1 John Lambie Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 I can quite confidently say that incest will not be morally acceptable, or legal, in 44/50/100 years time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 (edited) I can quite confidently say that incest will not be morally acceptable, or legal, in 44/50/100 years time. Even if you can, so what? That was sort of the point I was making: morality exists independent of "what the majority think at an arbitrary point in time". Homosexuality didn't become "not wrong". It was always "not wrong". It's just that society wrongly concluded for centuries that it was. You've still not addressed the underlying reasons for that lack of moral acceptability as you perceive it. Edited May 2, 2011 by Woodstock Jag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix1876 Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 (edited) Sick and disgusting according to whom? As long as there are two fully consenting adults and the appropriate measures are taken to eliminate the risk of pregnancy, is it really substantially different to "normal" sexual activity? so in your eyes, beastiality could potentially be ok ?! even with cars mate ?! Edited May 3, 2011 by phoenix1876 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda-jag Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 Are you looking at this rationally or just confirming society's bias, though? I personally would not shag my sister (or indeed my mother, aunts or grandmothers for that matter ). That doesn't mean that it is somehow morally wrong or morally repulsive for others to do so if they are two consenting adults who understand the potential consequences of their behaviour and take necessary steps not to cause unnecessary harm either to each other or to other people. Sexual activity is just that: sexual activity. It takes place between persons. The only moral issue I can see is of consent. Why should something as incidental as biological commonality make sexual relations outside the realm of normality or acceptability. "It's just wrong" isn't a proper reason; it's not a reason at all. It's just stating it to be wrong without any actual evidence or reason to support it. + Other posts by WJ since on this thread Keep digging your hole WJ on this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackpool Jags Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 WJ outed! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Logic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 so in your eyes, beastiality could potentially be ok ?! even with cars mate ?! It entirely depends on whether it can be argued that an animal can consent. It's not comparable to incest. As for cars, they certainly don't make me tick on a sexual level, but each to their own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afghan Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 It entirely depends on whether it can be argued that an animal can consent. It's not comparable to incest. As for cars, they certainly don't make me tick on a sexual level, but each to their own. This is where I think your argument collapses. Clearly an animal cannot consent, so ethically have to protect the animal, hence the illegality of bestiality. With incest, however, I think we have legislated to protect the vulnerable. The age of consent is 16. I wonder how the situation plays out, say, with a potentially abusive father and a 16 year old daughter. She clearly loves her father, and he makes demands that she "consents" to. Is she consenting for the right reasons? Will she be comfortable with that "consent" when she is older? Sometimes you have to make judgments in the ethical and moral minefield. Would you, WJ, be happy to say that, since the girl "consented", that that act, that abuse of power, was not morally reprehensible? And now I feel a bit sick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 (edited) This is where I think your argument collapses. Clearly an animal cannot consent, so ethically have to protect the animal, hence the illegality of bestiality. With incest, however, I think we have legislated to protect the vulnerable. The age of consent is 16. I wonder how the situation plays out, say, with a potentially abusive father and a 16 year old daughter. She clearly loves her father, and he makes demands that she "consents" to. Is she consenting for the right reasons? Will she be comfortable with that "consent" when she is older? Sometimes you have to make judgments in the ethical and moral minefield. Would you, WJ, be happy to say that, since the girl "consented", that that act, that abuse of power, was not morally reprehensible? And now I feel a bit sick. No it's not where the argument collapses at all. Indeed precisely the point I was making is that it would be extremely difficult to argue that an animal can consent. Going back to the issue if incest, "demands that she 'consents' to" isn't consent at all. That is... rape. Consent, by definition, must not be coerced. Edit: and rape isn't an incest only crime. What we're seeing is an appeal to emotive arguments which circumstantially involve incest, but where the moral wrong is rooted in something far more general that would apply to the situation even where the two parties are not related. Edited May 3, 2011 by Woodstock Jag Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twinny Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 If I may, I'd draw everyone back to the homosexuality analogy. Just because it's not something you personally would do; just because it's not something you personally would feel comfortable with doing; just because it's not the most prevalent norm; does not mean that it is morally repulsive, morally unjustifiable, or morally vacuous. Speak for yourself Seriously though, there are several biological deterrents that aim to prevent incest, my earlier example was only that, one example, there are others. The meaning of life from a biological perspective is to reproduce and perpetuate, to pass on your genes and give your offspring the best opportunity of passing on their genes and so on. For males throughout evolution, it has not always been necessary to remain with your offspring, and perhaps a short term gain (but not in the long term) would be to pass on your genes with anybody you can, however your offspring will be less able to pass on your genes due to potential defects and even sterility caused by incest. From the