Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So from what you are saying, you should NOT have any problem with incest if it's based on mutual consent. (Begs the question, why would you even start this thread?)
Does it? I would suggest quite the opposite. When we are sure of a moral or ethical stand point we should be MORE open to throwing out for discussion and scrutiny. Because we may be over confident for the wrong reasons and discussion might change our views.
Given the position that many hold, that there is nothing wrong with the consensual relationship between informed adults..... what IS the moral grounding for an ethical position against Incest? We are many pages into this thread now and no one has offered any. Just Tzaphkiel's fetid implication that people who do not see it like she does must require professional help, which she spewed out before effectively retreating from the thread never to return.
No the arguments simply are not forth coming, and a thread of this nature is a useful way to highlight that fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by june 7th
Incest has devastating repercussions on the individual who has been incested.
It is entirely unclear what you are talking about here. In fact you are officially the first and only person I have ever seen to use "incest" as an action word on another person. What does it mean to "be incested"? Is there literature in the annals of psychotherapy that you can refer to where I can see the word being used in this way?
Quote:
Originally Posted by june 7th
In no way is it justified, allowable, or even close to okay. Talk to someone who has been incested since a child. I can assure you it is NOT okay.....
What you are talking about is child sexual abuse and rape. That is not synonymous with incest and you should know better, in your line of work, than to conflate the two.
"Incest" means nothing more than sexual relationships between closely related people. That is all. You can not "BE" incested. You CAN be raped however. Let's call it what it is. For example when the Catholic Church scandals came out they were quick to latch onto the phrase "Child Abuse". No. It was Child RAPE, not abuse. Get it right people.
And it has been made clear, repeatedly throughout the thread.... which I am not unconvinced you even bothered to read before posting......... that NO ONE here thinks sexual relationships with a minor are a good thing and that when we are discussing incest we are SPECIFICALLY discussing SOLELY the relationships between informed and consenting adults.
I don't understand where you get such notions. That I am not answerable to god has nothing to do with whether there is right or wrong. I am answerable to myself and to society. There is no question that I exist and that society exists, and society and I both hold views on what is right and wrong. This holds me far more accountable than an invisible being that you allege has moral claims on me.
Apart from that, I function within multiple social contracts (both explicit and implicit), including those between me and my wife, me and my children, me and my siblings. Those contracts are no less binding, and people no less harmed when they are broken, just because I don't happen to see any good reason to afford belief to any god.
I think your fundamental problem is that you believe yourself and your fellow humans to be so depraved and evil and prone to selfishness and irresponsible that you can't see how people would get along just based on what they can see right in front of them are harms or benefits. And yet in point of fact that is really exactly what everyone DOES do. Some like yourself might CLAIM to be extra accountable to or restrained by supernatural forces, but that is just a claim. In point of fact you personally believe certain things to be right and wrong and you largely agree with what society considers right and wrong. Where you don't agree with society you either meet or exceed society's requirements or suffer the sanctions of society. This is all I do, too.
The little piece of information you may not be aware of is that the invisible being also asks us to live, respect and abide by the laws of the land and the society we live in. This is part of a good act in the obedience of that invisible being. The guideline is, if you don't feel that you can abide by the law of the land you live in, then move out.
Law is uniform for all. Morals may vary person to person. Generally, law of the land is enforced upon us by the society, morals are not.
For a believer, the guideline of morality comes from that invisible being. And it's something that provides an extra incentive to do morally good things and avoid doing morally incorrect things.
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.
So I put the paste on the brush, open the water tap slowly, get the brush wet, put some water in my mouth, close the tap and start brushing. I open the tap at the end, rinse the brush and mouth and close the tap.
Now, will any law of the land punish the person who wasted 10 gallons of water OR reward me for not wasting the water? The answer is no.
But, I have an extra incentive that EVEN THOUGH I have the ability to pay a high water bill, I still try to conserve water in order to help other fellow humans beings in the society, and at the same time I am also glad that I put an effort to perform a morally good act in the light of guidance provided by that invisible being.
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?
IMO, by most part, deep inside our hearts we generally have a pretty clear idea as to what's right and what's wrong.
