FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Elsewhere > ~Elsewhere~
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-18-2008, 11:12 AM   #1
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa.
Posts: 218
Default Turning Morality on it's head

There are many moral laws (especially those in the sexual arena) embraced by the majority of the people on earth based on sentiment and emotions.

For example laws governing incest. We say a mother should not have sex with her son but find it difficult to say exactly what is morally wrong with such an act.

Let us imagine that in the near future, scientist came to discover that all male children having an incestuous relationship with their mother live an average of twenty years longer than other human beings.

Will this discovery allow us to declare mothers having sex with their sons are good for the childs health and should therefore be allowed?

Fayzal Mahamed.
Fayzal Mahamed is offline  
Old 09-18-2008, 11:23 AM   #2
Obsessed Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: NJ
Posts: 61,538
Default

The reason for the moral laws against incest:
  • Because sexual access is relatively easy between people who live in the same place oversight is very difficult.
  • There is the risk of genetic defects.
  • between parent and child there is a relationship of authority and trust. Sex can be exploitative of these.
premjan is offline  
Old 09-18-2008, 11:55 AM   #3
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa.
Posts: 218
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by premjan View Post
The reason for the moral laws against incest:
  • Because sexual access is relatively easy between people who live in the same place oversight is very difficult.
  • There is the risk of genetic defects.
  • between parent and child there is a relationship of authority and trust. Sex can be exploitative of these.
You have not addressed my hypothetical situation of allowing incest for health reasons.

However concerning your above sentiments are there any other laws governing risk of genetic defects? For example I know of many cases where two partners with known genetic defects will still get married or have a sexual relationship knowing that the offspring will be affected. Aids is another example where two partners having the Aids virus will get married knowing that the offspring will have a pretty good chance of having the Aids virus as well. To date there is no law that forbids such marriage / partnership from taking place.

As to your contention "between parent and child there is a relationship of authority and trust. Sex can be exploitative of these." I agree but so can money be exploitive in these relationships. It's not the sex or the money that is wrong but the "exploitive relationship".

Fayzal
Fayzal Mahamed is offline  
Old 09-18-2008, 11:56 AM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Kansas
Posts: 35
Default

Actually, I believe that incest is one of very few taboos that is consistent across many, many cultures.

Even if science made the discovery that you suggest, as the PP points out, there are reasons that incest is taboo and those are still valid. Narrowing the genetic pool is not a good idea.
KristiMetz is offline  
Old 09-18-2008, 12:01 PM   #5
Obsessed Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: NJ
Posts: 61,538
Default

People who deliberately have a genetically impacted or infected child are indeed taking a moral risk as well. The incest taboo is just a more common version of these hence the laws against it.

Of course anything can be justified, for instance within Egyptian royal families incest was common. Inbreeding in small groups can over time prove just as bad as incest (e.g. Zoroastrians).
premjan is offline  
Old 09-18-2008, 04:09 PM   #6
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 1,143
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayzal Mahamed View Post
For example laws governing incest. We say a mother should not have sex with her son but find it difficult to say exactly what is morally wrong with such an act.
Well, those of us who think there is nothing wrong with such an act (like myself) don't usually say that it shouldn't occur. Or at least that it shouldn't be illegal.

That's why some European countries (France is one, and one of the Nordic countries too) don't have incest laws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayzal Mahamed View Post
Let us imagine that in the near future, scientist came to discover that all male children having an incestuous relationship with their mother live an average of twenty years longer than other human beings.

Will this discovery allow us to declare mothers having sex with their sons are good for the childs health and should therefore be allowed?
It shouldn't have to be beneficial to be allowed. In a democratic society, things should be allowed unless they have a significant detrimental effect on other people.

Incest does not qualify, so there is no sensible reason for it to be illegal. Except, as you say, that many people's gut reaction is that it is wrong - and those people vote, so we have a 'tyranny of the majority' situation in almost all Western nations (except for those few sensible European nations without incest laws).
Doddy is offline  
Old 09-19-2008, 07:46 AM   #7
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Central Indiana
Posts: 5,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fayzal Mahamed View Post
There are many moral laws (especially those in the sexual arena) embraced by the majority of the people on earth based on sentiment and emotions.

For example laws governing incest. We say a mother should not have sex with her son but find it difficult to say exactly what is morally wrong with such an act.

Let us imagine that in the near future, scientist came to discover that all male children having an incestuous relationship with their mother live an average of twenty years longer than other human beings.

Will this discovery allow us to declare mothers having sex with their sons are good for the childs health and should therefore be allowed?

Fayzal Mahamed.
Well, your hypothetical will never happen.

Incest is harmful to the child and potentially to the entire family. Since the child is generally unable to help himself/herself in these situations society intervenes. If you're talking about adults, it's a little less clear-cut. The harm in that case is more subtle and mainly concerns others in the family circle: infidelity, jealousy, etc.
EssEff is offline  
Old 09-19-2008, 07:54 AM   #8
Obsessed Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: NJ
Posts: 61,538
Default

One gets the feeling Fayzal you are obsessed with justifying incest at this point.
premjan is offline  
Old 09-19-2008, 11:09 AM   #9
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa.
Posts: 218
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by premjan View Post
One gets the feeling Fayzal you are obsessed with justifying incest at this point.
Why do you claim I am obsessed with incest when I am making a simple philosophical enquiry about human behaviour and their attitude towards morality? And even if I am obsessed about incest what difference does that make towards my enquiry?

Allow me to put the boot on the other foot? Have I touched a nerve with you in regards to incest? Is there a personal experience with regard to incest that you would like to share with us?

Fayzal
Fayzal Mahamed is offline  
Old 09-19-2008, 11:10 AM   #10
Obsessed Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: NJ
Posts: 61,538
Default

No, I have no experience of incest.
premjan is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:44 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.