Incest. Why Not?

[joe1776]

Which is exactly the point... That it was unintentional doesn't negate the crime.

No. The point is that your opinion that it's unintentional is open to debate and the law in the USA doesn't agree with you.

No it doesn't.

"The distinction between recklessness and criminal negligence lies in the presence or absence of foresight as to the prohibited consequences. Recklessness is usually described as a "malfeasance" where the defendant knowingly exposes another to the risk of injury. The fault lies in being willing to run the risk. But criminal negligence is a "misfeasance" or "nonfeasance" (see omission), where the fault lies in the failure to foresee and so allow otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest."

I put the words "failure to foresee" in bold because whether there's a failure or not will be judged by the --

Reasonable man theory refers to a test in law whereby a hypothetical person is used as a legal standard, especially to determine if someone acted with negligence.

If the jury decides from the facts that the defendant "knew or should have known" that the act would cause harm then his act would be deemed intentional and criminal.

The analogy was from evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein.

"Since it's a dumb statement, I doubt that. But if I'm wrong you can provide a link to that precise analogy."

Most people would interpret that as "I think you are lying about getting it from BW ", but I'll accept your word that you meant something else.

I wasn't accusing you of lying. But i am accusing you of a misinterpretation that most people would not make.

You asked where I got it from, so I gave you the link. Can't link to peer-reviewed academic journals, can't directly quote people, can't link to podcasts, no pleasing some people

So far, you have claimed scientific support for your positions and produced absolutely nothing that resembled research-- not even some research lacking peer-review -- none.

I

said the mind works in 2 ways, Kahneman and Tversky, called them system 1 and system 2. Others systematic v heuristic, etc. Haidt concurred. There is a massive amount of experimental evidence to demonstrate this is accurate. Start with Kahneman's Thinking fast and slow if you would like a basic primer.

Your claim of a "massive amount of experimental evidence" is bogus.

You must be both impressed by and confused by fancy labels. What Kahneman was talking about is ordinary conscious reasoning and unconscious intuition.. He didn't discover some brand new way that we humans acquire knowledge.

I don't like the term 'rational' as humans are fundamentally irrational creatures, but some of our thought is based on conscious reasoning and this can, in certain situations, override intuition.

I've been labeling those overrides "biases."

Also, culture influences intuition, and human thought can influence culture. Being brought up in 8th C Arabia or 21st C Berkley would make a big difference to intuitive reactions (as you know, Haidt demonstrates cultural differences in reaction in his article).

I'd put it this way: the citizens of 8th Century Arabia were more arrogant than the citizens of 21st Century Berkeley. Therefore, their consciences were less able to resist acting on the bad side of their nature. Their culture was morally immature by comparison.

(Note: culture could be purely random or stochastic rather than reason driven, so it isn't a reason v intuition dichotomy).

My mind can't understand uncaused events. Can you suggest what causes might happen randomly?

Why do you think Weinstein's analogy is "dumb" though? Why can't culture influence human minds?

You created the analogy. I haven't seen Weinstein's comment -- and your statement was that : "We all have similar, although certainly not identical, hardware, but run very different software." We do not run very different software. The fact that our reasoning minds come up with different opinions isn't evidence that our reasoning minds don't have the same common connections in our brains.

You argued for cultural bias previously, why isn't that an example of culture influencing human minds? Why is Weinstein wrong that culture is the driver of what you would deem progress?

If that's Weinstein's opinion, it's the same claim you've been making. So, all the reasons I've already given you apply.

Do you believe culture has zero impact on any aspect of our minds, or are you saying only morality is uninfluenced by culture?

Our culture represents the collective attitudes of minds in our culture past and present. So, those minds do indeed influence other minds.

I don't limit our intuitions only to moral intuitions, though. However, since we're talking about the unconscious mind, we are dealing with mystery.

 

[joe1776]

Why do you think Weinstein's analogy is "dumb" though? Why can't culture influence human minds?

You claimed that your theory on morality was aligned with Jon Haidt's intuitionist theory. Then you offered Bret Weinstein's expert opinion to support yours but you couldn't link me to a paper, so I went in search of one.

I found this one which puts Weinstein in the rationalist camp with the now-deceased Kohlberg whose widely-accepted 60 years-old hypothesis on stages of moral development never had any research supporting it and never will. Here's a quote:

The second feature of the adaptive buffering system that we propose to be in place in human moral systems is a viscosity with regard to moral rules. Viscosity in this sense is suggested by the old notion of moral character, the quality of individuals that is significantly influenced by habit, and slow to change attitudes and behavior patterns once developed (Kohlberg, 1964).



https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/63672/fruitbat_1.pdf?sequence=1

 

[Augustus]

I put the words "failure to foresee" in bold because whether there's a failure or not will be judged by the --

Reasonable man theory refers to a test in law whereby a hypothetical person is used as a legal standard, especially to determine if someone acted with negligence.

