Is Sexual Intercourse Between Siblings Morally Permissible?

[Darkness]

I think the reason it bothers me is because it is associated (and probably rightly so) with sexual and psychological abuse in childhood and other sexual trauma. It is deviant behaviour, and it's usually the result of circumstances and actions that I (and probably any resonable person) would consider immoral. So it's more the underlying theme rather than the action itself that makes me jump to the "ought not" knee-jerk reaction.

For instance - the notion of siblings, who only became aware of each other as adults, after already having formed a relationship, does not bother me in the same way.

You hit the nail on the head. Incest has too many bad connotations with abuse and usually is linked to some sort of mental problems.

 

[Werden]

Been a while since I've been here in the philosophy forums.

Regarding this issue I offer no judgment regarding the ethics/morals/etc. regarding the original issue, however this issue reminded me of a book which I recommend. "Do You Think What You Think You Think" by Julian Baggini and Jeremy Stangroom. Very interesting book for most people to actually work through and touches on many subjects which you may think you have opinions on matters(or think you have opinions one way) and then discover your ideas of your beliefs may vary from your opinions of said ideas. Not a book which will give you the 'Meaning of Life' or even a book to learn ethics from, however it is a good start on introspection and something that, if worked through honestly, should lead to starting to develop sounder and more coherent ethics and moral opinions.

As you were

Xeper!
Werden.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Is it morally permissible for a brother and sister (adults) to use birth control and willingly participate in a sexual act? Y/N? Why?

I can think of no argument that makes it immoral, since no harm is caused to anyone.

Okay, what about sex with a corpse? No harm is caused there, either. Therefore, necrophilia should be morally permissable.

 

[BadBeast]

Okay, what about sex with a corpse? No harm is caused there, either. Therefore, necrophilia should be morally permissable.

Here in the UK, there are no specific Laws against Necrophilia. And technically, it is a victimless crime. But it still isn't right. Same as shagging your brother/sister isn't right. No way, no how. :no:

(Now, your best Mate's sister, that's different, that's traditional, . . . . . :jiggy

(

 

[Midnight Pete]

Here in the UK, there are no specific Laws against Necrophilia. And technically, it is a victimless crime. But it still isn't right. Same as shagging your brother/sister isn't right. No way, no how.

I agree.

 

[Magic Man]

Okay, what about sex with a corpse? No harm is caused there, either. Therefore, necrophilia should be morally permissable.

Sure, why not? It's gross and disgusting, of course, but why is it morally wrong? Let's say the dead person had no friends or family, no one to personally care what happened to the body. What would be wrong with it other than the fact that we find it gross and disgusting?

 

[Dezzie]

Is it morally permissible for a brother and sister (adults) to use birth control and willingly participate in a sexual act? Y/N? Why?

I can think of no argument that makes it immoral, since no harm is caused to anyone.

Well... no harm would really be done since they are using birth control. Although... birth control and condoms are still not 100%. There is still a VERY small possibility of pregnancy. Sexual acts between siblings is a bit strange to me but that could just be because of how I was raised.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Well... no harm would really be done since they are using birth control. Although... birth control and condoms are still not 100%. There is still a VERY small possibility of pregnancy. Sexual acts between siblings is a bit strange to me but that could just be because of how I was raised.

This entire thread seems to be a very subtle endorsement of incest ... :areyoucra

 

[Magic Man]

This entire thread seems to be a very subtle endorsement of incest ... :areyoucra

You don't tend to add much to conversations, do you? I have to ask you again why you're here. You seem to like to make comments, but not respond when they're challenged. If you're going to make comments on debate threads, it's polite to respond to people who respond to you (and not just those with whom you agree).

And no, this is not an endorsement of incest. It's a matter of realizing that there's nothing morally wrong with it, and the fact that people see it that way is just because it's gross and icky to most people.

 

[tomato1236]

You don't tend to add much to conversations, do you? I have to ask you again why you're here. You seem to like to make comments, but not respond when they're challenged. If you're going to make comments on debate threads, it's polite to respond to people who respond to you (and not just those with whom you agree).

And no, this is not an endorsement of incest. It's a matter of realizing that there's nothing morally wrong with it, and the fact that people see it that way is just because it's gross and icky to most people.

Jeez, don't get all snippety.

I think there's more to definitions of morality than what does and does not hurt anybody, or what is or isn't "icky".

 

[Magic Man]

Jeez, don't get all snippety.

Snippety? No. Just noticing that he seems to like to just make passive-aggressive comments as drive-bys without actually adding to the conversation.

I think there's more to definitions of morality than what does and does not hurt anybody, or what is or isn't "icky".

What makes something moral or immoral if it doesn't harm anyone or anything (and obviously, I'm looking for something other than "because God says so").

