation.

I don't want violators to pay fine - I want to prevent the violation from happening! Child-raising is a legitimate interest of public policy and society in general and thus, such limitations on freedom can be reasonably and rationally justified.

Same argument can't be used for same sex incest though. That's entirely a private matter outside the realm of public policy.

[Donkey]

I think it's a touchy situation because it's so, so SO easy for sex between family members to be actually a form of rape, but easily concealed.

[Michael]

I think it's a touchy situation because it's so, so SO easy for sex between family members to be actually a form of rape, but easily concealed.

Why is it touchy situation? I don't see anything wrong if the heavy hand of the law interferes with sexual relationships within a given family (other than legal marriage). As I've noted above, the state has a strong public interest involved which can justify state action here (no formal moral rules required).

[Arkady]

Well, if no offspring is produced, its private sexual conduct, and should be legal.
If offspring is produced(conceived), then it should be illegal and they must have to report and abort fetus within 3 months of conception and pay a fine, as a potential burden has been placed on society, healthcare and welfare wise.
If they do manage to give birth to offspring(or if pregnancy is in third trimester, in which case abortion would be murder), they must serve a 2-year sentence and the baby becomes a ward of the State.

There is a significant risk that a child born to close relatives will suffer some kind defect, be it physical or mental. There is also a small chance the child will turn out perfectly healthy.

Can you really agree with aborting potentially healthy children?

When every woman has a baby, a potential burden is placed on society. A woman who lives on welfare, who has a baby, is not a potential burden, but an actual burden - should women in this situation be expected to abortion because of the child may be a burden?

Abortion in the third trimester isn't murder - just thought I'd point that out to you - but they are very rare. Often a physical defect is not detected until the third trimester, although with advanges in medical technology, we can detect disorders and defects well before third term.

[Americano]

Well, if no offspring is produced, its private sexual conduct, and should be legal.
If offspring is produced(conceived), then it should be illegal and they must have to report and abort fetus within 3 months of conception and pay a fine, as a potential burden has been placed on society, healthcare and welfare wise.
If they do manage to give birth to offspring(or if pregnancy is in third trimester, in which case abortion would be murder), they must serve a 2-year sentence and the baby becomes a ward of the State.

Why would I want to put people in prison and support their child? Why should they pay a fine for conception?

[Michael]

Why would I want to put people in prison and support their child? Why should they pay a fine for conception?

Indeed. In this case, it is far better to apply the law to (banning) the original relationship to prevent the mutant offspring rather than charging penalties against the mutant result.

[dilettante]

Doesn't the same reasoning here apply to anyone with a potentially inheritable disability?

For example, say the parents are unaffected carriers of sickle-cell anemia or cystic fibrosis(meaning their genes carry the disorder but it doesn't affect them). Their odds of having a child with the full blow disorder are 1 in 4. Should they be banned from procreating? If one of them actually has the full disorder the odds double.

I think Arkady raises some worthwhile points about potential 'burdens on society'. I'd be willing to guess that, statistically, the child of a poor, inner-city, single mother on welfare is more likely to require social assistance even without any genetic disorders than the child of two rich, well educated parents who happen to be first cousins.

[Michael]

Doesn't the same reasoning here apply to anyone with a potentially inheritable disability?

For example, say the parents are unaffected carriers of sickle-cell anemia or cystic fibrosis(meaning their genes carry the disorder but it doesn't affect them). Their odds of having a child with the full blow disorder are 1 in 4. Should they be banned from procreating? If one of them actually has the full disorder the odds double.

I think Arkady raises some worthwhile points about potential 'burdens on society'. I'd be willing to guess that, statistically, the child of a poor, inner-city, single mother on welfare is more likely to require social assistance even without any genetic disorders than the child of two rich, well educated parents who happen to be first cousins.
I don't think the issue is a simple one about society paying for the result.

I think the issue is a human one - willful breeding of high probability mutant-retards vs non-high probability mutant-retards.

The issue isn't the social cost of caring for mutant-retards, I think the issue is the willful creation of them.

[dilettante]

I don't think the issue is a simple one about society paying for the result.

I think the issue is a human one - willful breeding of high probability mutant-retards vs non-high probability mutant-retards.

The issue isn't the social cost of caring for mutant-retards, I think the issue is the willful creation of them.

