Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Suppose for a moment that there weren't any moral or societal objections to incest. It remains a biological fact that there are going to be lots of problems with children born of incestuous relationships. So there's actually a perfectly good biological reason for not getting involved with it.
you seem to assume that because someone states that they are put off by something means that they are stating it is immoral, amoral, or criminal.
I am not making the assumption that that is what all people are doing. I am merely directing my point at those who ARE engaged in that… and there are a number of them in this thread.
I am aware that there are people who do not operate like that… I am not making the assumption you claim that they all do. The points I am making merely are not directed at those people that is all.
There are people in the world, and on this thread, who are personally put off by incest and never want to engage in it. Fine. That is good. Simply do not engage in it then if you or they are those people.
The points I am making are directed at those who extrapolate those personal feelings into claims that the act itself is immoral, ammoral, or should be illegal. One guy even went to far as to link to a story about 2 such people and declare them to be entirely devoid of all morals!!! Why? Merely because they are engaged in an act that is personally distasteful to him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred314X
It remains a biological fact that there are going to be lots of problems with children born of incestuous relationships. So there's actually a perfectly good biological reason for not getting involved with it.
That is why I attempt to separate the conversation. If for example there was a 100% successful contraception... or the people involved were somehow unable to reproduce (sterility etc...) then would people STILL be against incest?
The thing I have noticed is that the people who say they are against incest BECAUSE of reproductive issues STILL say they are against it even when you remove the reproductive issues!!!!!
Which means not only have they not told us why they are against incest... the reason they gave was an outright lie.
Also remember: Incest does not CAUSE mutations in DNA. It just increases the likelihood that mutations already present in the parents will be expressed. A small point but one worth being aware of.
Which means not only have they not told us why they are against incest... the reason they gave was an outright lie.
Just because people are not telling you ALL their reasons, does not mean that they are lying. For example, I gave my reason, it being that it's pretty disgusting. For me, that would be a good reason.
I haven't read the whole thread (bit long!) , and I'm no expert but I believe early Egyptian Royalty and Hawaian royalty used to have brother/ sister children to continue an unbroken royal line. You just have to willing to 'dispose of' any deformed offspring.
I think parent/ child incest is just abuse and I see no defending it.
The brother sister stuff grosses me out and these days you thankfully can't just dispose of imperfect offspring so I think it's best avoided due to the increased risk of birth defects, BUT I guess if it's 2 consenting adults who take the necessary precautions and they want to marry, then what do I care?
Also I have nothing but sympathy for people who meet, fall in love and then discover they are siblings. Must be an awful position to find themselves in and I feel no disgust for them at all. If I discovered that my husband of 8 years was actually a sibling (gross), then I don't know what I'd do - especially if there were mutual children. Get lots of therapy I suppose. It certainly woudn't be a forgone conclusion that we would have to get a divorce.
Just because people are not telling you ALL their reasons, does not mean that they are lying. For example, I gave my reason, it being that it's pretty disgusting. For me, that would be a good reason.
But again I point out that it being disgusting TO YOU does not equate to it being disgusting. This is the idea people have to separate themselves from, that personal disgust is automatically an aspect of the subject... when in fact it is often an aspect of the observer.
I have some sympathy for WHY people feel that way however. Take blue objects for an analogy. If there was a pile of objects and 100 people were asked to point at the blue one, they all likely would point at the same one. We are forgiven for thinking that we see the object as blue because it IS blue and that everyone else sees it as blue too unless something is wrong with them. (tangent discussion about what "blue" actually means notwithstanding).
That impression is likely one people take to their opinions. If they think something is disgusting they... like looking at a blue object.... jump to the conclusion that they think this way because the subject IS disgusting and everyone else should think so too unless something is wrong with them.
However what they need to realise is that in many of those cases the attribute that leads them to the conclusion is an attribute of them themselves, and their personal tastes, and not the action or subject being considered.... unlike blue when the wavelength of light being viewed that gives one the impression of "blue" is actually an attribute of the object reflecting the light.
