I've been wondering all my life what's wrong with incest. As long as it is consensual, of course. The only critical point that I see is the existing relationship of dependence. This applies primarily to relationships between children and parents, but can also exist with other caregivers. But otherwise I see no moral concerns. How do you see it? I'm looking for arguments why society sees it this way.
Personally, I find it a major turn off so I ignore all stories related to it. Historically, I would think the obvious reason is that the prime purpose of sex is reproduction and that relations with relatives increases the chance of generic disorders in children. As for the larger moral argument, one has to figure out where morality comes from.
I'd say with siblings, too - the power differences can be massive. Many, many (younger) siblings are legit abused and traumatized, bullied by (older) siblings without a hint of sex involved. Put sex in the mix, and it becomes potentially real... real sick. I probably don't need to get into how parents are basically life for their children - in terms of every physical need as well as a social lifeline, and should absolutely be dependable - without condition. Expectations of sex violate that. The biological and social taboo is just fine, as is. If some pair wants... *needs* to violate that for a particular romantic love - every rule has exceptions. Some exceptions deserve to violate *every* rule. The rare, and questionable exceptions don't mean the rules shouldnt be in place, and don't have a place, for the rest of us. (Coming from someone who straight up gets off on porn taboo)
Nothing and Everything can be perceived wrong with this. In my case I'm in a half and half spot I guess. I can see others in incestual relation but if I was to read a story as first person then I would be picky on that. I think if a reader has a good relation in RL then one might not feel comfortable reading about such and such acts. However, as Loeman wonderfully states... I guess its just like any other fetishes, some people like it and some don't. Those who like it can really be into it and those who don't might get really turned off by it. And someone writing a story is not going to influence their choices even if its the New York Times Best Seller. I wouldn't use the word historically since scientifically speaking this has come to light rather recently (probably in the last 200 years - I might be wrong but around that). For centuries the logic was not based on science rather by someone high up in the religious ladder or sitting on a throne. While I don't want to dwell on what happens in the religious circle, the monarchy has always been full of hypocrisy. Also, basing this on science is a very lose argument. Does the incestual relation where both partners decide we don't want to make babies suddenly become morally correct ?
Historically, incest was common to keep the money or power within the family. I guess that's only partially true. - Mixing genes up (least-incestuous procreation) will keep most disorders alive and they will only show from time to time. - Narrowing the gene pool (incestuous procreation) will cause disorders until the responsible genes dies out or the family line dies out. I'm not sure which of both versions causes more disorders in total. I think that the idea of disorders is a major moral issue. (Though in the past, there might have been a shift in the awareness of disorders towards incestuous procreation.) That might be another big reason. A hint for that is that also not blood-related relationships like between a person and its step-parent or godparent. Well, I think that incest is most often seen as sexual relationships with minors. In that regard, I totally agree. That is non-consensual without exceptions as the minor isn't capable of realizing its situation. They're always in the position with less power. Though the same applies to relationships between an adult person and a minor who aren't blood-related. So talking about that issue, I think you should distinguish between incestuous relationships with minors and incestuous relationships between consenting adults.
In the medium to long term, genetically, sleeping with close relatives is extremely risky since it massively increases the chance of genetic defects appearing. So it makes sense to discourage people from doing it. A part of that is that we have evolved a mechanism, the Westermarck Effect, that means that we are pre-programmed to not be attracted to our siblings. I remember someone once said "Incest is popular with people who don't have siblings" and for me, that is very much true, I have siblings and have no interest in incest in the slightest.
I don't think that when two people look at each other sexually, the first thing that pops into their mind is babies or marriage. Most teens while growing up are looking for casual sex and probably have not the slightest interest in making babies. However, most don't end up having an incestual relation so it probably has to do how you grow and how that relation develops. From a male perspective, I guess when we are really young, we start with disliking girls, it's only when we hit puberty our thoughts start to change. I guess by then our relations with people growing with us 24/7 is already cemented into a particular role. People frown but not that much when it involves cousins or step-parents because probably the relation has not developed the same way compared to someone with whom one is living 24/7. Having said that, I have also noticed this phenomenon of "experimentation" with the young generation, they are rebellious and want to test new waters and are intrigued with taboo subject matters. Friends and company one keeps can influence a lot.
I would disagree. The vast majority of ancient and modern cultures viewed incest as taboo, if not criminal. Of course there are some exceptions, but the clear norm, especially with "first-degree" relations, were almost universally condemned.
Did...Did you read the rest of my post? I literally explained why most people don't fuck their siblings in the next paragraph? I explained the mechanism in my post but it is worth noting that it has been shown to function with those you have no blood relation to. It seems to simply be the act of growing up with someone that causes them to be "off limits" so to speak. Also, the cultural views on cousins marrying have varied massively even in the last 70 years so it is hard to say but generally sex with a parent or parent figure is always frowned on.