But again, wouldn't the same reasoning demand that two parents with genetic disorders be banned from having any children? Their procreation could easily be just as much the "willful breeding of high probability mutant-retards" as that of an incestuous couple, and depending on the disorders in question, the probability could easily be much higher.

[Michael]

But again, wouldn't the same reasoning demand that two parents with genetic disorders be banned from having any children? Their procreation could easily be just as much the "willful breeding of high probability mutant-retards" as that of an incestuous couple, and depending on the disorders in question, the probability could easily be much higher.

Sure. I'm okay with that.

[Daktoria]

Taking this back to Korimyr's suggestion of family values, let's treat family establishment as something that takes place on the spectrum from social contracts theory to conquest theory. On one side, we have mutual agreements through cultural understanding, and on the other, we have protection for social dividends.

Conquest theory is easier to address here in terms of incest, so I'll start with that.

If a family is established for the sake of control and return on investment, then the maximum rate of return would come from expansion, not contraction. Expansion here entails two things, the assimilation of foreign populations and the growth of one's own. However, internalized growth sacrifices chances to expand, and it would only be used for preservation. Unfortunately, the longer internal preservation takes place, the more bigoted the family is going to become because of competition in the refinement of lifestyles (AKA political machines, cartels, monopolies, etc), so protracted preservation is guaranteed to result in self-destruction of the family. Maybe the family dies off or maybe it splinters into different lineages. Either way, the family is destroyed. Perhaps incest can be excused here as a matter of survival, but if the family depends upon it to the point that political conflict becomes an intrinsic part of its lifestyles, then it will become addicted and have no chance of expanding at all.

This might be a little difficult to imagine because of the "ideal" situation of one family monopolizing all of mankind's population (which is one reason for why I don't personally like conquest theory in general), but in the case of a monopoly, suffice to say that the family should willingly divide for the sake of natural selection. The family would divide into multiple groups where common ancestors no longer exist (or exist minimally), reproduce for a few generations, and gradually reintroduce themselves to one another.

Not that I think this would happen because corruption should have destroyed the family already, but this is the "solution" to the "ideal" situation of a demographic monopoly in stable equilibrium.

Now for social contract theory.

Actually, this might be easier than I thought now that I'm reflecting on it a little more.

The sheer act of individuals cooperating implies a desire to expand horizons whether its for family establishment or not. Let's call this desire, "exploration" and let's say that the very least efficient manner of cultural exploration is through interacting with other cultures. However, the difference between exploration and conquest theory's desire of "control" (let's call it) is that the social contractors don't care about ownership or expanded capacity. Rather it's a matter of becoming more understanding of how people behave (and perhaps enjoying the practice of harnessing cultural exchange). As such, the social contract family doesn't aim to monopolize (or even compete in the same sense as before), but to conserve. That is it refrains from total cultural and demographic mixing because it always wants different cultures to have independent opportunities to recycle and evolve in order to present more opportunities for exploration.

However, there is still a matter of convergence that needs to be solved because no matter how many families exist and how many combinations we can come up to delay incest perpetually, the only way families could forever avoid incest (assuming that ignorance of relations doesn't matter) is through exponential growth which is impossible to support indefinitely.

Ergo, we again come to natural selection for a solution. Competitions on cultural practice will take place, and conflicts will ensue over how culture is being explored, practiced, conserved, etc. From here, certain branches of our inter-family community will perish, maybe not from war but from economic stagnation or natural disaster, and gaps will be made for future bonds to be created. People are far from perfect though, so this last ditch scenario is highly unlikely to be needed. Cultural competition should preclude the threat of incest since information travels faster than population grows (even in the most dilapidated of societies), so Malthusian reductions should preempt this danger.

----------

Just one note, I again don't like conquest theory, so if you're going to criticize the solution offered as not being perfect, I'm going to ask you in advance to show me how the demographic monopoly is even possible among imperfect people (as implied afterwards about corruption) especially since totalitarian groups (such as those which would make up a conquest theory based family) far underperform their liberal democratic counterparts which cultivate diversity and promote orderly competition.

[Lasher]

Poor, poor, McKenzie Phillips, that sweet little child!

[Lasher]

Doesn't the same reasoning here apply to anyone with a potentially inheritable disability?

