Is incest morally wrong between consenting adults? Why or why not? (behavior, perspective)

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by JerZ

I am totally confused how this could relate to incest.

Are you saying because somehow, somewhere there could be a situation where someone had access to only one sexually mature person and it was a family member, it would then not be immoral for him to have sex with that person?

So say a ship goes down, and a father and daughter f!oat on a broken-off cabin door to some desert island, it would be moral for this man to do his daughter, because he has "no other choice"?

Or would it only be moral provided he propositioned his daughter and she was hung ho for the idea? ( #legit #itcouldhappen) Or...?

I am seriously not being a snot here, I have either drastically missed something or there is one hell of a stretch being made in justifying incest based on someone knowing a guy who ate people because be otherwise would have died.

FWIW, not eating is fatal. Having to use your hand instead of decking your grandmother is not.

Sorry for bringing up cannibalism, but I just saw he slippery slope. I rather distrust the producing of Particular Situations that rather force the conclusion one way and are then used as an argument to apply to the whole question. I actually though through the situation and there are so many imponderables, that it it really proves nothing.

As a general rule of thumb a social consensus which may then lead to a change in law should be better for the generality, and constructing a scenario where a particular aspect could be tried out as a sort of mind -experiment is interesting and maybe enlightening, but can hardly be applied to the general question.

Are children at risk? They arre protected by age of consent laws

does it make dependents more vulnerable? Possibly, but generally no more or less than they are right now.

Isn't there a social and medical problem? Perhaps and probably. We have means to deal with the latter and we should better understand the problems that inter-family births can cause. Education, not denial and suppression, and rational and practical approach rather than a traditional prejudice is better. Socially, the family unit is under stain already, and I'm not sure that is a bad thing. There are arguments that...well... let's just say that rather speculative dire warnings of the collapse of society are not terribly valid.

Ick of course is irrelevant. I loathe Rap, but would never want to see laws passed to ban it for the good of society.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I doubt it, but the real issue is whether or not it aids the development of our Spiritual maturity. I can see no way that it would edify our Spirit, quite the opposite. There is little more carnal than sexual intercourse. Any worthwhile spiritual relationship would be denigrated by what tends to be a purely carnal act of lust, IMO.

Well done, Mystic, wrong question and wrong answer, as usual.

"Is this change in the law beneficial to stamp collecting? If not, we should oppose it."

Selfish. And 'Spiritual maturity' so far as I can tell in your hypothesis is as closely linked to our social development as consciousness is to life. So, like abolishing slavery, votes for women, racial gender and sexual equality are all developments on our social (and according to your System, spiritual) development, the question of incest being permissible (within the limits of other laws) or there being good concrete reasons why it should remain illegal is the social and thus religious progression. Inspired of course by the Cosmic Consciousness Aka "God".

So the question is really a rational moral one with no real difference between the humanistic and 'spiritual. Your reservations therefore seem to be based on a traditional taboo using rreligious prejudice as a pretext not to consider the matter rationally.

It looks like faith is screwing up that Mensa -grade IQ of yours yet again. I much prefer my concrete -thinking mediocrity of mind

[pneuma]

I usually don't get into these type of topics as I don't care how one lives their lives unless it hurts another.

However according to the fundamental belief in that God created 1 man and 1 woman incest is the only way to populate the world. So for all the fundies out there why was incest OK then and not now?

P.S. I do not believe in the 1 man and 1 woman fundamental belief, God created humankind in his image, not man.

[badlander]

Religious people may claim an absolute morality based on the word of their God. Vizio and others, two children, one or both having been adopted, we're raised from infants as brother and sister. They are not remotely related but sometime in adulthood they begin a romantic and sexual relationship. What exactly does your Bible tell you explicitly about the morality of this scenario? No personal interpretations or opinions, only the law as laid down in the Bible.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER

Well done, Mystic, wrong question and wrong answer, as usual.
<Snip>
It looks like faith is screwing up that Mensa -grade IQ of yours yet again. I much prefer my concrete -thinking mediocrity of mind

Sorry, Arq, but lust does not remotely edify anyone or anything. It is purely carnal. Letting it corrupt what should be spiritual relationships is not edifying.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

Law is uniform for all. Morals may vary person to person.

The law is just one expression of and enforcement mechanism for societal morality. It is uniform for all in a particular legal system but not completely uniform worldwide. Every society has somewhat different mores, and somewhat different laws.

Other mechanisms for morality, which vary even more, include social reciprocity and the threat of it being withheld through mechanisms like shunning; and feelings of guilt and shame caused by operating contrary to how you were socialized and conditioned to behave (self-shunning, essentially). And more besides.

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

For a believer, the guideline of morality comes from that invisible being.

So believers claim, but never demonstrate. On the other hand, the fact that overall believers behave more or less like unbelievers, which is to say, sometimes well and sometimes not so well, suggests it is nothing MORE than a claim.

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

And it's something that provides an extra incentive to do morally good things and avoid doing morally incorrect things.

How? If you have a moral conviction, and a desire to live morally, what is needed aside from your own convictions and desires? From psychology we know that authoritarian approaches are limited at best and ineffective at worst, in modifying people's behavior. Telling someone NOT to do something tends to make them want to do it. On the other hand inspiring and leading people TO do good is far more effective and I have to wonder, if someone needs more reason to do good other than that it's good -- if they must be cajoled, shamed, and threatened into it -- maybe they aren't very interested in doing good in the first place.

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

Here is a small example that crossed my mind while I was watching a "water conservation" ad the other day. They depicted a guy who is brushing his teeth while the water tap runs.

At the end, they showed some statistics that some people use up to 10 gallons of water while brushing their teeth as they leave the water running.