Yes, I did but specifically chose not to include in my quote since "Westermarck Effect" is only a hypothesis and there are other contrasting views to it. Having said that I'm not saying I disagree with your statement. The only statement I was trying to make was if someone does end up developing feelings then the path to not nurture it further would probably have to be based on moral and society rather than the consequences of having a baby.
The Westermarck Effect is a theory which doesn't seem to be confirmed by a meaningful study. (And doing them might be like resurrecting Nazi doctors) If that's the case, there wouldn't be a taboo about it as no one would consider doing it. Even though I can't imagine having an incestuous relationship with any of my close relatives (I have siblings as well), I don't mind it in fiction and also think that consenting adults shouldn't be criminalized and discriminated. Only arguing with possible genetic disorders doesn't give people the right to condemn such relationships as it isn't sure that the couple wants to have children and will have children. Or do you condemn persons who have the Huntington's disease but still want to have sex? Well, I think that might explain why society sees it that way. I can imagine that a lot of people would instantly imagine themselves with their own relatives which causes disgust. For other preferences, they could always argue "that can't happen to me" but ("almost") everyone has a family. And in discussions, it can be difficult for a lot of people to take a stand on their opinion, fearing that they might look like they would practice the discussed things. So even if two out of three would think positively about it, the general thought about it can be negative.
Thank you for the numerous answers! I didn't expect that, but I'm very happy about it I can fully understand that sex with minors is amoral. As you said @gene.sis a minor is unable to understand the situation. Especially if we talk about children whose sexuality has not yet started. @porneia Yes, genetic abnormalities may occur sooner. Today, however, there are numerous methods of contraception, making having children no longer the primary or sole reason for having sex. @LizardGod I heard about the Westermarck Effect. The topic incest turns me on, but I also have a hard time to image that I would enjoy sex with my relatives. I would never make the first move. But I'm not sure how I would react if, for example, my sister came up to me. But I'm probably too unattractive for that. She is on the other hand a few points above me. @Loeman Dependence is a problem. What about two 30-year-old siblings who are financially independent? I find it difficult to find moral reasons against it.
Here is the hard question: How do you know that? I too fully agree sex with a child is immoral, but how do we (as a society) know what is moral or not? Morality cannot be based on the individual, the natural or the subjective, so how can we state whether something is moral or immoral?
Good question! There are different moral concepts. Some are better, some are worse. All moral concepts are in competition with each other. Similar to cultures. This contrasts with moral relativity. My morality is based on the non-aggression principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle). And I have to say that I know no more coherent and consistent morality than the NAP. It comes primarily from libertarian circles, but can certainly be considered as the common moral concept of the West.
Thank you for the fun philosophical chat! And also for the link. While I agree with much of what I read (I do like aspects of Rand's thinking), the same problem remains, it is still subjective. Why couldn't someone else say, "my morality is (insert something different)"? If morality is subjective, it really isn't morality but opinion.
Morality from the way I see can vary huge from person to person, culture to culture. It's a perspective with the lens of society in between your viewfinder. In some regions people by law can have up to 4 wives but can be severely punished if they ever thought about having a relation outside their marriage. While is some you are by law required to have a single spouse but can have as many affairs, open relations, swaps, etc. Both will vouch saying the other is morally wrong. The discussion on morality interests me a lot since I'm penning something on very much the same lines. When and under what circumstances does something amoral might be considered permissible by friends and society. I guess I'll have a new thread for that when the time comes but this was interesting food for thought so far.
Maybe ... I think (yes, my opinion) that morality can and must be universal. Universal means in this case, applicable to all people. I believe that there is one truth, but many different perceptions of the truth. Therefore, I also assume that there is a truth in what is right and wrong. Murder is wrong, rape is wrong, theft is wrong, ... everyone would agree here. But why? Why are these cases clearly wrong? Is there a universal code, a code that can logically justify why and when something is right and wrong? And can this code be applied to marginal issues in order to clarify them? (Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_code_(ethics)) Yes, but law is not ethics.
Note the very modern Western presupposition of the autonomy of the individual. If one starts there, does that defeat any attempt to actually come up with an universal system of morality?
Do you mean "it can apply to everyone" or that "it must apply to everyone?" I would think history testifies otherwise. Not just individuals, but states throughout history have justified and condoned such things. If morality is universal, where do I turn to know what is right and what is wrong?
Universal ethics must be normative and cannot be descriptive. Otherwise, this results in a cluster of opinions, a codex that seeks to pool all the subjective morality in the world. Yes, there are subjective moral concepts, these are opinions and are usually not based on a logical, consistent system. Surely you can justify wrong actions, but this does not automatically make them right. I can tell myself that what I'm doing is right, which does not make it right. That's why there's ethics that tries to get to the bottom of it. A system such as the NAP is based on one axiom and develops a codex or tries to distil a codex.
