Taboo Scenario 4: Incest is Best
Sarah and Peter were brother and sister. They were on vacation together away from home. One night they were staying alone in a tent on a beach. They decided it would be fun to have sex. They were both more than 21 years old. They had sex and enjoyed it. They knew that for medical reasons Sarah could not get pregnant. They decided not to have sex with each other again, but they never regretted having had sex once. In fact, it remained a positive experience for them throughout their lives. It also remained entirely their secret (until now!). Is anyone harmed by Sarah and Peter's actions?I answered that I didn't know on this one. Obviously, no one was directly harmed, but one can make a case that this sort of behavior, can indirectly harm the family structure and weaken the incest taboo itself. Their are certainly good reasons for incest to be taboo, although certainly the most obvious does not apply to Sarah. Although it has remained a secret, the potential always exists for the secret to become known, and that could I believe cause harm, but that has not apparently happened yet. One could also assert that even though they regard this event as a positive experience it has indeed harmed them. So as to whether this has caused harm, I am conflicted.
Would you be more bothered watching a brother and sister you don't know having sex together than you would watching two strangers not related to each other?Yes, that would indeed bother me.
How do you judge Sarah and Peter's actions?I judge them to be wrong.
If their sexual liaison had been known about, should steps have been taken to prevent them from having sex together again (assuming such steps were possible) or should they have been punished for having had sex together once? [Note: if you think that either or both of these things should occur then you should answer 'Yes'; only answer 'No', if you think neither of these things should occur.]I believe that they should be prevented from doing this again, and can legitimately be punished for what they did. Once we are talking about the possibility of punishment, it is apparent that their actions now are known, and as I indicated above, I think that incest can damage both the family structure itself, and that their is sound reason for it to be a taboo. Of course there are parallels here with gay marriage, as social conservatives who are opposed to gay marriage frequently claim. While I am in favor of legalizing gay marriage, I do have sympathy for the argument that nebulous, and unexpected damage to the family structure could result from such an event. I think that while this could happen, it seems to be a remote enough possibility, and there seem to be enough other benefits of gay marriage that we should risk this. The likelihood of legal and relatively common incest being damaging to families seems far greater to me. This is one reason I think gay marriage should be legislated in existence, not mandated by courts on the basis of an individual right to marry. The two examples (non-reproductive adult incest and gay marriage) seem identical to me on the basis of individual rights, they are only different in their effect on society, and accepting those consequences should be a legislative, not judicial decision.
Suppose you learn about two foreign countries. In one country, it is normal for brothers and sisters to have sex with each other on one occasion if the sister is infertile. In the other, brothers and sisters never have sex with each other. Are both these customs okay morally speaking or is one of them bad and morally wrong?I had to think about this one for a bit. One could postulate alternate family structures and societies that have developed along lines where this would cause no direct or indirect harm. However, that seems to be adding a bit more to the scenario than is there. We are given no information as to what effect this activity has on the incestuous country. So, I felt that in the end, I have to go with my belief that this would cause harm, and therefore the incestuous country is bad.
posted by Dave Justus | 5/23/2005 03:21:00 PM
12 Comments:
Do you know of any civilisation where incest has been an accepted practice and moral norm?
The only instance that I can think of would be during the last decades in Rome - say from the time of Caligula onward.
Personally, these kinds of "test" are a waste of time. They do not truly touch upon the nature of moral behaviour. They do not truly deal in depth with the moralities of daily life in our modern society.
I would take far greater notice of a questionnaire that gave thought to the morality of such things as breaking speed limits, queue jumpers, having an affair with the neighbour's wife/husband, or dealing with a daughter's pregnancy... the kind of things that one is LIKELY to meet in every day life.
A pheasant-plucking half-wit is not going to excite my moral fibre one jot. The probability of such a person existing would most likely get the response "Only in America..."
I would take far greater notice of a questionnaire that gave thought to the morality of such things as breaking speed limits, queue jumpers, having an affair with the neighbour's wife/husband, or dealing with a daughter's pregnancy... the kind of things that one is LIKELY to meet in every day life.
I think that they choose these questions for the shock value. Speeders and line jumpers are daily things, that do not provoke thought. Incest and Beastality are at the fringes of socity - and thus we know that they exist and try to ignore them. By using shocking/fringe scenerios, they were hoping to elicit more honest replys. A speeder will garner less of a reaction then Incest. It's more of a true test of your morals and privacy views if you are ok with the extreme.
They say but they never regretted having had sex once. In fact, it remained a positive experience for them throughout their lives. It also remained entirely their secret (until now!). Is anyone harmed by Sarah and Peter's actions?