But again I point out that it being disgusting TO YOU does not equate to it being disgusting. This is the idea people have to separate themselves from, that personal disgust is automatically an aspect of the subject... when in fact it is often an aspect of the observer.
I have some sympathy for WHY people feel that way however. Take blue objects for an analogy. If there was a pile of objects and 100 people were asked to point at the blue one, they all likely would point at the same one. We are forgiven for thinking that we see the object as blue because it IS blue and that everyone else sees it as blue too unless something is wrong with them. (tangent discussion about what "blue" actually means notwithstanding).
That impression is likely one people take to their opinions. If they think something is disgusting they... like looking at a blue object.... jump to the conclusion that they think this way because the subject IS disgusting and everyone else should think so too unless something is wrong with them.
However what they need to realise is that in many of those cases the attribute that leads them to the conclusion is an attribute of them themselves, and their personal tastes, and not the action or subject being considered.... unlike blue when the wavelength of light being viewed that gives one the impression of "blue" is actually an attribute of the object reflecting the light.
Well then you are not looking for a reason, you are looking for an explanation of the reason. You want us to analyze why things are the way they are. But sometimes things are just subconsciously the way they are and people prefer not to think of it, they just go with the feeling. For example, what do you think of vomit? Do you like vomit? Why or why not? Is it because vomit smells bad? But if that is the case, then who is to judge what should smell bad and what should smell good? Perhaps the smell isn't really bad, but other people have said it is, so it must be, right?
Of course, I know vomit smells bad and must be bad somehow, and I don't question it, but you do. That is not logical.
You want us to analyze why things are the way they are.
No I do not. This is yet another example of the errors that happen when instead of giving your own opinion on a subject, you presume to tell other people what theirs is.
Morality and Ethics are subjective things. To me there are two realms. Personal morality and social morality. I have little concern what peoples personal morality is and if they are disgusted by something and want to refrain from engaging in it then that is all well and good. They need not justify their positions on that.
When we are debating social morality however... what we think should generally as a species be considered immoral, or even immoral enough for us to back it up with making it illegal, then the onus is on people to justify their arguments and that onus increases proportionally with the number of people their position will affect and by how much they will be affected.
The issue I am pointing out here time and time again is that those who DO wish to move to have it declared immoral, or even illegal, are not just not providing sufficient justification for their position.... they are often providing no justification for their position and what is worse some of them are even claiming they are exempt from being asked to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by temptation001
But sometimes things are just subconsciously the way they are and people prefer not to think of it, they just go with the feeling.
I agree that is what many people do. I would far from agree that it is a good thing though if asked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by temptation001
Of course, I know vomit smells bad and must be bad somehow, and I don't question it, but you do. That is not logical.
Actually we have questioned it, and that questioning was perfectly logical both in its motivation and its execution and we have found justification for it. There is good Evolutionary argument for why it smells "bad" and therefore going with that instinct is perfectly justifiable. It does not just smell bad for no reason. So you unquestionably just take it that it is bad, but you do not know why... of even if it really is. I have questioned it and I DO know why I hold the position I do on the subject, while you do not.
This is what happens if you search for justification of your instinctual opinions. You will find some of them have good basis, while others do not, or no longer do.
However all this would be based on the assumption that the opinions people hold ARE instinct based as you suggest. Some are not, but are culturally based from early childhood which, in later life, can often be almost indistinguishable from instinct.
Which is one of the main arguments I would give for why the onus is on oneself to explore with oneself ones own opinions and see if you are holding them for good reason, or simply because it has been ingrained in you by others who also had no good reasons for doing so.
You say to question some things is illogical and I just can not agree. Question everything. Thankfully most people do and do not think like you and the discoveries we have made as a species by questioning things where people like you say “do not ask” have been continuous.
Not questioning things is just lazy and pointless. We owe it to ourselves as a species to question everything. I find then the idea that questioning some things is illogical is not just wrong, but would be damaging if it were anything but a minority opinion.
