Incest. Why Not?

[Augustus]

I'm pretty confident that the value judgments in your post are your own.

My point was that if something is to some degree an evolved response (as has been claimed in numerous scientific papers), should we consider it as arbitrary and subjective as any personal preference?

If you can say the you are highly confident I'm only saying this because I dislike incest, then surely you must extend that assumption to the people who wrote the numerous papers that present such views.

 

[joe1776]

My point was that if something is to some degree an evolved response (as has been claimed in numerous scientific papers), should we consider it as arbitrary and subjective as any personal preference?.

How does one tell the difference between an "evolved response" and a bias?

John P. A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and health research at Stanford University and an expert on the topic writes that most research claims in his field are likely to be false. "Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias." Supporting the Ioannidis claim: A massive effort to test the validity of 100 psychology experiments found that more than 50 percent of the studies failed to replicate. This is based on a study published in the journal Science.

 

[Augustus]

How does one tell the difference between an "evolved response" and a bias?

John P. A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and health research at Stanford University and an expert on the topic writes that most research claims in his field are likely to be false. "Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias." Supporting the Ioannidis claim: A massive effort to test the validity of 100 psychology experiments found that more than 50 percent of the studies failed to replicate. This is based on a study published in the journal Science.

There is no foolproof way, merely different ways of identifying the likelihood of research finding being more or less accurate. If multiple studies focusing on different aspects of the same phenomenon find similar results, that would relate to things being more reliable, although, of course, not to the extent that they are certainly accurate.

I could note that you cherry pick even single points from psychological studies as being highly accurate, even when the overall study disagrees with your ideological assumption. In this regard, how can you tell evolved response from bias regarding conscience?

Also, seeing as you believe conscience is a perfect moral guide, what do you think about incest?

 

[joe1776]

There is no foolproof way, merely different ways of identifying the likelihood of research finding being more or less accurate.
If multiple studies focusing on different aspects of the same phenomenon find similar results, that would relate to things being more reliable, although, of course, not to the extent that they are certainly accurate.

Are you claiming that there are multiple studies in existence on attitudes toward incest that show that these attitudes have evolved and are not merely cultural biases?

I could note that you cherry pick even single points from psychological studies as being highly accurate, even when the overall study disagrees with your ideological assumption. In this regard, how can you tell evolved response from bias regarding conscience?

In the only study I've linked you to (Haidt) there was only one point studied -- the judgments of conscience were shown to be intuition and not judgments of reason. I didn't agree with much of Haidt's reasoning on the implications of his study but his research supported my point.

Also, seeing as you believe conscience is a perfect moral guide, what do you think about incest?

As I wrote earlier, my conscience informs me that incest between consenting adults who cannot reproduce would not be wrong.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I find it fascinating that incest taboos are pretty much universally found in every culture, but what is considered incest greatly and widely varies.

 

[Skwim]

I find it fascinating that incest taboos are pretty much universally found in every culture, but what is considered incest greatly and widely varies.

Doesn't it.

​

​

.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Doesn't it.

​

View attachment 25505

​

.

Taboos are not necessarily illegal, and violating many mores may garner scowls of disapproval the action is perfectly legal. Flag burning, for example, is both taboo and legal.

 

[Skwim]

Taboos are not necessarily illegal, and violating many mores may garner scowls of disapproval the action is perfectly legal. Flag burning, for example, is both taboo and legal.

Yup.

.

 

[Augustus]

Are you claiming that there are multiple studies in existence on attitudes toward incest that show that these attitudes have evolved and are not merely cultural biases?

Yes

For example: Psychiatry Online

In the only study I've linked you to (Haidt) there was only one point studied -- the judgments of conscience were shown to be intuition and not judgments of reason. I didn't agree with much of Haidt's reasoning on the implications of his study but his research supported my point.

His argument was that they were both, you just ignored that other part that didn't support you along with the importance he placed on culture.

As I wrote earlier, my conscience informs me that incest between consenting adults who cannot reproduce would not be wrong.

That's a very specific view of conscience though: one which values individual liberty above potential social harms (which would be a very strange way for a species which is dependent on cooperation to evolve).

Given that most incest is non-consensual, there is at least a reasonable case to be made that legalising it could cause greater harm to innocents (for various reasons).