For example, say the parents are unaffected carriers of sickle-cell anemia or cystic fibrosis(meaning their genes carry the disorder but it doesn't affect them). Their odds of having a child with the full blow disorder are 1 in 4. Should they be banned from procreating? If one of them actually has the full disorder the odds double.

I think Arkady raises some worthwhile points about potential 'burdens on society'. I'd be willing to guess that, statistically, the child of a poor, inner-city, single mother on welfare is more likely to require social assistance even without any genetic disorders than the child of two rich, well educated parents who happen to be first cousins.
If they are aware that they both have the malady, then they should have the common sense not to copulate, but people, being people, don't let a minor thing like the likelihood of an afflicted child stop their animalistic urge to "do" each other. The matter of money shouldn't enter into the equation. It doesn't matter whether they are wealthy or poor, they have no right to the taxpayers' purses in any event.

[dilettante]

Sure. I'm okay with that.

I suppose the next question would be, if it isn't a question of 'social cost', what gives the state the right to decide who should and who should not procreate? It sounds suspiciously close to the government telling people that their genes are too "impure" for them to be allowed to have any children. Isn't the state deciding who can and cannot reproduce on the basis of their genes, by definition, a eugenics program? I don't feel comfortable with that.

[dilettante]

If they are aware that they both have the malady, then they should have the common sense not to copulate, but people, being people, don't let a minor thing like the likelihood of an afflicted child stop their animalistic urge to "do" each other. The matter of money shouldn't enter into the equation. It doesn't matter whether they are wealthy or poor, they have no right to the taxpayers' purses in any event.

I'm not sure how that would play out: "You are the offspring of incestuous or genetically damaged parents, therefore you are excluded from that social programs available to everyone else"?

[Donkey]

I suppose the next question would be, if it isn't a question of 'social cost', what gives the state the right to decide who should and who should not procreate? It sounds suspiciously close to the government telling people that their genes are too "impure" for them to be allowed to have any children. Isn't the state deciding who can and cannot reproduce on the basis of their genes, by definition, a eugenics program? I don't feel comfortable with that.
Nor do I.

I prefer the small social cost of caring for a disabled person than the (in my view) high social cost of determining who may and may not reproduce.

That's not to say that I think that deliberately producing a disabled child is not immoral, I think it is, but I'm not sure that I want my government directly stopping it.

[Donkey]

I'm not sure how that would play out: "You are the offspring of incestuous or genetically damaged parents, therefore you are excluded from that social programs available to everyone else"?
As far as I'm concerned, responding to the various "sins" of parents by punishing the children is bad policy and bad morality. "You shouldn't have kids because you are poor and single, and therefore we will not help to feed your children." Bah.

Yeah, my heart bleeds. Fuckin' sue me. ;)

[Lasher]

I'm not sure how that would play out: "You are the offspring of incestuous or genetically damaged parents, therefore you are excluded from that social programs available to everyone else"?
Let Lasher expand on his post that you replied to, my friend. Lash doesn't care who does whom in this world, as long as they are able to fully care for the misbegotten product(s) of their behavior, and stay out of His pocketbook to acquire the wherewithall to raise and provide for their progeny. It is amoral for some people to expect the general population to accept the onus of caring for the drooling, stupid, retarded product of their irresponsibility. It is immoral for their enablers and apologists to use the power of government to rob, at the ultimate point of a gun, the hard-working, law-abiding, citizens who would rather use the fruits of their labor for their own families instead of using it to further the welfare state. There are plenty of charities that are voluntary, instead of mandatory, that can help the genuinely needy who are unable to feed themselves, but those are a small percentage of those who presently slop at the hog trough of the liberal welfare state.

[dilettante]

Let Lasher expand on his post that you replied to, my friend. Lash doesn't care who does whom in this world, as long as they are able to fully care for the misbegotten product(s) of their behavior, and stay out of His pocketbook to acquire the wherewithall to raise and provide for their progeny. It is amoral for some people to expect the general population to accept the onus of caring for the drooling, stupid, retarded product of their irresponsibility. It is immoral for their enablers and apologists to use the power of government to rob, at the ultimate point of a gun, the hard-working, law-abiding, citizens who would rather use the fruits of their labor for their own families instead of using it to further the welfare state. There are plenty of charities that are voluntary, instead of mandatory, that can help the genuinely needy who are unable to feed themselves, but those are a small percentage of those who presently slop at the hog trough of the liberal welfare state.