And I was like, I am so glad that neither I or anyone in my close family does that. Since my childhood, I was taught that, the invisible being asks to avoid wasting water and resources.

Seriously, that is a tenet of Islam? To conserve water? If so that is commendable, but I doubt that Islam is involved so much as what you said right here: your immediate family, since childhood, taught you to conserve resources. They might have claimed Allah was the one commanding this, but it would have been just as effective if it had only been your parents, I am quite confident of that. When did you learn to brush your own teeth? Likely before the age of five, and the consequences of not doing it "properly" were impressive and imminent. And they were administered by your parents, no the deity.

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

I think the variation is, what guideline do we use to judge something as morally right or wrong, and then how firmly we act on it?

Exactly, but people are perfectly capable of judging moral benefits and harms and developing what one might call "moral urgency" without a deity informing those judgments and values.

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

The introduction of "invisible being" in the equation, could perhaps result in more frequent actions of doing morally good things and avoiding morally wrong thing.

It could perhaps, but how would you actually determine that? It could also perhaps not.

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

And someone could be 10 times more rich, but he does save water and use 1/8th of a gallon water in brushing his teeth because he believes that "the invisible being" could question me about how good of a morally correct life I tried to live?

Has god ever questioned you about any such thing? Or do you just fear that he will at some point? What if god is but a projection of your own moral compass, the collective weight of your own judgments and that of others?

I can concede this much: for some people it might be easier to imagine that collective weight coming from a particular all-seeing and righteous being, and that might seem more real to them, perhaps harder to hide from or something. Maybe as someone who is mainly competitive only with himself, it's relatively easy for me to imagine being ashamed of myself rather than imagine being shamed or punished by a deity. But any claimed motivational "advantage" to a deity is self-validating. Just because deity worship is popular and widespread and the majority default, does not mean there is an actual motivational force coming from an actual deity. If everyone magically forgot their life-long operant conditioning around religion, I submit that the concept you now embrace as helpful would just seem silly.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

Do the THEISTS require any other reason when faith based morality has already discredited incest? Absolutely not! There is no more need left to look for more reasons.

Nevertheless if you are going to discuss morality with anyone outside your little bubble then you are going to have to put more effort into the discussion than "I believe god said it and that settles it". If this is problematic for you then why are you here in this forum talking with people who do not share your faith?

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

So again, the Atheist group seems to have been divided into two groups. The ones who think there is nothing wrong in incest as long as there is a consent on the table between two adults.

And the other group feels the "yuck" factor that comes with the thought of incest; however, they don't seem to have a moral reason to oppose incest. They seem to be looking for a non-religious based moral from the religious camp. lol

Morality is entirely a question of a preponderance of benefits or harms. Our question here is limited to incest between fully consenting adults. I have suggested that the OP's third link had nailed the moral question. The problem is not with incest itself but with the distortion, occlusion and destruction of normal boundaries between parents and children, and between siblings. The real problem is that non-sexual parent/child and sibling/sibling relationships are valuable and absent a special case like the Bible sets up where Adam's children had to jump start the human race through incest, there is just too little to gain and too much to lose by violating this particular societal norm, even between consenting adults.

So it is not for me a question of yuck factor as you put it, it is just a question of where exactly the harm lies. Not in the sexual act itself but in the breaking down of socially normative boundaries.

Now in a particular case ... say an adult brother and sister who believe they are in love and want to marry ... I suppose they would argue that they are harming no one and if they are exchanging their sibling relationship for a marriage relationship, that is their affair. And I would have to agree so far as it goes. It's arguably not worth it for society to forbid it and to enforce that proscription. It's a self-limiting problem; not too many people will ever want to do it. There are biological and psychological reasons for those boundaries having evolved in the first place.

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

The entire thread seems to be uncovering a problem that some Atheists feel.
The religious group has no issue or problem in opposing incest.

The religious group robotically opposes it because they are told to. I oppose it because I have thought out valid reasons for opposing it. And the scope of my opposition is appropriate, too: I apply it to myself and let others live their own lives. If you prefer to oppose something because you're supposed to oppose it versus opposing it because you have a considered opinion -- well, I guess to each their own.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by cupper3

If consenting adults are involved sexually, why is there emotional harm? Consent is the operative word, not coerced or forced or anything else. How are individuals harmed, emotionally, if they consent?

I'm not saying that at some point they may have second thoughts, I but then, I bet we all have had those with some past sexual relationships we have had.

People consent all the time to things that end up harming them and/or that they eventually consider a bad decision.

Incest between consenting adults is one of those things that is not technically "wrong" but is almost certainly suboptimal and quite likely regrettable. There are good reasons not to do it. There are also good reasons not to criminalize or even particularly to stigmatize it, though.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by GoCardinals

I am more than happy to get educated from you. Please tell me why is using "pig" as a metaphor offensive?

I don't recall what culture you were raised in but here in the US at least people calling you a "fat pig" or "stupid pig" or just "pig" are definitely hurling an aggressive and visceral insult, regardless how you want to try to intellectualize it away. My guess is that you likely are well aware of that and are just being disingenuous to ask this question.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I doubt it, but the real issue is whether or not it aids the development of our Spiritual maturity. I can see no way that it would edify our Spirit, quite the opposite. There is little more carnal than sexual intercourse. Any worthwhile spiritual relationship would be denigrated by what tends to be a purely carnal act of lust, IMO.

Presumably two consenting adult siblings (for example) who marry would do all sorts of things besides have sex, just like any other married couple. Let's not make it all about carnal lust here. It's a distraction from the main point. The question is whether two people who want to share their lives in a committed relationship shouldn't do so merely because they are closely related.