If the jury decides from the facts that the defendant "knew or should have known" that the act would cause harm then his act would be deemed intentional and criminal.

You are redefining the word intentional on the fly because its proper usage contradicts your point.

Intent, recklessness, negligence are 3 different categories. Criminal negligence is not deemed 'intentional', hence the fact it is differentiated from intent, ditto recklessness.

Recklessness is choosing to behave in a manner that you knew could cause harm, but accepts you had no intent to cause harm. Negligence means an abdication of expected responsibility for whatever reason: carelessness, lack of forethought, incompetence etc. There is no need for you to have intentionally engaged in the behaviour.

It's not even incompatible with your overall theory of intuition, so there isn't even any need to pretend that something defined as unintentional is really actually intentional.

Your claim of a "massive amount of experimental evidence" is bogus.

You must be both impressed by and confused by fancy labels. What Kahneman was talking about is ordinary conscious reasoning and unconscious intuition.. He didn't discover some brand new way that we humans acquire knowledge.

Read the book and then tell me there is not very much experimental evidence to back it up. It is basically an anthology of decades of his published work based on well defined experiments.

It's also not about 'acquiring knowledge', and he is not claiming to have discovered a 'new way of thinking'. He is discussing the differences between the 2 systems in specific circumstances and the effects of these re human cognition.

You created the analogy. I haven't seen Weinstein's comment -- and your statement was that : "We all have similar, although certainly not identical, hardware, but run very different software." We do not run very different software. The fact that our reasoning minds come up with different opinions isn't evidence that our reasoning minds don't have the same common connections in our brains.

The point is that culture produces very different perceptions of the world, and thus behaviours. This is so well attested to in both scientific literature and basic observation of society that I don't care to argue it any more.

I found this one which puts Weinstein in the rationalist camp with the now-deceased Kohlberg whose widely-accepted 60 years-old hypothesis on stages of moral development never had any research supporting it and never will. Here's a quote:

The second feature of the adaptive buffering system that we propose to be in place in human moral systems is a viscosity with regard to moral rules. Viscosity in this sense is suggested by the old notion of moral character, the quality of individuals that is significantly influenced by habit, and slow to change attitudes and behavior patterns once developed (Kohlberg, 1964).

Ironically, you are the one misrepresenting Weinstein's views. He is saying moral habits are slow to change. This is connected to the idea that if they weren't they would lose their ability to unify groups effectively. His discussion of morality is in the context of the competing human needs for a) the drive for status within a group and b) the need for one's group to succeed in competition with other groups.

This is not adopting a 'rationalist position'

So far, you have claimed scientific support for your positions and produced absolutely nothing that resembled research-- not even some research lacking peer-review -- none.

I really don't get this insistence that things that are clearly posted in this thread in an objectively verifiable manner don't exist.

Every article you have linked to actually supports what I've been saying if you don't cherry pick. On top of that I provided quotes from another scholar you cited, contradicting your opinion, although you pretended this one didn't actually exist and said it was 'baloney' that I'd quoted him. I also linked to multiple peer-reviewed scientific journals, which were dismissed out of hand because you couldn't read them which means they couldn't possibly count as evidence. Then, a discussion between a neuroscientist and an evolutionary biologist, which you rejected because you didn't want to listen to it, yet still assumed it didn't say what I'd told you it did.

Anyway, seeing as you have adopted a stance whereby you continually pretend contradictory evidence provided to you doesn't actually exist, it's getting a bit dull. Reply if you like, but I'm done for this thread.

Thanks for the discussion though.

(The Weinstein stuff starts at about 25 mins btw if you are interested)

 

[joe1776]

You are redefining the word intentional on the fly because its proper usage contradicts your point.

When we began this exchange on intent as a factor in conscience, you didn't understand it at all. Now, thanks to Wikipedia, trying to challenge my further explanations, you're an instant expert.

Read the book and then tell me there is not very much experimental evidence to back it up. It is basically an anthology of decades of his published work based on well defined experiments.

I read the book. Fast thinking = unconscious intuition. Slow thinking = the reasoning mind. He had some interest insights into how biases were created but overall, I expected more from a book that came so highly recommended.

The point is that culture produces very different perceptions of the world, and thus behaviours. This is so well attested to in both scientific literature and basic observation of society that I don't care to argue it any more.

Well, you shouldn't argue it anymore because you're wrong. Human behavior begins with unconscious needs (the behavior we call "drinking" satisfies the unconscious need for water) Maslow and other psychologists have been telling us this.

Unconscious needs drive our attitudes and attitudes drive our behavior. Attitudes and behavior. in turn,create culture. You have cause-and-effect backwards. Minds create culture. Culture doesn't influence minds.

Ironically, you are the one misrepresenting Weinstein's views.