One could hypothetically support your perspective yet still want it to be illegal for this reason. How would a universal conscience objectively decide between such a dilemma?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Yes

For example: Psychiatry Online



His argument was that they were both, you just ignored that other part that didn't support you along with the importance he placed on culture.



That's a very specific view of conscience though: one which values individual liberty above potential social harms (which would be a very strange way for a species which is dependent on cooperation to evolve).

Given that most incest is non-consensual, there is at least a reasonable case to be made that legalising it could cause greater harm to innocents (for various reasons).

One could hypothetically support your perspective yet still want it to be illegal for this reason. How would a universal conscience objectively decide between such a dilemma?

What is the evidence for this claim.?
It would seem more likely that siblings of any age are involved. Consensual sibling Incest is ignored by most authorities even when technically illegal. it is certainly rarely reported by the siblings involved.

Father daughter Incest can be consensual, but is rarely so, and immediate taken up as a news event when it comes to light. This become almost the only incestual relationships we ever learn about, to the exclusion of all others.

 

[Skwim]

Given that most incest is non-consensual, there is at least a reasonable case to be made that legalising it could cause greater harm to innocents (for various reasons).?

Whether incest would be considered rape or not depends on the country or state. In Utah for instance, incestuous relations include those involving

"Person known to be ancestor, descendant, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, or first cousin, without regard to whole or half blood relationship, legitimacy, parent and child by adoption, or relationship of stepparent and stepchild while the marriage creating the relationship of a stepparent and stepchild exists."​

And the incestuous act is:

"Sexual intercourse (not amounting to rape, rape of a child or aggravated sexual assault)"
Source: Wikipedia
​

Which means the rape of any person listed in "incestuous relations" above would not be considered to be incest, just rape.

.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Whether incest would be considered rape or not depends on the country or state. In Utah for instance, incestuous relations include those involving

"Person known to be ancestor, descendant, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew, niece, or first cousin, without regard to whole or half blood relationship, legitimacy, parent and child by adoption, or relationship of stepparent and stepchild while the marriage creating the relationship of a stepparent and stepchild exists."​

And the incestuous act is:

"Sexual intercourse (not amounting to rape, rape of a child or aggravated sexual assault)"
Source: Wikipedia
​

Which means the rape of any person listed in "incestuous relations" above would not be considered to be incest, just rape.

.

What happens in a state like Utah when a first cousin married couple visit that state.
it must happen often enough. as most countries do not class that as incest.

There are also many classes of first cousin, a first cousin twice removed has a common great grand father but is the same generation as your grand father. But if your great grand father had many children over a long period and as did your grand father a first cousin twice remove might well be the same age as you.

I have an aunt who is 16 years younger than me, and her children are a similar age to my grand children.

 

[Polymath257]

What happens in a state like Utah when a first cousin married couple visit that state.
it must happen often enough. as most countries do not class that as incest.

There are also many classes of first cousin, a first cousin twice removed has a common great grand father but is the same generation as your grand father. But if your great grand father had many children over a long period and as did your grand father a first cousin twice remove might well be the same age as you.

I have an aunt who is 16 years younger than me, and her children are a similar age to my grand children.

Generally, states will recognize valid marriages made in another state as a sign of 'respect' for that other state. This was an issue in the gay marriage debate when some states threatened to go against this sign of respect.

 

[joe1776]

Yes

For example: Psychiatry Online

I asked you if you are you claiming that there are multiple studies in existence on attitudes toward incest that show that these attitudes have evolved and are not merely cultural biases? You answered "yes" and then linked me to the abstract of a paper which presents an hypothesis offered in an online journal. It is not research and cannot be replicated. It is simply one more hypothesis that can be added to the group of others like it on kin relationships.

Evolution is a fact but the many claims of evolutionary biologists that have been offered can't be accepted as fact unless they can be tested and replicated. Those "multiple studies" that you claimed on the topic of incest don't exist.

His argument was that they were both, you just ignored that other part that didn't support you along with the importance he placed on culture.

You strike me as very bright. So, I'm assuming you know the difference between the research a social scientist does and his argument on its implications. Yet, you won't accept my explanation that Haidt's research was the first to support the logical position that I held for years, that the judgments of conscience are intuitive but his reasoning about his research was flawed in my opinion.