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.
Someone could be very rich so he doesn't care if he uses 10 gallons of water in brushing his teeth because he thinks he can pay the water bill, and he is not answerable for his actions as long as he doesn't break the law of the land.
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?
Does it? I would suggest quite the opposite. When we are sure of a moral or ethical stand point we should be MORE open to throwing out for discussion and scrutiny. Because we may be over confident for the wrong reasons and discussion might change our views.
Given the position that many hold, that there is nothing wrong with the consensual relationship between informed adults..... what IS the moral grounding for an ethical position against Incest? We are many pages into this thread now and no one has offered any. Just Tzaphkiel's fetid implication that people who do not see it like she does must require professional help, which she spewed out before effectively retreating from the thread never to return.
.
From a believer's perspective, the answer is simple and straight. My morals are based on my faith, and my faith does not approve incest to be a morally correct act.
And since non-believers claim to draw their morals outside of any faith (which is laughable), they can come up with different moral reason to oppose incest. In which case, this thread should belong to Atheism section, in my opinion
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,979,873 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
Read these two underlined notions again.
On one hand you claim that when two consenting adults are sexually involved then it's no one else's business.
And on the other hand, you want to pass a judgement on their actions using moral grounds and call it wrong and want to oppose it.
Clearly a conflict in your thought process.
It's also in contradiction to your belief that as long as you don't hurt anyone, you are not doing anything wrong. The two consenting adults are having an incestal relationship, it shouldn't bother you. They are not indulging a physical harm on you. So I don't know why would you want to use some moral grounds and oppose them?
You didn't comprehend my point.
I'm asking how anyone, in this case, you, can say incest between consenting adults is wrong on moral grounds, and why and how have you made that determination? I outlined what my moral touchstones are.
So, if you are opposed to incest other than the 'yuck' factor, why?
From a believer's perspective, the answer is simple and straight. My morals are based on my faith, and my faith does not approve incest to be a morally correct act.
Then simply do not do incest. The issue with MANY people of faith (a general statement not one aimed at your per se) is that they can not see the difference between "That is not for me" and "That is not for anyone else".
If your hobby leads you to a place where incest is not for you, then simply do not do incest. The same for abortion or homosexuality or anything else your religion and "faith" might bias you against.
But when the question is asked "Is incest morally wrong between consenting adults? Why or why not?" then the speaker is likely looking for arguments, evidence, data and reasoning that are amenable to the intellect, to discourse, to scrutiny and to rationality. Is incest ITSELF immoral, or is it merely against the rules in your club house of choice? Jeans are against the rules of my local golf club for example, so people going there do not wear them. But that does not mean JEANS are immoral or wrong. See the difference?
And in that sphere "I have faith that it is immoral" tells us exactly NOTHING of any utility at all. In fact I have many theists tell me that their god is meant to be intelligent and rational. So if this god of theirs is against incest then taking it on faith is empty. There must be, from an intelligent and rational god...... some intelligent and rational reasoning we can discern as to why it would hold a position against incest. "I just have faith that it does" is at best weak.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
And since non-believers claim to draw their morals outside of any faith (which is laughable)
Ah yes the old "If you do not see it my way, that is laughable" canard. You are up there with another user on this thread who thinks that if you do not see it her way, you are merely mentally ill. This attitude you both display speaks VOLUMES. It really does. Both about you personally, and about the quality of your position on such matters as this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
they can come up with different moral reason to oppose incest. In which case, this thread should belong to Atheism section, in my opinion
I see nothing wrong with this section of the forum at all. This is the religion AND spirituality forum. Not the Religion forum. That said, I am not seeing ANYONE coming up with moral reasons to oppose incest. There simply does not appear to be any to offer.
Then simply do not do incest. The issue with MANY people of faith (a general statement not one aimed at your per se) is that they can not see the difference between "That is not for me" and "That is not for anyone else".
If your hobby leads you to a place where incest is not for you, then simply do not do incest. The same for abortion or homosexuality or anything else your religion and "faith" might bias you against.