You touch on two issues here, but I'm not quite sure how you're connecting them. On the one hand, there's the issue of parents having children knowing that they have a relatively high probability of having genetic disorders; on the other there's the issue of the (in)justice of the state forcibly redistributing wealth.
I suppose I'm just uncertain as to whether you're saying that the children of incestuous parents should somehow be specially excluded from state assistance, or just that there should be no such state assistance, regardless of parentage, and all the truly needy people should depend on private charities.
If it's the latter, then does does the question of incestuous (or genetically disadvantageous) relationships matter?

[dilettante]

Nor do I.

I prefer the small social cost of caring for a disabled person than the (in my view) high social cost of determining who may and may not reproduce.

That's not to say that I think that deliberately producing a disabled child is not immoral, I think it is, but I'm not sure that I want my government directly stopping it.

As far as I'm concerned, responding to the various "sins" of parents by punishing the children is bad policy and bad morality. "You shouldn't have kids because you are poor and single, and therefore we will not help to feed your children." Bah.

Yeah, my heart bleeds. Fuckin' sue me. ;)

I think we're probably on the same page here.
I'd prefer that people who are likely to have disabled children refrain, or at least make sure they are fully prepared to handle that eventuality, but I'd prefer even more that the government not think itself empowered to 'safeguard' the genetic quality of future generations.

[Lasher]

You touch on two issues here, but I'm not quite sure how you're connecting them. On the one hand, there's the issue of parents having children knowing that they have a relatively high probability of having genetic disorders; on the other there's the issue of the (in)justice of the state forcibly redistributing wealth.
I suppose I'm just uncertain as to whether you're saying that the children of incestuous parents should somehow be specially excluded from state assistance, or just that there should be no such state assistance, regardless of parentage, and all the truly needy people should depend on private charities.
If it's the latter, then does does the question of incestuous (or genetically disadvantageous) relationships matter?
First, you have misnamed the source of the "assistance," my friend; it is not the state who gives the so-called assistance, but the hard-working, put-upon taxpayers who undoubtedly are able to handle their own money better than the state does. People who earn the money should have the ultimate say-so in what it is used for, and those who don't wish to assist in raising the children of irresponsible parents shouldn't be forced to do so. The children of parents of whatever station in life should be provided for by those parents who produced them, no matter what their circumstances. Many destitute people have grown up and gone on to make something of themselves without the government giving them the hard-earned money of others whom they have robbed of their property in order to supply it to the weaker ones in return for their votes.

[dilettante]

First, you have misnamed the source of the "assistance," my friend; it is not the state who gives the so-called assistance, but the hard-working, put-upon taxpayers who undoubtedly are able to handle their own money better than the state does. People who earn the money should have the ultimate say-so in what it is used for, and those who don't wish to assist in raising the children of irresponsible parents shouldn't be forced to do so. The children of parents of whatever station in life should be provided for by those parents who produced them, no matter what their circumstances. Many destitute people have grown up and gone on to make something of themselves without the government giving them the hard-earned money of others whom they have robbed of their property in order to supply it to the weaker ones in return for their votes.

So your objections are to the legitimacy of taxation/redistribution in general, rather than anything have to do with incest or genetic disorder in particular?

A thread on the legitimacy of government taxation might be interesting if want to start one.

[Lasher]

So your objections are to the legitimacy of taxation/redistribution in general, rather than anything have to do with incest or genetic disorder in particular?

A thread on the legitimacy of government taxation might be interesting if want to start one.
My friend, there is nothing difficult about taxation to discuss, really. Taxes are for the benefit of the taxpayers, and not for the benefit of those among us who would avoid paying taxes like the plague. Taxes should be used for the benefit of the ones who are forced to hand it over to the government, to be used for things such as roads, parks, police and fire departments, military, and necessary governmental expenses, not for the purpose of building and maintaining low-cost, or no-cost-to-the-tenant housing, food stamps, provision of health care, cinecure jobs, and so forth to the ungrateful, no-ambition sluggards and drones who fill the welfare rolls of society. Voting, itself, should be based on the amount of taxes one pays, with a certain number of votes allotted according to the amount of taxes paid; for instance, one voting unit for every $1,000 taken from the taxpayer, or a pro-rated amount for any fractions. This way, all people will have incentive to better themselves instead of lolling around on their couches all day watching soaps, game shows and the other pap handed out to them by the fringe media.

