Is incest morally wrong between consenting adults? Why or why not? (atheism, abortion)

[GoCardinals]

Originally Posted by cupper3

Usually when one wants to draw the attention of someone, they would use the quote function. It's the little button down in the right hand corner.

My personal code of what is right or wrong is the following:

• If your actions do not harm someone else, or yourself, then it is moral.
• If your actions harm someone else or yourself, than it is immoral.

That pretty well sums up any circumstance I can think of.

Thanks for the little education. Here you go, I am using the quote button, even though I drew your attention without using it.

So from what you are saying, you should NOT have any problem with incest if it's based on mutual consent. (Begs the question, why would you even start this thread?)

However, please define the "hurting others" portion of your philosophy.

Say, you are playing a tennis game and beat the opponent in the finals, that resulted in hurting the feelings of his family and fans.

You attack someone's faith and their believe in God. In theory, you simply voiced your opinion but in practice, it could hurt the feelings of millions of people.

And just for the example sake, say you have an incestal relationship based on mutual consent, and your neighbors come to know about it. So now they are disgusted and have hurt feelings. They wish you to move out their neighborhood.

In all 3 cases above, are your actions right or wrong by your own standards? The answer should be, all three actions are right. In which case, you are conflicting your own self. You are hurting others and feel that your action is still right. Which brings back the question, does the concept of "right or wrong" exist in Atheism?

[june 7th]

Originally Posted by cupper3

I think many of the comments above disregarded a provisio we often attribute to other sexual relationships, and that is, between consenting adults.

Incest is against the law. I am a psychotherapist, and there exists a 10 year statute of limitations whereby an individual can take the incester to court.

Incest has devastating repercussions on the individual who has been incested.

In no way is it justified, allowable, or even close to okay. Talk to someone who has been incested since a child. I can assure you it is NOT okay.....

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by Truth1983

I am saddened and disgusted that my fellow humans would really need to discuss this garbage.

I am rarely saddened or disgusted by rational discussion of any problem, only by a refusal to approach it rationally but demand a kneejerk general concensus based on unconsidered prejudice.

[southernbored]

Originally Posted by june 7th

Incest is against the law. I am a psychotherapist, and there exists a 10 year statute of limitations whereby an individual can take the incester to court.

Incest has devastating repercussions on the individual who has been incested.

In no way is it justified, allowable, or even close to okay. Talk to someone who has been incested since a child. I can assure you it is NOT okay.....

Just pointing out that the bold above is not what the thread is about. He clearly says consenting adults. I think everyone, with maybe the exception of pedophiles, would agree that ANY child being raped, whether incestuous or not, is not okay.

[whoppers]

Some ammo for some, I suppose.

The quite extensive laws in the legal codes of the Bible forbid many forms of incest (though only a few have penalties)....though it does not explicitly forbid incest of a man with his daughter. In the extensive sexual prohibitions, this one is never stated. (The story of Lot and his daughters comes to mind)

A weak apologetic may appeal to the case of a daughter when she's paired with a mother: one is not to have sex with a woman AND her daughter. Of course, this is because of the close relationship, and does not subsume daughters generally under the incest prohibitions (especially since it's a granddaughter) - only in this case.

There is a chart on what is prohibited here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_in_the_Bible.

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

Thanks for the little education. Here you go, I am using the quote button, even though I drew your attention without using it.

So from what you are saying, you should NOT have any problem with incest if it's based on mutual consent. (Begs the question, why would you even start this thread?)

That exactly is the question. If two consenting adults are sexually involved, why is that anyone's business but theirs? Do I find it 'yucky'? You bet, and in a million years I would not want to be involved with my sister or cousins. But those are my feelings; that does not make them correct for the siblings Mary and Joe, who being over the age of majority, frequently enjoy boinking each other. On what moral grounds should we be opposed to that? I'm aware of the potential of genetic issues if they procreate, but let's assume they cannot.

However, please define the "hurting others" portion of your philosophy.

Say, you are playing a tennis game and beat the opponent in the finals, that resulted in hurting the feelings of his family and fans.

You attack someone's faith and their believe in God. In theory, you simply voiced your opinion but in practice, it could hurt the feelings of millions of people.

Good and legitimate question. I think we all agree that physical harm is hurting someone. Most will agree that emotional harm is hurting someone. However, in the example of the tennis game you present, all parties know there is one winner and one loser, and as such, they need to expect to see their side, or themselves, be the loser, and not have the euphoria of the winner. They chose to be in that position of winning or losing, but were not forced into it.

As far as ideas are concerned, they have no feelings or rights. Only people have rights. So, if you feel insulted because someone rails against your religion or politics, that's your problem, not mine or societies.

And just for the example sake, say you have an incestal relationship based on mutual consent, and your neighbors come to know about it. So now they are disgusted and have hurt feelings. They wish you to move out their neighborhood.

It's none of their business, so it is irrelevant.

In all 3 cases above, are your actions right or wrong by your own standards? The answer should be, all three actions are right. In which case, you are conflicting your own self. You are hurting others and feel that your action is still right. Which brings back the question, does the concept of "right or wrong" exist in Atheism?

I've answered you above.

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by june 7th

Incest is against the law. I am a psychotherapist, and there exists a 10 year statute of limitations whereby an individual can take the incester to court.