But when the question is asked "Is incest morally wrong between consenting adults? Why or why not?" then the speaker is likely looking for arguments, evidence, data and reasoning that are amenable to the intellect, to discourse, to scrutiny and to rationality. Is incest ITSELF immoral, or is it merely against the rules in your club house of choice? Jeans are against the rules of my local golf club for example, so people going there do not wear them. But that does not mean JEANS are immoral or wrong. See the difference?
And in that sphere "I have faith that it is immoral" tells us exactly NOTHING of any utility at all. In fact I have many theists tell me that their god is meant to be intelligent and rational. So if this god of theirs is against incest then taking it on faith is empty. There must be, from an intelligent and rational god...... some intelligent and rational reasoning we can discern as to why it would hold a position against incest. "I just have faith that it does" is at best weak.
Ah yes the old "If you do not see it my way, that is laughable" canard. You are up there with another user on this thread who thinks that if you do not see it her way, you are merely mentally ill. This attitude you both display speaks VOLUMES. It really does. Both about you personally, and about the quality of your position on such matters as this.
I see nothing wrong with this section of the forum at all. This is the religion AND spirituality forum. Not the Religion forum. That said, I am not seeing ANYONE coming up with moral reasons to oppose incest. There simply does not appear to be any to offer.
As you stated that this discussion required intellect. And as you also confessed that after several pages, anyone has yet to come up with a moral reason to pass a judgement on incest and hence oppose it, then one can conclude at least two things here.
1 - We don't have any intelligent participants in this thread
and/or
2 - Since there is no "non-religious" based morals against incest, there is nothing wrong in incest..
So as an Atheist, you and the OP, should not oppose incest or express disgust as long as the adults consent.
You should not use religious morality to oppose incest because it puts a question mark in front of your believe in Atheism.
And based on this, if we look at an example of a society dominant by a faith, we may see very little to no incest in the members.
But if there is a predominantly Atheist society, then perhaps incest will be rampant because there does not seem to have any "Atheistic moral" reason against it.
1 - We don't have any intelligent participants in this thread
and/or
2 - Since there is no "non-religious" based morals against incest, there is nothing wrong in incest..
I would have to go with option 2. For while I strongly doubt the sincerity, honesty, motives and/or biases of many people on this forum at times.... I have had rare occasion to doubt their intellect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
So as an Atheist, you and the OP, should not oppose incest or express disgust as long as the adults consent.
And I don't. I express nor harbor any distaste or disgust for ANY relationship in which ALL participants are operating under the concept of "informed consent".
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
And based on this, if we look at an example of a society dominant by a faith, we may see very little to no incest in the members.
But if there is a predominantly Atheist society, then perhaps incest will be rampant because there does not seem to have any "Atheistic moral" reason against it.
I think you are, very erroneously, conflating two entirely different things. On one hand you have the issue of whether something is moral or immoral. On the other hand you have the issue of whether people WANT to do it or find it personally DISTASTEFUL or not.
Do not conflate these two. They are NOT the same thing.
Even in a predominantly atheist society therefore, there is no reason expect a significantly higher proportion of instances of incest than in a theistic one. But by all means check this for yourself. Go look for figures comparing.... say the US and Pakistan...... with countries like Sweden and the Netherlands.... and see how large (if any) a disparity you can find related to incest between them. I expect you will find SOME disparity, but not significantly large. And the disparity you DO find will likely be less to do with more people engaging in incest.... so much as it has to do with more people feeling ok to be OPEN about the fact they are engaged in incest.
Many, most, nearly all people find the idea of engaging in incest themselves to be personally abhorrent to them. And there are reasons, biological AND societal, for why this is so. But that does not mean there is anything IMMORAL about those that DO do it. Remember once again "That is abhorrent to me" and "That IS abhorrent" are massively different statements. Do not confuse or conflate them.
Destigmatizing the moral discourse of something does NOT mean you will find more people wanting to do it. For example many people, myself included, want to destigmatize the morality surrounding suicide. We do not do so with any hope or expectation that suddenly, having done so, loads of people are going to go "Suicide is moral now, man I have always wanted to do that, lets go for it!!!!" And incest is no different.