[dilettante]

My friend, there is nothing difficult about taxation to discuss, really. Taxes are for the benefit of the taxpayers, and not for the benefit of those among us who would avoid paying taxes like the plague. Taxes should be used for the benefit of the ones who are forced to hand it over to the government, to be used for things such as roads, parks, police and fire departments, military, and necessary governmental expenses, not for the purpose of building and maintaining low-cost, or no-cost-to-the-tenant housing, food stamps, provision of health care, cinecure jobs, and so forth to the ungrateful, no-ambition sluggards and drones who fill the welfare rolls of society. Voting, itself, should be based on the amount of taxes one pays, with a certain number of votes allotted according to the amount of taxes paid; for instance, one voting unit for every $1,000 taken from the taxpayer, or a pro-rated amount for any fractions. This way, all people will have incentive to better themselves instead of lolling around on their couches all day watching soaps, game shows and the other pap handed out to them by the fringe media.

By all means, start a thread if those are your stances; I strongly suspect they'll stir discussion. I would reply further, but for the purposes of this thread it's off-topic.

[Lasher]

By all means, start a thread if those are your stances; I strongly suspect they'll stir discussion. I would reply further, but for the purposes of this thread it's off-topic.
But Lasher wasn't the one who caused it to go off topic.

[Michael]

But Lasher wasn't the one who caused it to go off topic.

It doesn't matter how a thread gets off-topic. I agree with dilettante, if you want to discuss taxation in general, that should be a separate topic - please feel free to start a thread for it. The topic in this thread is defined by the opening post (OP). :)

[Lasher]

It doesn't matter how a thread gets off-topic. I agree with dilettante, if you want to discuss taxation in general, that should be a separate topic - please feel free to start a thread for it. The topic in this thread is defined by the opening post (OP). :)
Lasher has no desire to discuss taxation in general. Lasher has been posting replies to topics, even those injected into threads they do not belong in by people who can't stay on topic.

[Michael]

Lasher has no desire to discuss taxation in general. Lasher has been posting replies to topics, even those injected into threads they do not belong in by people who can't stay on topic.

There is nothing wrong with replying to existing posts, dilettante merely stated that his reply would be off-topic. He didn't accuse you of being so.

[Lasher]

Well, if no offspring is produced, its private sexual conduct, and should be legal.
If offspring is produced(conceived), then it should be illegal and they must have to report and abort fetus within 3 months of conception and pay a fine, as a potential burden has been placed on society, healthcare and welfare wise.
If they do manage to give birth to offspring(or if pregnancy is in third trimester, in which case abortion would be murder), they must serve a 2-year sentence and the baby becomes a ward of the State.
Regarding your statement that "... a potential burden has been placed on society...," that is only true if "society" determines that it should accept that burden, which can either be accepted or denied by society.

Lasher is interested in just how you came to your determination of just what length sentence should be imposed on the perpetrators of your alleged "criminal" activity, and why the resulting product of it should be supported by taxes on those who had nothing to do with the situation.

[Lasher]

A legally mandated abortion because the child has the potential to require social assistance?
That's down right horrifying...
Only to those of you who delight in paying higher and higher taxes for the institutionalizing of millions of unwanted children who will undoubtedly become burdens on society anyway. If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em.

[Lasher]

I suppose the next question would be, if it isn't a question of 'social cost', what gives the state the right to decide who should and who should not procreate? It sounds suspiciously close to the government telling people that their genes are too "impure" for them to be allowed to have any children. Isn't the state deciding who can and cannot reproduce on the basis of their genes, by definition, a eugenics program? I don't feel comfortable with that.
Lasher doesn't feel comfortable with the idea of society (taxpayers) being burdened with the cost of financing the up-bringing of millions of retarded, deformed, idiotic human detritus, either.

[Lasher]

I'm not sure how that would play out: "You are the offspring of incestuous or genetically damaged parents, therefore you are excluded from that social programs available to everyone else"?
Those "social programs" that are only formulated primarily for the good-feeling of the liberals in knowing they have exerted more power over the struggling middle-class by forcing more taxes on them, shouldn't exist in the first place. People aren't here to work for total strangers, they are here to live their own lives and reap the fruits of their labor for the benefit of the people whom they choose to assist voluntarily. That axiom should be obvious to the dimmest bulb among you.