Incest has devastating repercussions on the individual who has been incested.

In no way is it justified, allowable, or even close to okay. Talk to someone who has been incested since a child. I can assure you it is NOT okay.....

Are your examples between consenting adults or is this a case of a criminal forcing themselves on a minor?

[mordant]

Originally Posted by JerZ

Again, I believe this is based on the dynamics of close family. It is probably based on this even more so than biology.

Family dynamics really are the game changer here as far as "consent" goes...IMO.

I agree. This is my argument against incest. It muddies the waters and erodes the boundaries in an established relationship. I agree with the third link offered by the OP, the basic problem even with consenting adults and contraception in the picture (or siblings not related by blood, or parent / stepchild relations), is that (step)parents and (step)children and siblings need appropriate and healthy boundaries to effectively carry out their roles and relationships with each other. And these are and should be lifelong boundaries. Family members relate in different and special ways throughout their lives within the family rather than outside the family. It's what makes family special.

I think this explains the established taboos and instinctive revulsion for these kinds of activities. These things evolved for good reason, even if people often have trouble articulating them objectively.

When the world is chock-full of billions of possible sexual partners, one wonders why one would choose a member of the immediate family. I suppose it's because of opportunity, existing trust that can be borrowed, and the thrill of its illicitness. But I can't help but think it's fundamentally dysfunctional anyway. It's normal for children to differentiate from their parents and establish separate identities and new families. We rightly decry, say, a mother stunting the growth of her son by not allowing him to be his own man, or a father doing the same sort of overprotection and helicoptering with a daughter. So why would we not disapprove of taking that to another level or three by boinking each other, regardless of age of the parties? It destroys the healthy story arc of separation and turns it on its head.

Finally I think there's a fundamental innocence that's positive in families. My adult stepdaughter was visiting a few weeks ago and was trying to do a quick load of wash. I realized she was having troubles due to not being familiar with the machine and helped her get it started. Some minutes later I realized she had just gotten out of the shower and was wearing nothing but a towel at the time. And neither of us registered that. If it had been any other guest in the house, the guest wouldn't have been running around the house in nothing but a towel and if they had been I would have been acutely uncomfortable. As it was ... we were still parent and child and where else could she be that safe and uncomplicated and undefensive? I think that is a good thing and I would never encroach on it in any way.

Of course I would never be in an intimate relationship that was that age-inappropriate in the first place, but that's a whole other topic relating to relational power dynamics and different needs at different places in life. I mention it only because when it comes to incest between parents and adult children, it inherently has to be on top of other impediments to a healthy relationship between equals. Parents doing that aren't just committing incest but creating inherently dysfunctional and unbalanced relationships quite apart from the incest.

I have less problem with adult siblings getting it on but it's still a pretty bad scene. It's effectively destroying one relationship that should be uniquely supportive and positive, to create a different one entirely. I think what SHOULD exist between adult siblings is far more valuable than that.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

So if there is a male Atheist who has a sexual relationship with his mother based on mutual consent, what would we call him?

And should that term be offensive to that particular Atheist?

The reason I pitched the above scenario is that usually Atheists have two answers when they are told that there shouldn't be any "right or wrong" in the Atheism because an Atheist believes that he is not answerable to God.

1 - Oh yes, we do believe in right or wrong where we as individuals decide what is right and what is wrong.
2 - We go by what the society has set as the moral standard and by the official laws.

Since the OP is started by an Atheist, they should tell us what is their concept of "right or wrong" if it's different from the two items above?

I don't understand where you get such notions. That I am not answerable to god has nothing to do with whether there is right or wrong. I am answerable to myself and to society. There is no question that I exist and that society exists, and society and I both hold views on what is right and wrong. This holds me far more accountable than an invisible being that you allege has moral claims on me.

Apart from that, I function within multiple social contracts (both explicit and implicit), including those between me and my wife, me and my children, me and my siblings. Those contracts are no less binding, and people no less harmed when they are broken, just because I don't happen to see any good reason to afford belief to any god.

I think your fundamental problem is that you believe yourself and your fellow humans to be so depraved and evil and prone to selfishness and irresponsible that you can't see how people would get along just based on what they can see right in front of them are harms or benefits. And yet in point of fact that is really exactly what everyone DOES do. Some like yourself might CLAIM to be extra accountable to or restrained by supernatural forces, but that is just a claim. In point of fact you personally believe certain things to be right and wrong and you largely agree with what society considers right and wrong. Where you don't agree with society you either meet or exceed society's requirements or suffer the sanctions of society. This is all I do, too.

[GoCardinals]

Originally Posted by cupper3

That exactly is the question. If two consenting adults are sexually involved, why is that anyone's business but theirs? ...:snip: .... On what moral grounds should we be opposed to that? I'm aware of the potential of genetic issues if they procreate, but let's assume they cannot.

Read these two underlined notions again.

On one hand you claim that when two consenting adults are sexually involved then it's no one else's business.

And on the other hand, you want to pass a judgement on their actions using moral grounds and call it wrong and want to oppose it.

Clearly a conflict in your thought process.

It's also in contradiction to your belief that as long as you don't hurt anyone, you are not doing anything wrong. The two consenting adults are having an incestal relationship, it shouldn't bother you. They are not indulging a physical harm on you. So I don't know why would you want to use some moral grounds and oppose them?