This is what happens if you search for justification of your instinctual opinions. You will find some of them have good basis, while others do not, or no longer do.
However all this would be based on the assumption that the opinions people hold ARE instinct based as you suggest. Some are not, but are culturally based from early childhood which, in later life, can often be almost indistinguishable from instinct.
You say to question some things is illogical and I just can not agree. Question everything. Thankfully most people do and do not think like you and the discoveries we have made as a species by questioning things where people like you say “do not ask” have been continuous.
Not questioning things is just lazy and pointless. We owe it to ourselves as a species to question everything. I find then the idea that questioning some things is illogical is not just wrong, but would be damaging if it were anything but a minority opinion.
This is exactly what I am talking about. You say it is not instinctual to dislike ones family for sexual purposes. Do you have evidence that this is so? Also, it is not for me to question everything in the world. If you want to do it, that is your life, but to me, it is not as fun as it is for you. It is also not important to me to know the why of some things. I just go with what I feel. But the reasons were given as to why people think incest is wrong, you are just wanting to expand on the question.
You say it is not instinctual to dislike ones family for sexual purposes. Do you have evidence that this is so?
It would be helpful if you read what I write before replying to it as I am not claiming that it is not instinctual. I am claiming that I have not been shown any reason to think it is AND that there are many things that are not instinctual but cultural. The question... at least the first question.... that must be asked is which one THIS is.
The second question that one should ask then is whether that is relevant. Just because we are instinctual against something does not mean it is naturally bad. Many people have instinctual revulsion for anything different. That does not mean everything that is different is bad... and in fact such instincts lend themselves to all kinds of things such as racism.
So in summary you have not shown 1) that it is an instinct and 2) that even if it is that this tells us anything about the morality of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by temptation001
Also, it is not for me to question everything in the world. If you want to do it, that is your life, but to me, it is not as fun as it is for you.
It is not just fun. I also think it important. However I find not for the first time that I am baffled at your choice of forum to post on given the "Great Debates" section of this entire forum is specifically FOR people who want to coherently question and debate such things.
Coming into a forum for "X" just to point out you have no interest in "X" is... to me... very odd behavior indeed.
It would be helpful if you read what I write before replying to it as I am not claiming that it is not instinctual. I am claiming that I have not been shown any reason to think it is AND that there are many things that are not instinctual but cultural. The question... at least the first question.... that must be asked is which one THIS is.
The second question that one should ask then is whether that is relevant. Just because we are instinctual against something does not mean it is naturally bad. Many people have instinctual revulsion for anything different. That does not mean everything that is different is bad... and in fact such instincts lend themselves to all kinds of things such as racism.
So in summary you have not shown 1) that it is an instinct and 2) that even if it is that this tells us anything about the morality of it.
The question is "Why is incest wrong", not can someone explain if incest is instinctual or not. That is an entirely different question. People have explained why incest is wrong for them, so the question is being answered.
Quote:
It is not just fun. I also think it important. However I find not for the first time that I am baffled at your choice of forum to post on given the "Great Debates" section of this entire forum is specifically FOR people who want to coherently question and debate such things.
Coming into a forum for "X" just to point out you have no interest in "X" is... to me... very odd behavior indeed.
There you go again throwing that line about this being Great Debates so everyone who doesn't want to start a discussion should get out. YOU obviously don't read what I write. The question is being answered. How many times do I have to repeat it before you get it through? The Great Debates forum is a forum with many threads which people CHOOSE to answer. I chose to answer this question : Why is incest wrong?. You on the other hand are asking a question which is not the actual question. YOU are the one who is veering off topic. Maybe YOU should start a thread with the question : Everybody thinks incest is wrong, but what makes you think incest is disgusting? Is it biological or environmental?...Then people might answer your questions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For example, I gave my reason, it being that it's pretty disgusting. For me, that would be a good reason.
It certainly woudn't be a forgone conclusion that we would have to get a divorce.