[Lasher]

As far as I'm concerned, responding to the various "sins" of parents by punishing the children is bad policy and bad morality. "You shouldn't have kids because you are poor and single, and therefore we will not help to feed your children." Bah.

Yeah, my heart bleeds. Fuckin' sue me. ;)
Son, when you get your first job, and bring home your first paycheck, your tune will undoubtedly change when you see how the people are being economically enslaved by the liberal government in incremental steps. You must have heard the fable of the boiling water and the frog. Your liberal professors and/or teachers have clouded your mind with false premises and outright untruths as to the way society should function. Try reading a little of what they call the "fascist right."

[Donkey]

Son, when you get your first job, and bring home your first paycheck, your tune will undoubtedly change when you see how the people are being economically enslaved by the liberal government in incremental steps. You must have heard the fable of the boiling water and the frog. Your liberal professors and/or teachers have clouded your mind with false premises and outright untruths as to the way society should function. Try reading a little of what they call the "fascist right."
Don't patronize me, I'm not your son.

I'm not in college, I have a job, and I pay taxes. Remind me of your point?

[Lasher]

Don't patronize me, I'm not your son.

I'm not in college, I have a job, and I pay taxes. Remind me of your point?
Lasher has no patronization in mind when He calls someone "son," son. That is the furthest thing from His mind. It is good that you have found a job, but it is apparent you aren't in the upper income brackets, because of your tolerance toward the amount of your property that is taken from you each pay period. When you become older and see the travesties insinuated on the hard-working middle-class by the IRS and the now-under-investigation Federal Reserve, you may become more understanding of the hardships endured by the productive segment in order to sustain all the vicious programs inflicted on them by the liberal government.

[Michael]

Lasher has no patronization in mind when He calls someone "son," son. That is the furthest thing from His mind. It is good that you have found a job, but it is apparent you aren't in the upper income brackets, because of your tolerance toward the amount of your property that is taken from you each pay period. When you become older and see the travesties insinuated on the hard-working middle-class by the IRS and the now-under-investigation Federal Reserve, you may become more understanding of the hardships endured by the productive segment in order to sustain all the vicious programs inflicted on them by the liberal government.

What's to whine about? Americans pay less taxes (and get less government benefit) than just about any other western nation.

You have a nice unhealthy, murderous, violent society rife with inequality. Why are you complaining?

[The Drunk Guy]

Lasher has no patronization in mind when He calls someone "son," son. That is the furthest thing from His mind. It is good that you have found a job, but it is apparent you aren't in the upper income brackets, because of your tolerance toward the amount of your property that is taken from you each pay period. When you become older and see the travesties insinuated on the hard-working middle-class by the IRS and the now-under-investigation Federal Reserve, you may become more understanding of the hardships endured by the productive segment in order to sustain all the vicious programs inflicted on them by the liberal government.
Liberal programs like the VA, foreign wars, and Homeland Security, right? :rofl:

[Americano]

Lasher has no patronization in mind when He calls someone "son," son. That is the furthest thing from His mind. It is good that you have found a job, but it is apparent you aren't in the upper income brackets, because of your tolerance toward the amount of your property that is taken from you each pay period. When you become older and see the travesties insinuated on the hard-working middle-class by the IRS and the now-under-investigation Federal Reserve, you may become more understanding of the hardships endured by the productive segment in order to sustain all the vicious programs inflicted on them by the liberal government.

I've never heard of job pay periods being associated with upper income brackets, but to each his own. Income taxes are currently laughing low compared to pre-voo-doo economics. That's the reason we've been running operating deficits for a few generations, duh.

Last I heard the Federal Reserve is being considered for legislation that would require annual audits, scope to be determined, certainly not 'under investigation'

[dilettante]

I don't think the issue is a simple one about society paying for the result.

I think the issue is a human one - willful breeding of high probability mutant-retards vs non-high probability mutant-retards.

The issue isn't the social cost of caring for mutant-retards, I think the issue is the willful creation of them.

But again, wouldn't the same reasoning demand that two parents with genetic disorders be banned from having any children? Their procreation could easily be just as much the "willful breeding of high probability mutant-retards" as that of an incestuous couple, and depending on the disorders in question, the probability could easily be much higher.

Sure. I'm okay with that.