Haidt's research did not demonstrate that the judgments of conscience are comprised of both reason and intuition as you claim. He merely assumed, as had almost all the great minds before him had, that the wonderful human ability to reason was also involved and that conflicting intuition could be blamed for our errors in judgment.

For example, when people couldn't reasonably explain the judgments they made intuitively, Haidt assumed these judgments were questionable. He didn't grant the possibility that one might intuitively know the truth yet be unable to adequately explain it.

Haidt also questioned a group on incest. He made up a scenario in which a brother and sister had sex but there was no chance of pregnancy. The group split. Most thought it wrong. For John Haidt, this was evidence that intuition was unreliable, sending conflicting messages.

Now, let's imagine that he had given the group the facts in an absolutely clear case of a killing in self-defense, would he expect 100% agreement that it was justifiable? Of course not. We know that the human mind likes the simplicity of absolute rules and many believe that killing is always wrong. So, unless you control for self-made moral rules, the results of your tests will be skewed.

Haidt did not control for the cultural bias against incest, that it's always wrong, before questioning the group on this topic.

That's a very specific view of conscience though: one which values individual liberty above potential social harms (which would be a very strange way for a species which is dependent on cooperation to evolve).

Given that most incest is non-consensual, there is at least a reasonable case to be made that legalising it could cause greater harm to innocents (for various reasons).

One could hypothetically support your perspective yet still want it to be illegal for this reason. How would a universal conscience objectively decide between such a dilemma?

You are straining logic to find fault with my position. You are, in effect, arguing that laws can't allow for exceptions.

Our laws on killing don't make criminals of people who kill in self-defense. There's no reason that people who engage in incest as consenting adults when reproduction isn't possible can't be exempted from a law prohibiting most incestuous acts.

 

[Cooky]

In another of my threads, God's Attitude Toward Homosexuality, the issue of incest was brought up. To justify its immorality the author of the post provided the following Link titled The Problem With Incest. In it, author Hal Herzog Ph.D. notes that one of the most serious side effects of incest is the high percentage of birth defects resulting from intercourse between first degree relatives. It notes that one study of Czechoslovakian children born of such impregnations, "Fewer than half of the children who were the product of incestuous unions were completely healthy. Forty-two percent of them were born with severe birth defects or suffered early death and another 11 percent were mildly mentally impaired." In my opinion, a seemingly darn good reason not to have sex with mom or dad, or even sis and bro.

Just to interrupt for a sec. for a definition of incest. USLegal.com says:

Laws vary by state, but generally, a person commits incest if he marries or engages in sexual intercourse with a person he knows to be, either legitimately or illegitimately:

His ancestor or descendant by blood or adoption; or
His brother or sister of the whole or half-blood or by adoption; or
His stepchild or stepparent, while the marriage creating the relationship exists; or
His aunt, uncle, nephew or niece of the whole or half-blood.

source

[ A personal note. I wasn't aware that sexual intercourse or marriage were necessary factors.]​

Herzog's article also mentions the taboo attached to incest. Explaining this taboo, Herzog says "the primary psychological anti-incest mechanism is the yuck response." So, there are two mechanisms at work that back incest prohibition

1. It's high degree of potential for children with birth defects.
2. It's a cultural taboo.

Although I acknowledge the potential harm that can result from intercourse between first degree relatives. This is severely mitigated where the female is infertile, or where at least one of the parties is made sterile by a vasectomy, tubal ligation, or the like. In these cases reason #1 for prohibiting incest no longer exists, rendering the reason moot. This leaves cultural taboo as justification for outlawing incest. But what is the justification for the taboo? Typically it comes down to a long standing prohibition based on moral judgement, which I've never heard explained any better than: "it's bad" or "It's icky." I recognize there's a psychological power component that can come into play between a parent and child, but it's not a necessary given. So this aside:

I'd like to hear your best reasoned justification for the unqualified prohibition, legal or not, of incest.

.

How Incest Caused The Deformities And Downfall Of One Of Europe's Most Powerful Royal Families

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yup.

.

So, then what's with the post trying to assess the tabooness of something by bringing up incest laws?