Status:
"YAY! Trump guity! Hang Him!"
(set 22 days ago)
Location: Log "cabin" west of Bangor
7,064 posts, read 9,147,101 times
Reputation: 15660
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
And since non-believers claim to draw their morals outside of any faith (which is laughable)...
Why is it 'laughable'?
Do you think it is not possible for [a group of] non-believers to establish an agreed-upon set of rules that govern their interactions with others, in a logical fashion that promotes the well-being and survival of the group by moderating conflicts and actions that would be detrimental to the group?
All 'morality', concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' are established by groups of people with the intention of formulating 'rules' that govern the actions of the group in a manner that attempts to minimize conflicts to prevent the group from tearing itself apart. 'Faith' and 'religion' are not necessary, they are merely tools used bend and bind others to the will of [the leaders of] the group, on the grounds that the 'ordinary' members of the group are not bright enough to perceive the necessity of social structures within the group by logic and reason alone (which, as evidenced by some lacks of logic and reason in these forums, might actually be true, in some cases); the fear of some big baddie who will smite them down if they do 'wrong'.
As you stated that this discussion required intellect. And as you also confessed that after several pages, anyone has yet to come up with a moral reason to pass a judgement on incest and hence oppose it, then one can conclude at least two things here.
1 - We don't have any intelligent participants in this thread
and/or
2 - Since there is no "non-religious" based morals against incest, there is nothing wrong in incest..
So as an Atheist, you and the OP, should not oppose incest or express disgust as long as the adults consent.
You should not use religious morality to oppose incest because it puts a question mark in front of your believe in Atheism.
And based on this, if we look at an example of a society dominant by a faith, we may see very little to no incest in the members.
But if there is a predominantly Atheist society, then perhaps incest will be rampant because there does not seem to have any "Atheistic moral" reason against it.
Basing the morals of atheists on the comments from two of them is liking basing the behaviour of all Muslims on the actions of a couple of terrorists.
What is not happening is any religious person stating why incest between two consenting adults is immoral other than is says so in your religious texts. Surely a person who is religious can offer reasons other than just repeating the words of their Holy Book. And the OP clearly states this entire thread originates from the comments of Jeff who says that if we support homosexuality we must support incest. Many religious people support the former but not the latter. Why is that? That is the question.
I think I already posted that beyond the yucky factor I do not think that family dynamics disappear upon reaching adulthood.
If a woman gave up a child for adoption and then a couple of years later had another child and raised that second one. And those two children did not know about each other and as adults met and had a relationship would that be immoral or sinful? If two siblings grew up together and as adults had sexual relationships with each other I would be uncomfortable with that because I see the two situations different from each other. But the religious are using the thread to call out atheists morals instead of providing rational reasons for not supporting adult incest. I think the OP wants to know if supporting homosexuality and incest are the same (or opposing them both too)
Basing the morals of atheists on the comments from two of them is liking basing the behaviour of all Muslims on the actions of a couple of terrorists.
What is not happening is any religious person stating why incest between two consenting adults is immoral other than is says so in your religious texts. Surely a person who is religious can offer reasons other than just repeating the words of their Holy Book. And the OP clearly states this entire thread originates from the comments of Jeff who says that if we support homosexuality we must support incest. Many religious people support the former but not the latter. Why is that? That is the question.
I think I already posted that beyond the yucky factor I do not think that family dynamics disappear upon reaching adulthood.
If a woman gave up a child for adoption and then a couple of years later had another child and raised that second one. And those two children did not know about each other and as adults met and had a relationship would that be immoral or sinful? If two siblings grew up together and as adults had sexual relationships with each other I would be uncomfortable with that because I see the two situations different from each other. But the religious are using the thread to call out atheists morals instead of providing rational reasons for not supporting adult incest. I think the OP wants to know if supporting homosexuality and incest are the same (or opposing them both too)
If an Atheist wants to live like a pig or any other animal who has no conciousness or moral grounds to oppose incest then let it be.
All he has to do is over come the "yuck" factor.
Does that conclude the discussion?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