female perspective, women have to look after the offspring, and will be at a loss if they are to conceive to a close family member. This biological perspective does of course only examine sex as a means of reproducing and isn't taking into account modern sexual behaviours, however they have their root in the biological context. It will be quite difficult make any argument against the acceptability of incest without using a biological context. The only link between the reproductive behaviour and psycho-sexual behaviour would be that for the majority (but I guess not all) having sex is a means of developing your relationship with those close to you with whom you actually are 'in a relationship with'. Your attempt to compare views on incest to views on homosexuality actually sicken me, and I imagine would offend most homosexuals Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 Speak for yourself Seriously though, there are several biological deterrents that aim to prevent incest, my earlier example was only that, one example, there are others. The meaning of life from a biological perspective is to reproduce and perpetuate, to pass on your genes and give your offspring the best opportunity of passing on their genes and so on. For males throughout evolution, it has not always been necessary to remain with your offspring, and perhaps a short term gain (but not in the long term) would be to pass on your genes with anybody you can, however your offspring will be less able to pass on your genes due to potential defects and even sterility caused by incest. From the female perspective, women have to look after the offspring, and will be at a loss if they are to conceive to a close family member. This biological perspective does of course only examine sex as a means of reproducing and isn't taking into account modern sexual behaviours, however they have their root in the biological context. It will be quite difficult make any argument against the acceptability of incest without using a biological context. The only link between the reproductive behaviour and psycho-sexual behaviour would be that for the majority (but I guess not all) having sex is a means of developing your relationship with those close to you with whom you actually are 'in a relationship with'. Your attempt to compare views on incest to views on homosexuality actually sicken me, and I imagine would offend most homosexuals You keep equating incest to in-breeding. They're not the same thing! And I'm going to keep going with this homosexuality analogy, not to insult homosexuals, but to show how ridiculous the incest exceptionalism is. Evolution's use of gender to increase genetic diversity (as opposed to the asexual or mixed-sex organisms that precede most mammals) clearly exists in such a manner as to preclude the reproductive situation involving two animals of the same sex. And yet we don't say that homosexuality or homosexual activities are wrong on the basis of their non-reproductive outcomes; quite the opposite. We separate quite clearly emotional and physical attraction and engagement from the biproduct of unprotected activity of that kind, which is the possibility of reproduction and continuation of the species. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Heron Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 Jeez, this is a bit highbrow for a football forum. I'd agree with WJ up to a point and that is probably the point that differentiates libertarians from liberals. His suggestion that an individual should be able to opt out of legislation because they consider it infringes their own personal liberty is simply wrong. Collective action in the common good certainly overrides any individual issues in my book, and the political arena is where such judgements are reached. But those that consider themselves on the wrong side of these judgements should be just as subject to whatever the decision is regardless of their own views. On that basis, WJ is correct to make the core distinction that he does about health care and even incest. But equally, that is countered by the collective legislative action taken which regulates/controls what happens in society. Or as WJ no doubt considers it, oppresses his rights as an individual. At root, liberarianism is basically selfishness turned into a philosophical position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1 John Lambie Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 (edited) So all gay guys should donate to a sperm bank, so to continue the breeding process? What about lesbians? Life isnt as simple as you make out, many decide never to have children (both male & female) is that wrong? Edited May 3, 2011 by 1 John Lambie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 Jeez, this is a bit highbrow for a football forum. I'd agree with WJ up to a point and that is probably the point that differentiates libertarians from liberals. His suggestion that an individual should be able to opt out of legislation because they consider it infringes their own personal liberty is simply wrong. Not "legislation" writ large, but services and the upkeep thereof, definitely. Collective action in the common good certainly overrides any individual issues in my book, and the political arena is where such judgements are reached. But those that consider themselves on the wrong side of these judgements should be just as subject to whatever the decision is regardless of their own views. Individual freedom is paramount, and for me the core of true liberalism. Collective action is only collective action in so far as it exists to protect individual freedom. Anything more than that tips the balance and becomes majorative (sometimes minorative) tyranny. This is not to say that people should not be subject to any rule of law whatsoever. But that law must be just and not oppressive. On that basis, WJ is correct to make the core distinction that he does about health care and even incest. But equally, that is countered by the collective legislative action taken which regulates/controls what happens in society. Or as WJ no doubt considers it, oppresses his rights as an individual. At root, liberarianism is basically selfishness turned into a philosophical position. What I'm challenging is the rational basis of the legislation. I don't regard libertarianism to be "selfish". Is it selfish to want, first and foremost, not to have norms imposed upon you by a crude majority? