elwoodblues

Just because something is 'repugnant' to you is no good rationale for outlawing it. Long John Silver's fish is fairly gross to me, but I'd never dream of trying to get it outlawed. Move on...

We're talking about the inborn nature of your feeling here. In a sense, it _is_ natural to find incest 'repugnant'. But just because something is natural doesn't make it in any sense right. Most human beings have an instinct to find aberration from the norm wrong or disgusting or distasteful. But that's no good reason to outlaw homosexuality and left-handedness. Try again.

Now we're talking. This is a real danger and a real concern. However, it's a danger in any relationship; an incestuous relationship is just increasing that danger somewhat. I think the above would be a good reason to get genetic screening if you intend to have a child (and aggressively use birth control if not). However, it's not a good reason to outlaw the relationship. If it is, you'll also have to be fair and outlaw ANY relationship that has an above-average chance of a defective baby. Perfect strangers can be very genetically incompatible. Next.

This is probably the most serious allegation, because it doesn't have an easy answer. We've all seen work relationships or friendships go to hell after sex became involved; it could be even worse when you're talking family. It's very tempting to try and 'do some good' by making sure this doesn't happen.

However, we're talking about consenting adults. And I'm not about to try and tell two consenting adults what's best for them, not without a very, very good reason. And the above just is _not_ good enough. Just because there's potential for psychological or social harm in a relationship isn't a good reason for outlawing it. We'd have the police on double shifts forever.

I have not yet seen any kind of solid argument for outlawing incest between consenting adults. All I've heard so far is a few people blindly holding on to what they have been taught instead of thinking for a moment.

Primal

Nope, like I said "extremely". I disagree with child porn,murder, and the idea of someone playing around in the sewer for the same reason. Why can't someone come in the elevator after crapping in his pants? What if u just "smelled" it but there was no aversive health reasons, or what about stink bombs? I wouldn't want that legal, why? Repugnant. Morality is often times just this.

As for Long John Silvers. 1) That is far more open to variation then incest. 2) Eating Long John's is what is repugnant, not hearing about people eating it. 3) It isn't nearly as intense.

Not always, though I think human nature is relevant to morality. In this case, I see the biology as making a good case.


Most taboos concerning homosexuality and left-handedness spring from superstition, not biology. Animals tend to have taboos against incest as well. Keep in mind different taboos may spring from different sources.


See I am aware of that, but unfortunately many will not follow through with this.However I still find the practice extremely repugnant. That's my main reason for outlawing incest.


Well again that's not my main reason. But in any case, it may depend on the chances and degree of severity for that baby. Also, I would prefer birth control in such a case.


Again, this is not as likely as people who are directly related. Remember, this isn't an all or nothing deal. In this messy reality people have to make messy decisions, more often then not, based on degrees and probabilities not ether/or.

quote:

Aknolwedged, though for a bit I entertained the thought of a family being brought closer together and the practice becoming custom.

If this happens then incest within that family may become established, further increasing the chances and severity of deformities. This after several generations will likely have disaterous results.

That depends on the state, and such things are hard to discover. In New Mexico the age of consent is 15 I believe. In any case, someone can be raised to have incest expected. Not everyone can move out at 18 as well, and a parent may demand sexual services from his or her offspring.


I believe this to be a very,very good reason.

If this were true police would be on double-shift over this problem now. They aren't.

And you are right, mere potential for harm is a bad reason to outlaw a practice, it's not potential in this case though but likelyhood. In a certain way, lighting a fire to one's back yard is only potential harm to one's neighbors property, however the actuality is so likely that such a thing is outlawed.

Well that depends on what you mean by solid argument, mine fits nicely within my own moral theory and view of human nature. Perhaps you can give us some examples of a solid reason?

Primal

P.S. I was also thinking about how you said certain people that engage in incest may be forced to not have kids or use condoms, doesn't that bring up the moral issue of forced sterilization, that I'm sure you would even agree to in the case of third generation incest.

However, one would then be,using your standards, telling adults what to do in reaction to a potential threat.

Also, keep in mind that we, for the most part, telling adults what to do every time we make them pay taxes. We are telling them what to spend their money on, roads, schools,libraries,museums,research,military,police ,fire fighters, public parks. We are telling them that these things are more valuable then what they would spend their personal salary on. We are telling them that their money should go to a painting in a museum instead of some new DVD player they wanted. This is however, a mere matter of preference. Hence, perhaps it is reasonable to tell grown adults what to do sometimes after all.