Originally posted by Bentley
It depends, while I agree that adaptation in general is losely defined, you could also argue that people with lousy jobs have some troubles engaging in functional relationships with others, because having good contacts and a great social interaction remains as the best way to get a good quality of life. Possessing good people skills is kind of a big deal to "succeed" in modern systems.Which again is not "moral", I don't even think incest itself is a problem of any kind, but more like a coincidence among many that can be caused by "negative factors" in the person's upbringing. A psychologist can probably argue that incest is a regressive form of love, which means you won't get to "progress" into mature life experiences/relationships by "clinging" into early-life affections. The notion of progress and regress supposes already a notion of morality that is hardly clear through psychology itself without heavily factoring the social function I already pointed out.
This does not even make any sense at all and can swing both ways, people can have relationships with people for so many reasons other than love and those that have great "people" skils that you may call them can come under this while at the same time people under incest are imo often likely to be emotionally evolved far beyond the regular relationship that can commonly be drawn to purely sex, while the incetuous pair base their feelings on a long period of knowing eachother and even go so far as ignoring said taboos as tough as life may become because of it to stay together.
In my example, if someone actually had grown fond of their sister or brother who they had known closely for a period of years and based their relationship on love, they would be less socially broken imo than someone who would just sleeze their way into someones bed, then leave in the morning or someone who remains in a relationship for personal gain, which may include money or sex. In this example, the "incestuous couple" chose love but the person who chose the other relationship if you can even call it that did not. I guess my point is that you cant relationhips as nothing but a series of "social" outcomes, I would sooner feel sorry for the couple who tossed together out of impulse in some bar meeting, or even after a year or so of friendship than a couple who may have grown their love from knowing eachother from birth.
Too much generalisation for my tastes here.
Originally posted by Burning thought
This does not even make any sense at all and can swing both ways, people can have relationships with people for so many reasons other than love and those that have great "people" skils that you may call them can come under this while at the same time people under incest are imo often likely to be emotionally evolved far beyond the regular relationship that can commonly be drawn to purely sex, while the incetuous pair base their feelings on a long period of knowing eachother and even go so far as ignoring said taboos as tough as life may become because of it to stay together.In my example, if someone actually had grown fond of their sister or brother who they had known closely for a period of years and based their relationship on love, they would be less socially broken imo than someone who would just sleeze their way into someones bed, then leave in the morning or someone who remains in a relationship for personal gain, which may include money or sex. In this example, the "incestuous couple" chose love but the person who chose the other relationship if you can even call it that did not. I guess my point is that you cant relationhips as nothing but a series of "social" outcomes, I would sooner feel sorry for the couple who tossed together out of impulse in some bar meeting, or even after a year or so of friendship than a couple who may have grown their love from knowing eachother from birth.
Too much generalisation for my tastes here.
Again, the psychology-book generalization that ini and I dismissed as incredibly general is that when trying to hook up with someone you know very closely in a family-way manner, you're kind of f_cking yourself. It is generally admitted by these textbook psychologists that people who are socially adept tend to accept people who are different and are not limited by some sort of ego-love problem.
This of course IS an outrageous generalization, and I agree that it is best to present it as such. Keep in mind that psycholgy has grown to be a social science that cares about socially acceptable types and is not fond to moral controversy -Jung got spanked out of mainstream psychoanalysis because of that-.
Most arguments that will present incest in a negative light are going to work into the "incest fear", meaning that things can go all kinds of wrong by transforming a family relationship into a sexual one. It is not based in fact as much as it is in speculation and typification -think pedophillic attraction, for example-. As you mentioned, every kind of relationship poses ego problems, imo incest is mostly repudiated as a consequence of a law existing against it, and the law exists to prevent the "dangerous" cases -as any moral law does, it works in generalization and not necessarily in a case by case basis-. EVEN when incest is presented as illegal or personally disturbing, incest tends to be a consequence of an underlying situation and not the cause, following that reasoning, incest itself is not the problem.
Well that is ridiculous, just because you have similiar genes or blood does not in any way mean your having sex with yourself lol...
not sure I get what your saying in most of your post at least to what I can reply to.
I agree with that last part though, its working on "fears" no actualy cirumstances.
Some psychologists assume that your inner family circle works as a physical manifestation of yourself, of sorts. This is why there is another "incest" taboo between adoptive brothers or adoptive mothers, passing through the close extended family.
By the same token, the relationship between blood-brothers that don't grow in the same house are seen as an attenuation of the regular incest.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
On the first issue I'm not sure if that's really a matter of morality so much as a matter of practicality and responsibility. It's like saying that poor people are immoral for having children because their children will be born into poverty.