 

[Augustus]

I asked you if you are you claiming that there are multiple studies in existence on attitudes toward incest that show that these attitudes have evolved and are not merely cultural biases? You answered "yes" and then linked me to the abstract of a paper which presents an hypothesis offered in an online journal. It is not research and cannot be replicated. It is simply one more hypothesis that can be added to the group of others like it on kinship relationships.

If you haven't read it, how do you know? Do you automatically dismiss peer-reviewed journals simply for having a website (as almost all of them do)?

It's really an overview of numerous papers published on the issue.

Those "multiple studies" that you claimed on the topic of incest don't exist.

Google: evolutionary biology + incest if you don't believe me

Yet, you won't accept my explanation that Haidt's research was the first to support the logical position that I held for years, that the judgments of conscience are intuitive but his reasoning about his research was flawed in my opinion.

The main problem is that he's saying the exact opposite of you. You believe intuition is perfect and universal, he is arguing it is a product of socio-cultural factors (he even calls it the social intuitist model) and not necessarily benign.

Haidt's research did not demonstrate that the judgments of conscience are comprised of both reason and intuition as you claim.

The social intuitionist model proposes a very different arrangement, one that fully integrates reasoning, emotion, intuition, and social influence. The discussion thus far may have given the impression that the model dismisses reasoning as post-hoc rationalization (link 2). However it must be stressed that four of the six links in the model are reasoning links, and three of these links (3, 5, and 6) are hypothesized to have real causal effects on moral judgment... Link 6, the reflective judgment link, allows that people may sometimes engage in private moral reasoning for themselves, particularly when their initial intuitions conflict. Abortion may feel wrong to many people when they think about the fetus, but right when their attention shifts to the woman. When competing intuitions are evenly matched the judgment system becomes deadlocked and the “master” (in Hume’s metaphor) falls silent. Under such circumstances one may go through repeated cycles of links 6, 1, and 2, using reasoning and intuition together to break the deadlock.

Haidt did not control for the cultural bias against incest, that it's always wrong, before questioning the group on this topic.

Haidt believe cultural bias is inherent in moral intuition.

You are straining logic to find fault with my position. You are, in effect, arguing that laws can't allow for exceptions.

I'm asking about a perfect universal conscience, not reasoned laws. This only allows for one 'correct' judgement.

Once you claim both perfection and universality, you create an incredibly high burden of proof on your argument. In this case you have 2 situations that could both be seen as 'moral' based on the axioms you begin from, you seem to be arguing that our universal, perfect conscience would favour individual liberty over collective good in cases where there is some degree of informational opacity.

Or perhaps, as Haidt argued:

When competing intuitions are evenly matched the judgment system becomes deadlocked and the “master” (in Hume’s metaphor) falls silent. Under such circumstances one may go through repeated cycles of links 6, 1, and 2, using reasoning and intuition together to break the deadlock.

 

[joe1776]

If you haven't read it, how do you know? Do you automatically dismiss peer-reviewed journals simply for having a website (as almost all of them do)?

Logically, there is no way to tell the difference between an "evolved response and a bias. Yet you made the claim that evidence of an evolved response had been reported in numerous peer-reviewed scientific papers." When asked to support your claim, the best you could do is to link me to an abstract which described an hypothesis that incest has a kin relationship. Is it that you don't understand that an hypothesis is not evidence of anything?

The main problem is that he's saying the exact opposite of you. You believe intuition is perfect and universal, he is arguing it is a product of socio-cultural factors (he even calls it the social intuitist model) and not necessarily benign.

I understand that but you need to understand that the only thing that Haidt's research proved was that the judgments of conscience are intuitive. So, your perception that his work demonstrated that those judgments were both intuitive and reasoned is wrong. His research doesn't support the cultural influence that he has come to believe.

Once you claim both perfection and universality, you create an incredibly high burden of proof on your argument.

My claim is that conscience is the ONLY moral authority we have therefore its judgments have to be considered infallible. However, those judgments must be made case-by-case and by a jury unbiased on the case.

For example, you would be a biased juror if the case involved consensual sex between an adult brother and a sister unable to reproduce because you didn't allow your moral intuition (conscience) to guide you. Instead, you reasoned your way into a conflict between the case at hand and individual rights. You reasoned your way into a bias.

 

[Augustus]

Logically, there is no way to tell the difference between an "evolved response and a bias.

Yet you do this with conscience, a much more complex issue.

