Should incest be banned?

[Protester]

You do realise that any biological problems due to inbreeding don't appear for a few generations at least, yes? And it applies only in cases where the union produces children.

Hmm, I might get the hang of this forum yet! I apologize to all those past, present, and future that I appear to have been ignoring their responses.:sorry1:

I would say that inherited problems could should up quite quickly! Let's say heart disease or diabetes is a family trait. I would think there is much greater possibility for those traits to show up in an incestuous relationship than with parents who have the same problems but come from non-related ancestors. (I don't remember my genetics that well, but I assume that is the case.)

Now, to get behavior where children is not involved. I really can't hold to the famous atheist, logician, philosopher idea, where there is no hurt there is no harm philosophy.

To quote what a humanist said,

John Stuart Mill said, “whatever consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is nobody’s business but their own”. Many of us may dislike the idea of incest, or even be repulsed by it, but there is a tendency to confuse personal distaste for an activity with moral condemnation. The personal distaste element is partly connected to the fact that the majority of incest cases in the world are child abuse cases. But child abuse is definitely wrong; incest is not necessarily wrong if it involves adult consent, and so on.

excerpt taken from #7 of http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2008/04/incest_a_taboo_too Incest: a taboo too far?(I'm much more in sympathy with #6.)


I have been basically stating my positions from a philosophical point of view, and from that point of view incest, polygamy, and tolerance of some other behind closed doors activities of course doesn't agree with my theological point of view, remember, Why is "You shall not covet" in the Ten Commandments? which is really a "behind closed door" activity! But of course that is my theological position. However, some behind-closed-door activity has come out of the closet and has not been beneficial to society, even speaking from a philosophical position.

 

[nnmartin]

Do you think it is appropriate for laws to be made which prohibit something which causes no harm?

Yes, for sure.

Quite often we are talking about indirect harm which is hard to prove.

Also we have to think of the bigger picture, ie: society and the country as a whole.

 

[nnmartin]

You did not answer either question

I believe I did , but if you want to take up the Biblical/Religious debate further then I hope you will join the new thread I started in the main Religious Debates section.

Link on post 152

 

[nnmartin]

Quite clearly , if many people are having children with their brothers and sisters then over a period of time society will suffer.

The greater good of the nation/region must be factored in here.

 

[Drolefille]

Quite clearly , if many people are having children with their brothers and sisters then over a period of time society will suffer.

The greater good of the nation/region must be factored in here.

This is like your complaint about polygamy. You cannot assume that many people will do it, when hardly anyone does it. It's not just a social taboo but a psychological aversion - towards incest that is.

The fear/complaint that it will be bad when EVERYONE does it or even MANY PEOPLE do it, is irrational.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Actually what makes that reservation all the more interesting is that it implies that incest is an activity or relationship that is so desirable to a large portion of the population that it will become commonplace. Why would it be so desirable? It is a reservation that almost seems to imply that everyone secretly finds incest desirable and would immediately start up, were they able to do so without 'taboo' getting in the way.

 

[not nom]

Actually what makes that reservation all the more interesting is that it implies that incest is an activity or relationship that is so desirable to a large portion of the population that it will become commonplace. Why would it be so desirable? It is a reservation that almost seems to imply that everyone secretly finds incest desirable and would immediately start up, were they able to do so without 'taboo' getting in the way.

I'd be more interested in why you came up with this topic than in banning incest (even more), to be perfectly honest

"so what you're saying this, we need this to stay banned, or bad things will happen..? what makes you say that?"

 

[Drolefille]

Actually what makes that reservation all the more interesting is that it implies that incest is an activity or relationship that is so desirable to a large portion of the population that it will become commonplace. Why would it be so desirable? It is a reservation that almost seems to imply that everyone secretly finds incest desirable and would immediately start up, were they able to do so without 'taboo' getting in the way.

Based on previous posts by the OP I'm pretty sure that he thinks we'll all start screwing our entire families in plural marriages if only the law (or some religious restriction, he's been unclear about his beliefs) weren't there to stop us.

 

[Tiberius]

Yes, for sure.

Quite often we are talking about indirect harm which is hard to prove.

Also we have to think of the bigger picture, ie: society and the country as a whole.

No, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about an activity that harms no one, whether directly or indirectly.

And how does what someone does in private harm the country?

 

[Tiberius]

Yes, for sure.

Quite often we are talking about indirect harm which is hard to prove.

Also we have to think of the bigger picture, ie: society and the country as a whole.

No, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about an activity that harms no one, whether directly or indirectly.

And how does what someone does in private harm the country?

Quite clearly , if many people are having children with their brothers and sisters then over a period of time society will suffer.

The greater good of the nation/region must be factored in here.

Woah! Who said anything about producing children? It is very possible to have sex and NOT get pregnant! I do it with my girlfriend all the time.

 

[nnmartin]

well, for a start proving indirect harm is notoriously difficult to do but quite a few things are banned on the perception of this happening, ie: drug laws and gambling.

 

[nnmartin]

This is like your complaint about polygamy. You cannot assume that many people will do it, when hardly anyone does it. It's not just a social taboo but a psychological aversion - towards incest that is.

The fear/complaint that it will be bad when EVERYONE does it or even MANY PEOPLE do it, is irrational.

ok, I accept that most people will not commit incest just because it is legalised but it's all about the central/regional government sending out the correct ideas of morality to the masses.

Some people do not know right from wrong so the government must advise them.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Some people do not know right from wrong so the government must advise them.

I think what you are instead trying to suggest would be this:

"Some people do not adhere to my sense of right and wrong, so the government must enforce it."

 

[nnmartin]

Based on previous posts by the OP I'm pretty sure that he thinks we'll all start screwing our entire families in plural marriages if only the law (or some religious restriction, he's been unclear about his beliefs) weren't there to stop us.

Society and people need to be protected from themselves.

If everyone just does whatever they feel like then we will have chaos or oligarchy.

Have you ever tried to tell a bunch of children to organise a game amongst themselves - it doesn't work, because they all end up arguing with each other. Someone needs to take control to make the game happen.

This is the same with society.

 

[nnmartin]

"Some people do not adhere to my sense of right and wrong, so the government must enforce it."

That is not what I am saying at all.

I am sure that if you had a vote in the country there would be overwhelming opposition to the concept of incest.

 

[Drolefille]

Society and people need to be protected from themselves.

If everyone just does whatever they feel like then we will have chaos or oligarchy.

Have you told a bunch of children to organise a game amongst themselves - it doesn't work, because they all end up arguing with each other. Someone needs to take control to make the game happen.

This is the same with society.

Actually children are generally capable of starting their own games without my help.
Lucky us, this is utterly unrelated to the topic at hand as the argument only exists between people who wouldn't do it anyway wanting to ban other people from doing things. So, to stop the argument you remove the problem.

ok, I accept that most people will not commit incest just because it is legalised but it's all about the central/regional government sending out the correct ideas of morality to the masses.

Some people do not know right from wrong so the government must advise them.

Only if there's valid reason. "Ewwwwwww, icky" and "My book says so." are not good reasons.

 

[Drolefille]

That is not what I am saying at all.

I am sure that if you had a vote in the country there would be overwhelming opposition to the concept of incest.

Which, as you'll note, is why it's not a threat to society.

But popularity is not a reason to make something legal or illegal. Mandating people watch Jersey Shore because it's 'popular' would be a really stupid idea, for example.

It is also one of those things you hate called a logical fallacy. I won't quote which one, feel free to look it up.

 

[nnmartin]

a few posts back you were highlighting some of the psychological problems associated with incest - I agree with those.

Have you changed your mind all of a sudden?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

That is not what I am saying at all.

I am sure that if you had a vote in the country there would be overwhelming opposition to the concept of incest.

And since when can we suggest that because something is popular it is right? If so whenever a new religion emerges (including those in the past such as Christianity) we would be able to state that they are wrong, even 'evil' - because they were a minority of opinion; by extension every single train of thought was at some stage new - being new it was not widely held and there were often counter views and explanations, does that mean all new philosophies (and thus all philosophies) are wrong? No, that is just a ridiculous statement.

Subjectivity is a poor basis for law, as is majority rules; no victim, no crime.

 

[nnmartin]

But popularity is not a reason to make something legal or illegal.

Why ever not?

most laws are based on some kind of subjective reasoning.

How else could a law be passed?