Poverty and genetic deformities are not quite the same.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
The two main problems with applying this argument to a comprehensive prohibition on incest are as follows:(1) If the incest does not produce malformed children and/or is done with protection where is the harm in it? Is incest only bad insofar as inbreeding might lead to deformed/invalid children?
The problem is that there is always the risk of having malformed children. Even with protection, there is no sure way to prevent it.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
(2) There are scientific studies that show that the most viable couples for producing healthy children and the couples with the best fertility rates on average are third cousin couples, something you'd probably consider incest.
I'm focusing more on sibling and parent child incest relationships with my past points.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
The second issue isn't really even morally relevant. It's a psychological discussion about some cases. It doesn't apply to all cases and doesn't make incest "wrong", just purportedly psychologically damaging in some cases.
You can't wave something away simply because it doesn't always happen. There are many illegal activities that don't always produce negative results in every single case.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Poverty and genetic deformities are not quite the same.
The problem is that there is always the risk of having malformed children. Even with protection, there is no sure way to prevent it.
I'm focusing more on sibling and parent child incest relationships with my past points.
You can't wave something away simply because it doesn't always happen. There are many illegal activities that don't always produce negative results in every single case.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
What is the operative difference?
What kind of question is that? Genetic deformities are physically damaging. Poverty is not. That's like relating beating your child and raising it poor. One is physically damaging, the other is not.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Say there's a brother who gets a handjob from his sister. No direct exchange and they take every precaution even though the odds of conception are incredibly slim. Nothing happens. Is it still immoral? Because you seem to be judging it to be immoral based on consequences, and if those consequences aren't there then where is the immorality of the act?
My second point is not related to child birth, and it isn't reasonable to create some kind of law that says hand jobs are okay but that's as far as you can go. And even if it was, are you now saying that your new argument is that incest hand jobs should be made legal?
Originally posted by Omega Vision
And I'm focusing on consensual incest as a whole. You seem to want to steer it toward child abuse which is a completely different phenomenon.
In what way? All of my posts have been about incest. And all of my points have been about consensual incest as well.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
You sound like a rule worshiper.
I don't know what you mean here, nor do I see how it is relevant to my point.
Originally posted by TacDavey
What kind of question is that? Genetic deformities are physically damaging. Poverty is not. That's like relating beating your child and raising it poor. One is physically damaging, the other is not.
My second point is not related to child birth, and it isn't reasonable to create some kind of law that says hand jobs are okay but that's as far as you can go. And even if it was, are you now saying that your new argument is that incest hand jobs should be made legal?
So I ask again, if no conception or psychological damage ensues what's wrong about consensual incest?
In what way? All of my posts have been about incest. And all of my points have been about consensual incest as well.
And if you are discussing consensual incest I ask again where is the wrongness if no actual inbreeding is involved?
I don't know what you mean here, nor do I see how it is relevant to my point.
I might have strawmanned your position there, and if that's the case I apologize, but to me it seemed as if you were contending that there can't be exceptions to rules.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Not having enough money for food or medicine isn't physically damaging? Geez someone better tell half the Developing World they're suffering psychosomatically.
Poverty isn't necessarily physically damaging, perhaps I should have clarified. Poverty doesn't automatically mean any physical harm will come to you. The same is not true of the other two examples I gave.
Again, are you trying to say that a parent that beats their children and a parent that births children in poverty are the same?
Originally posted by Omega Vision
They're not illegal so far as I know. Under Sodomy Laws they certainly would be, but thankfully Sodomy Laws are virtually nonexistent these days in the Developed World. And I'm not asking about legality, I'm asking about morality. It's ignorant to think that the two are the same.So I ask again, if no conception or psychological damage ensues what's wrong about consensual incest?
You just asked, "If you take away the things wrong with an act, what's wrong with the act?"
The possibility of psychological damage as well as damage done to a child are the things wrong with incest. If they weren't there, then there wouldn't be a problem, at least there wouldn't be these problems. But the fact is they are there.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Then why are you talking about differences in power and control? That implies an element of non-consensuality.
I never was talking about differences in power or control. Indeed, the quote I provided was specifically talking about instances in where there are no differences in power or control. Where the two people involved are on equal footing and both are consenting.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
And if you are discussing consensual incest I ask again where is the wrongness if no actual inbreeding is involved?
Unless you stick specifically to certain types of sexual activity the risk of inbreeding will always be there. And again, my other point doesn't even rely on inbreeding.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Rule worship refers to the hypothetical situation in which someone will illogically support a rule's enforcement even if it doesn't make sense in some cases and indeed to adhere to it even if doing so would be catastrophically worse in a particular case than failing to adhere to it would be.I might have strawmanned your position there, and if that's the case I apologize, but to me it seemed as if you were contending that there can't be exceptions to rules.