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 So all gay guys should donate to a sperm bank, so to continue the breeding process? What about lesbians? Sorry, I don't follow this at all. No one's saying they should! Life isnt as simple as you make out, many decide never to have children (both male & female) is that wrong? Well exactly! So incest is clearly distinct from in-breeding! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 So all gay guys should donate to a sperm bank, so to continue the breeding process? What about lesbians? They should be egged on to do something useful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 They should be egged on to do something useful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afghan Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 No it's not where the argument collapses at all. Indeed precisely the point I was making is that it would be extremely difficult to argue that an animal can consent. Going back to the issue if incest, "demands that she 'consents' to" isn't consent at all. That is... rape. Consent, by definition, must not be coerced. Edit: and rape isn't an incest only crime. What we're seeing is an appeal to emotive arguments which circumstantially involve incest, but where the moral wrong is rooted in something far more general that would apply to the situation even where the two parties are not related. That's what I said. An animal can't consent. I am suggesting that your definition of consent is problematic given the emotional dynamic in some families. Possibly, I chose the wrong words when addressing you. Substitute "demands" for "requests" or even "overtures". There is a real risk of an abuse of power. It is, after all, how so much child abuse goes on undetected. And there is plenty of literature out there to support that point of view, and as a computer literate under-graduate you will know that. I reiterate, and note that you didn't address it, that sometimes we have to legislate to protect the vulnerable. Also, I might have a bit more time for your so-called libertarian points of view if you didn't make cheap jokes about small children who have gone missing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 That's what I said. An animal can't consent. I am suggesting that your definition of consent is problematic given the emotional dynamic in some families. Possibly, I chose the wrong words when addressing you. Substitute "demands" for "requests" or even "overtures". There is a real risk of an abuse of power. It is, after all, how so much child abuse goes on undetected. And there is plenty of literature out there to support that point of view, and as a computer literate under-graduate you will know that. I reiterate, and note that you didn't address it, that sometimes we have to legislate to protect the vulnerable. But that's what we have the age of consent for. That's why rape is a crime. It doesn't follow that this makes "incest" itself wrong any more than child abuse makes sexual intercourse "wrong". Also, I might have a bit more time for your so-called libertarian points of view if you didn't make cheap jokes about small children who have gone missing. Fair point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afghan Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 I've just seen that now. You make a "joke" about Madeline McCann and then red card that? You are, amongst many things, a hypocrite and a waste of an education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 I've just seen that now. You make a "joke" about Madeline McCann and then red card that? You are, amongst many things, a hypocrite and a waste of an education. The red card was a joke, because the thread was about to descend into a series of puns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrD Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 (edited) thus far, no one has provided any reasons to justify the taboo of incest. the closest so far has been afghans attacj on incest, on the premise that it constitutes an abuse of power. in most cases that would most certainly be the case, but that would not constitute genuine consent in the first place, so it doesn't knock down the consent argument at root. all woodstock needs to say 'all things being equal' and posit a particular situation where this abuse of power does not take place and the point stands. tbh, i kinda felt the reaction to sige sige was total moral panic. essentially he was saying the same thing as woodstock, only not as articulately put and maybe with barriers such as language it would be difficult to put such a nuanced account. in argument, one aught to apply the 'principle of charity' and i think that is especially pertinant when there is a language barrier to consider. lest what we witness is another form of power being abused which is kinda sad innit?? Edited May 3, 2011 by mrD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaggernaut Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 The red card was a joke, because the thread was about to descend into a series of puns. You should know by now that posting on this forum is like treading on eggshells. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodstock Jag Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 You should know by now that posting on this forum is like treading on eggshells. No need to egg them on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afghan Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 The red card was a joke, because the thread was about to descend into a series of puns. It's the way you tell 'em............... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrD Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 My thought on personal liberty seems to have offended some people. On the issue of personal choice, I am a libertarian. One must be allowed to do anything unless violating others' rights. For example, suicide, drug, prostitution, pornography, incest, gambling, etc. must be legal. However, one who choose a dangerous choice, such as boxing, mountaineering in winter, etc. must understand that s/he cannot receive rescue from the public organisations. just out of interest tho sige sige, how does your libertarian stance which seems to presuppose a capitalist economy (prostitution, pornography - these involve market exchange right?) sit with your communist standpoints. are you a libertarian communist, ie anarchist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.