Anyway, if you read the papers then you can meaningfully critique their methodology, until then...

et you made the claim that evidence of an evolved response had been reported in numerous peer-reviewed scientific papers." When asked to support your claim, the best you could do is to link me to an abstract which described an hypothesis that incest has a kin relationship. Is it that you don't understand that an hypothesis is not evidence of anything?

As I acknowledged earlier, whether the numerous peer-reviewed articles conclusively demonstrate an evolved response is certainly open to debate as are many scientific findings. What is not in doubt is that such papers exist and that this can be objectively verified by the process I told you. Google: evolutionary biology incest, and you will find what you seek. If you don't want to, that's up to you.

I assume anything else I link to will be dismissed out of hand without being read anyway, so probably best to end this avenue of discussion as it won't lead anywhere productive.

I understand that but you need to understand that the only thing that Haidt's research proved was that the judgments of conscience are intuitive. So, your perception that his work demonstrated that those judgments were both intuitive and reasoned is wrong. His research doesn't support the cultural influence that he has come to believe.

Very convenient that he just happened to be stone dead wrong about everything, yet perfectly correct in the single thing you desperately wanted to be true, which he proved beyond doubt.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this issue too.

For example, you would be a biased juror if the case involved consensual sex between an adult brother and a sister unable to reproduce because you didn't allow your moral intuition (conscience) to guide you. Instead, you reasoned your way into a conflict between the case at hand and individual rights. You reasoned your way into a bias.

Or alternatively, I used my evolved intuition and you reasoned your way into a bias (or that we are both biased which is highly likely). Isn't it more likely that fancy apes like us evolved to intuitively think 'don't have sex with your sister', than 'in cases when one or both of the partners are infertile and we have carried out sufficient background checks to ensure that nobody is being exploited, then it can probably be considered ok to have sex with your sister'.

If you assume one of us must be thinking erroneously, why assume that person is me, rather than you?

You probably agree that most people in the world would oppose any form of incest (although you believe this would be out of bias), so why are you certain that the intuitive and unbiased perspective is the minority view? What would be the evidence for this?

 

[joe1776]

If you haven't read it, how do you know?

I read what you linked and it wasn't what you claimed even though you claimed there were "multiple studies." You can't find one to support your claim.

The main problem is that he's saying the exact opposite of you. You believe intuition is perfect and universal, he is arguing it is a product of socio-cultural factors (he even calls it the social intuitist model) and not necessarily benign.

Yet, his research only supports my position. He has no research supporting the rationalist philosophy he adds. It's philosophy not science.

The social intuitionist model proposes a very different arrangement, one that fully integrates reasoning, emotion, intuition, and social influence.

Are you aware that there are several intuitionist models? Some have been proposed as far back as David Hume. The closest to my own in philosophy is called "situational ethics." It involves a few rules but allows conscience to do the heavy lifting case-by-case.

Once you claim both perfection and universality, you create an incredibly high burden of proof on your argument.

I have the same burden of proof that any other theory of morality has. It has to be logically sound. Logically, if conscience is our only moral authority, then we have to consider its guidance infallible and universal.

If you'd like to stand in for John Haidt, I believe I can persuade any unbiased, intelligent reader that Haidt's theory is unsound.

I'll open with the axiom that all knowledge begins with a sensed experience. In other words, we have to first notice an effect, as in "cause-and-effect," before we can learn anything. The scientific method begins with an observation.

So, since our long-ago ancestors couldn't see, taste, hear or smell the difference between moral right and wrong, they must have felt it. So, our species learned about morality from the moral intuitions we refer to as conscience.

Therefore, the conscious reasoning faculty of our brain would know absolutely nothing about making moral choices if it hadn't learned from the moral intuitions that emerged from the unconscious.

So, please explain: How did the products of our reasoning minds improve on the quality of our moral judgments? How did the Student surpass the Master? Didn't the products of our reasoning minds simply confuse us?

Our first attempts to write moral rules were simplistic: You should not murder. That's been a big help; hasn't it? How about those massive laws on murder? In the 50 states of the USA, there are 50 different laws. The very same killing might be justified in some states but not in others.

What's your explanation? How did our wonderful reasoning mind acquire the knowledge to surpass conscience and create our laws, rules and commandments to judge moral cases?