I only pointed out that the simple fact that an act does not cause harm 100% of the time does not mean it should not be illegal. Especially considering that almost any act falls into this category.
I never said we should just blindly follow rules.
Originally posted by TacDaveyWould you regard it as immoral for anybody with a genetically linked deformity to have sex of any sort, regardless of how much protection and precaution is used, so long as one of the consenting partners is a women and therefore there remains a risk, however minute, of her conceiving a child to whom those disabilities would be passed on?
What kind of question is that? Genetic deformities are physically damaging. Poverty is not. That's like relating beating your child and raising it poor. One is physically damaging, the other is not.
Conceiving while aware of the risks of passing on genetic disabilities is not remotely close to beating a child.
Originally posted by Existere
Would you regard it as immoral for anybody with a genetically linked deformity to have sex of any sort, regardless of how much protection and precaution is used, so long as one of the consenting partners is a women and therefore there remains a risk, however minute, of her conceiving a child to whom those disabilities would be passed on?
That depends on how large the risk was. If there was a good chance the child would be born with complications, then yes, I would consider it immoral to do so knowing that you are putting the child at risk.
Originally posted by Existere
Conceiving while aware of the risks of passing on genetic disabilities is not remotely close to beating a child.
It was for the example I was using it in. Namely, the difference between poverty and physical damage.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Poverty isn't necessarily physically damaging, perhaps I should have clarified. Poverty doesn't automatically mean any physical harm will come to you. The same is not true of the other two examples I gave.Again, are you trying to say that a parent that beats their children and a parent that births children in poverty are the same?
You just asked, "If you take away the things wrong with an act, what's wrong with the act?"
The possibility of psychological damage as well as damage done to a child are the things wrong with incest. If they weren't there, then there wouldn't be a problem, at least there wouldn't be these problems. But the fact is they are there.
I never was talking about differences in power or control. Indeed, the quote I provided was specifically talking about instances in where there are [B]no
differences in power or control. Where the two people involved are on equal footing and both are consenting.Unless you stick specifically to certain types of sexual activity the risk of inbreeding will always be there. And again, my other point doesn't even rely on inbreeding.
I only pointed out that the simple fact that an act does not cause harm 100% of the time does not mean it should not be illegal. Especially considering that almost any act falls into this category.
I never said we should just blindly follow rules. [/B]
😐
Originally posted by TacDaveyNo, it wasn't. You can argue the immorality of having a child while knowing possible genetic risks that may lead to the mental or physical disabilities, but that is in no way comparable to beating a child.
It was for the example I was using it in. Namely, the difference between poverty and physical damage.
If you wrap your head around why those two things are different, you might get a better understanding of what Omega Vision is trying to explain to you.
Thats not incest in all countries, certainly not mine. My friends parents were not related at all before marriage, he was born with life threatening asthma and bad eczema. Now you tell me if sex at all is such a great idea?
To put another spin on it, do you agree with Tac, do you think that kids parents should be locked away or fined for giving birth to it? is it in incredible discomfort and should, in your opinion never have really been born? because under his views, one of the two would happen and their both far more immortal imo, than the "chance" of a defect.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
So again you're making a legal argument when I'm trying to make a moral argument.😐
Not at all. I think it should be illegal because it's immoral. And I think it's immoral because of my points, which you neglected to respond to.
Originally posted by Existere
No, it wasn't. You can argue the immorality of having a child while knowing possible genetic risks that may lead to the mental or physical disabilities, but that is in no way comparable to beating a child.
I never, at any point, said that it was. I said there is a difference between not having money and having physical problems. Omega Vision seemed to suggest that parents who birth their children into poverty are the same as those who birth them knowing they have a high risk of physical disabilities. I pointed out that the difference is that poverty isn't necessarily physically damaging, where as birth defects are. They are different. I only used the beating child example to illustrate the difference between physically harming a child, and not having enough money to fully support a child. I never claimed that beating your child was the same as birthing it with defects.
Originally posted by Burning thought
Thats not incest in all countries, certainly not mine. My friends parents were not related at all before marriage, he was born with life threatening asthma and bad eczema. Now you tell me if sex at all is such a great idea?
Are you still defending one risk by claiming there are others? Yes, every birth comes with some chance that things will not go as planned. That doesn't mean it's okay to up the odds that something bad happens.
Originally posted by Burning thought
To put another spin on it, do you agree with Tac, do you think that kids parents should be locked away or fined for giving birth to it? is it in incredible discomfort and should, in your opinion never have really been born? because under his views, one of the two would happen and their both far more immortal imo, than the "chance" of a defect.
What are far more immoral? Punishing parents? That's more immoral than risking the health of a child?
Or are you still trying to claim that I said people with disabilities don't deserve to live? Because once more, I never said that. I've explained this too many times already.