 

[Duck]

Is it morally permissible for a brother and sister (adults) to use birth control and willingly participate in a sexual act? Y/N? Why?

I can think of no argument that makes it immoral, since no harm is caused to anyone.

The only issue that I can see with an incestuous relationship is the family dynamic/consent issue.

If one approaches the morality of the relationship from the point of two adults, raised in separate homes without contact (one or both given up for adoption) who meet as adults for the first time and become involved in a consenting relationship, then no, that relationship is no more moral or immoral than a consenting relationship between two unrelated strangers meeting and entering into a relationship.

If, on the other hand, the siblings involved have grown up together, the morality of a relationship is more troublesome. The likelihood of the relationship being tainted in someway by consent issues I think would go up very quickly. Obviously, a relationship that starts prior to adulthood for one or both participants would not be, I think, moral or proper. There are just too many consent issues associated with the structure of the family dynamic -- which sibling was in charge when growing up?, which babysat the others?, which is older, etc. For a relationship that started after both reached adulthood, I would think that there are definitely some issues, not necessarily with consent though, just some issues.

 

[tomato1236]

Snippety? No. Just noticing that he seems to like to just make passive-aggressive comments as drive-bys without actually adding to the conversation.

What makes something moral or immoral if it doesn't harm anyone or anything (and obviously, I'm looking for something other than "because God says so").

I'm a believer that morality wasn't created by God, but is based on laws as eternal as God is, which, if He violated, he would cease to be God. So to me it's not a matter of "because God said so".

 

[Magic Man]

I'm a believer that morality wasn't created by God, but is based on laws as eternal as God is, which, if He violated, he would cease to be God. So to me it's not a matter of "because God said so".

OK, but could you then answer my question, or is this another case of not wanting to answer questions?

 

[tomato1236]

Honestly, I don't know. Or at least I don't know how to say it, or my idea is incomplete. So the best I can do is, "I think there's more to definitions of morality than what does and does not hurt anybody, or what is or isn't "icky".

 

[Magic Man]

OK. Thanks anyway.

 

[BadBeast]

Let's refer back to the original message that sparked this all off.

"I had a friend that I "played with" for five years. We weren't boyfriend and boyfriend. We were just good friends that happened to like to have sex with each other"

Erm, OK then, . . .


We did this for a longer period of time than most people keep a boyfriend/girlfriend. This even lasted longer than my last marriage.


That's hardly surprising though, is it? I mean, seeing that you're gay and everything.

As two friends playing with each other constantly, how were we hurting society?

You weren't hurting society at all. Hurt your Wife I expect, but society?
Nah, society has better things to worry about than your peccadilloes.

How would this be different if I had been playing with my brother for those five years?"

Because it would be your Brother! Your implication is that brother/brother sex is preferable to Son/Mother sex, or Brother /Sister sex, because you aren't going to get him pragnent! That's your Brother! You shared a bloody Uterus with him! Wrong wrong, in fact, so utterly wrong, it's depths are an uncharted inky blackness of wrongness.
for Gods sake!

I'd hazard a guess, that your "brother" is a year or two older than you. And I bet he never had a Wife, either. :disco:

I think it's got more to do with your wanting to burn both ends of the same candle than any child abuse issues. Not judging you or anything, but you did
ask.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Honestly, I don't know. Or at least I don't know how to say it, or my idea is incomplete. So the best I can do is, "I think there's more to definitions of morality than what does and does not hurt anybody, or what is or isn't "icky".

I could plead for the moral permissability of just about anything if I stated that I personally found nothing "icky" about it.

Canninbalism. Who is cannibalism hurting if the person whose flesh I'm eating is already dead? If people are disgusted by the very thought of cannibalism, then they don't have to watch.

 

[Magic Man]

I could plead for the moral permissability of just about anything if I stated that I personally found nothing "icky" about it.

Canninbalism. Who is cannibalism hurting if the person whose flesh I'm eating is already dead? If people are disgusted by the very thought of cannibalism, then they don't have to watch.

At the risk of not getting a response, I'm going to respond.

Yes, there's nothing wrong with cannibalism either. We can go through a whole list of things that have been ingrained in us as "wrong" that really aren't. The problem is that you keep using different examples as if one of they are obvious examples that prove your point, and each one fails. Yes, anything that doesn't harm anyone is not morally wrong. The fact that something is "icky" doesn't make it immoral (at least according to most reasonable moral standards).

 

[linwood]

I could plead for the moral permissability of just about anything if I stated that I personally found nothing "icky" about it.

Canninbalism. Who is cannibalism hurting if the person whose flesh I'm eating is already dead? If people are disgusted by the very thought of cannibalism, then they don't have to watch.

I don`t have an ethical problem with cannibalism.

Why do you think it`s immoral?