I suppose the next question would be, if it isn't a question of 'social cost', what gives the state the right to decide who should and who should not procreate? It sounds suspiciously close to the government telling people that their genes are too "impure" for them to be allowed to have any children. Isn't the state deciding who can and cannot reproduce on the basis of their genes, by definition, a eugenics program? I don't feel comfortable with that.

Nor do I.

I prefer the small social cost of caring for a disabled person than the (in my view) high social cost of determining who may and may not reproduce.

That's not to say that I think that deliberately producing a disabled child is not immoral, I think it is, but I'm not sure that I want my government directly stopping it.


Lasher somewhat derailed the flow of conversation in this thread, so I thought I'd bring up some of the final discussion that was taking place just before he arrived in case people wanted to pick things up where they left off.

Daktoria also had a post which may have gotten lost in the Lasher-fest. It's too long to quote, but it's here (http://www.discussionworldforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=14973&postcount=95).

[Michael]

I prefer the small social cost of caring for a disabled person than the (in my view) high social cost of determining who may and may not reproduce.
First of all, I stated from the outset that the social cost of caring for the disabled person wasn't the issue at all. As far as I'm concerned, society already has that defacto responsiblity no matter which way we decide the question. Ergo, that point is moot. Society ends up getting stuck with the tab no matter what - whether the kid comes from incest or other disease or from a fire or natural disaster or even criminal parents.

As for the practicality of "determining who may and may not reproduce", I think you are taking an unreasonably extreme position here. No one is suggesting that some breeding license will have to be issued before anyone is permitted to breed. That's just nonsense in the context of our society.

In fact, the existing laws are just fine for doing exactly what society needs to do. The law itself (that incestuous breeding is very bad) stands as an official social standard (or official morality if you prefer!). You are free to breed as you like (as long as you are of legal age of course) but if you do incestuous breeding, you can be sure the power of the state authority can and will be used to punish you after the fact - and to legally take measures to prevent a reoccurance of such illegal act.

That is to say, the 'pro' argument here holds that the existing law (re: incest) be maintained without any 'breeding tribunals' necessary.

It is the 'anti' argument that is seeking to change the legal status. I think the legal argument is established and reasonable. Ergo, the onus is on the 'anti' argument to assert grounds for rejecting/changing the law.

[dilettante]

First of all, I stated from the outset that the social cost of caring for the disabled person wasn't the issue at all. As far as I'm concerned, society already has that defacto responsiblity no matter which way we decide the question. Ergo, that point is moot. Society ends up getting stuck with the tab no matter what - whether the kid comes from incest or other disease or from a fire or natural disaster or even criminal parents.

As for the practicality of "determining who may and may not reproduce", I think you are taking an unreasonably extreme position here. No one is suggesting that some breeding license will have to be issued before anyone is permitted to breed. That's just nonsense in the context of our society.

In fact, the existing laws are just fine for doing exactly what society needs to do. The law itself (that incestuous breeding is very bad) stands as an official social standard (or official morality if you prefer!). You are free to breed as you like (as long as you are of legal age of course) but if you do incestuous breeding, you can be sure the power of the state authority can and will be used to punish you after the fact - and to legally take measures to prevent a reoccurance of such illegal act.

That is to say, the 'pro' argument here holds that the existing law (re: incest) be maintained without any 'breeding tribunals' necessary.

It is the 'anti' argument that is seeking to change the legal status. I think the legal argument is established and reasonable. Ergo, the onus is on the 'anti' argument to assert grounds for rejecting/changing the law.

I doubt there are many people here supporting an 'anti' argument with regard to the law. The question is the justification of the law and its consistency.

If the justification is based on the increased probability of giving birth to children with disabilities, then it seems that the law is inconsistent in targeting only incestuous couples since other potential parents could easily be shown to have a higher probability of imparting disorders to their children. To be consistent, the law would need to exert control over those cases as well. You seemed to say you were "okay with that".

On the other hand, the law would be consistent if the primary justification wasn't decreasing the odds of children with disorders so much as upholding a traditional social/moral injunction against incestuous relationships. And I suspect this is the case.

In short, if the law is justified on the basis of potential children's genetic make-up, it is being applied inconsistently and is, in essence, eugenics-lite. Alternatively, the law could be consistent, but its basis would be moral/traditional, which I expect would make some people uncomfortable for different reasons.