Augustus, Weinstein quotes Lawrence Kohlberg as an authority. Kohlberg is the Lord High Priest of the rationalist camp. Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia on him:

Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development constitute an adaptation of a psychological theory originally conceived by the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget. Kohlberg began work on this topic while a psychology graduate student at the University of Chicago[1] in 1958 and expanded upon the theory throughout his life....

The theory holds that moral reasoning, the basis for ethical behavior, has six identifiable developmental stages, each more adequate at responding to moral dilemmas than its predecessor.[2]

So, you claim that you favor the moral intuitionist's position. Then you offer the words of Bret Weinstein in support of your theory not realizing that Weinstein is a rationalist who supports his own hypothesis with the words of Lawrence Kohlberg.

And you wonder why I don't just accept your opinions?

Thanks for the exchange. I enjoyed it.

 

[Augustus]

Augustus, Weinstein quotes Lawrence Kohlberg, who is the Lord High Priest of the rationalist camp, an an authority. Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia on him:

Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development constitute an adaptation of a psychological theory originally conceived by the Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget. Kohlberg began work on this topic while a psychology graduate student at the University of Chicago[1] in 1958 and expanded upon the theory throughout his life....

The theory holds that moral reasoning, the basis for ethical behavior, has six identifiable developmental stages, each more adequate at responding to moral dilemmas than its predecessor.[2]

So, you claim that you favor the moral intuitionist's position. Then you offer the words of Bret Weinstein in support of your theory. not realizing that Weinstein is a rationalist who supports his own hypothesis with the words of Lawrence Kohlberg.

Just to correct this:

Hitler was an anti-Semite, but not everything he said was advocacy of anti-semitism.

Kohlberg may have been a rationalist, but that quote is not about rationalism. Read it again. Remember, you agree with some things Haidt said, but not others

 

[joe1776]

Just to correct this:

Hitler was an anti-Semite, but not everything he said was advocacy of anti-semitism.

Kohlberg may have been a rationalist, but that quote is not about rationalism. Read it again. Remember, you agree with some things Haidt said, but not others

If you wrote a book opposed to anti-Semitism would you quote Adolf Hitler as an authority to support you?

 

[Augustus]

If you wrote a book opposed to anti-Semitism would you quote Adolf Hitler as an authority to support you?

His argument is about the role of morality in evolution regarding inter and intra group dynamics. His point is that morality is slow to change, and this is evolutionarily beneficial.

Not all discussions of morality are narrowly focused on a rationalism v intuitionism dichotomy.

 

[joe1776]

His argument is about the role of morality in evolution regarding inter and intra group dynamics. His point is that morality is slow to change, and this is evolutionarily beneficial.

Not all discussions of morality are narrowly focused on a rationalism v intuitionism dichotomy.

You ducked the question.

Obviously, you wouldn't quote Adolf Hitler as an authority in a paper opposed to Anti-Semitism and, if you knew what you were doing, you wouldn't quote Kohlberg as an authority to support a paper favoring intuition as the foundation of morality.

 

[Augustus]

You ducked the question.

Obviously, you wouldn't quote Adolf Hitler as an authority in a paper opposed to Anti-Semitism and, if you knew what you were doing, you wouldn't quote Kohlberg as an authority to support a paper favoring intuition as the foundation of morality.

You missed the point, his paper wasn't about intuition or rationalism so the analogy was misleading.

 

[sooda]

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.

.

In tribal societies they use to have a lot of cousin marriages and even half sister marriages.

 

[sooda]

The potential for and occurrence of abuse would be greatly increased if sexual activity were allowed between family members. And it's already seriously high.

CONSANGUINITY AMONG JEWS:
By: Cyrus Adler, Joseph Jacobs
Owing to their dispersion among populations professing creed different from their own, Jews have married ear relatives more frequently than the rest of the world.

The marriage of first cousins and even of uncle and niece is quite legal and usual among them (see Marriage). The limitations on the marriage of those of priestly descent would tend to limit the choice of Cohens to those nearly related to them.The tendency seems to have begun early, since Abraham is represented as having sought a wife for Isaac in his mother's family.

In the Middle Ages it is difficult to ascertain how far the Jews tended to marry within their own families; but the Ghirondi family, to which Naḥmanides, Gersonides (who married his first cousin), and Simon Duran belonged, appeared to have married relatives for several generations (Steinschneider, "Cat. Bodl." cols. 2305-2310).

continued

CONSANGUINITY AMONG JEWS - JewishEncyclopedia.com

 

[JerusalemBull]

do not know...but i had incest in my religious family and it was short but very important relation with my elder sister that later made me more into bdsm

 

[JerusalemBull]

I am aware about it in the bible..However, the incest relation is something related to power exchange and the marriage is something totally different..i remember a book in Arabic wrote by Egyption police man about millions of incest cases in Egypt.