To which Dave replys I answered that I didn't know on this one. Obviously, no one was directly harmed, but one can make a case that this sort of behavior, can indirectly harm the family structure and weaken the incest taboo itself.
But the question directly stated that 1) No one found out, 2) They considered this a positive event 3) They never regretted it.
How can something that is never found out weaken the family bonds? Or weaken the incest taboo? Perhaps, since it was such a positive experince, it strenghten that family - as the Brother and Sister are certianlly closer now then ever.
I call foul here - your reasoning is not fully thought out. :)
My reasoning may have been poorly explained.
First off, the obvious harm from incest is genetically defective babies. That is not an issue here. I give additional reasons for why this cetegory of behavior is undesirable, even if one or the other of the participants are infertile. One, is the weakening of family structure by which I meant the general family structure in society. Hopefully, interfamilial relations do not view one another as potential sexual partners. If incest was fairly common, that would change this viewpoint, quite possibly with disasterour results for the family itself. Secondly, and similarly, since there is a real danger that incest as a general rule will cause harm, the taboo against incest in and of itself serves a very useful purpose. Damaging that taboo can cause harm, hence it should not be done.
This is all an attempt to show that incest can justly be considered immoral even in the case when both participants are adults and there is no chance of procreation.
Now, if this act remains a secret, it will certainly not cause the either of these effects. Remember though, that I judge morality to be related to choices, not results. This means looking at the possible and likely outcomes of ones choices.
If I attempt to shoot you, that action was immoral even if I miss. Similarly, if I shoot you because you are hiding behind a target at a shooting range and I did not know you were there, and could not have reasonably guessed that, my action is not immoral, although the incident would be regretable. Thus in the immoral case, no one was harmed, but harm was intended and in the moral case, someone was harmed, but no harm was intended. Intent doesn't cover all evils, if you can reasonably predict the harm you could do, and fail to account for that you can still be immoral.
Regarding the expirience as a positive one does not by definition mean that no harm was done. Certainly smoking is regarded by many people as a positive expirience, even if it harms their bodies. Has their relationship changed for the better or for the worse because of their actions? We cannot say for certain, and neither can they, since they don't get to have both a relationship with the incest and a relationship without it.
Certainly I should have been more clear in this post on the narrow question of harm, and saved the other stuff for the wider question of morality. However, I stand by my answer here.
I think that they choose these questions for the shock value. Speeders and line jumpers are daily things, that do not provoke thought. Incest and Beastality are at the fringes of socity - and thus we know that they exist and try to ignore them...It's more of a true test of your morals and privacy views if you are ok with the extreme.
How is that again?
Seems to me that a whole bunch of little sins are of no account where one biggie really counts.
As I have asked Dave in the first "spot" on this path, is it the injury to the small boy that is amoral, or is it the fact that his place on the swing was taken (by force) by the older and bigger girl. My personal feeling is that it is the act of taking that is amoral, not the injury.
I personally do not believe that I should reserve my moral judgement for the day when I need to practise cannibalism in order to survive over starvation. I believe that the small moral judgements, the everyday, the mundane, the trivial have far greater impact upon those around me.
For that reason, the "shock horror!!!" factor in these pseudo-scientific self analyses questionaires creates a parody of the real world and a mockery of true morality.
How is that again?
Seems to me that a whole bunch of little sins are of no account where one biggie really counts.
Umm... I was speaking in terms of using shock value to provoke thought in a survey.
In every legal system that I have ever come across there are diffring levels of sin (as you called it, I prefer to not use that term as it is very loaded - so I will use the term Crime for law breaking) or Crime. If I were to exceed the legal speed limit by 5 mph or 10 kmph, I would not expect to get the death penality.
Morality is a spectrum of colors, not black and white right and wrong. What is immoral in one instance might well be moral in another instance. For example speeding (as this has come up). To just speed might be consitered immoral. However , to exceed the speed limit to help save a life, or to avoid an accident could be totally moral.
I feel that they chose these extreme situations to remove as much of the color as they could - to try and keep the awnsers as black and white as they could. Some could think that jumping a line is a really minor offence - but most would consiter incest or chicken seasoning to be really big deals.
Personally, I am one of the more moral people that I know. In that I act with in my moral framework as much as possible. Many of the people that I know and work with will say that they follow a moral framework and then do not follow it except - say - on sundays.
;)
Now, if this act remains a secret, it will certainly not cause the either of these effects. Remember though, that I judge morality to be related to choices, not results. This means looking at the possible and likely outcomes of ones choices
So is it immoral to shoot some one that is trying to rape your wife?
Choice = To shoot or not to shoot
Outcome = perhaps saving said wife from rape.
It is really difficult to make a moral choice depentant only on the choice, with out regard for the outcome. The expected outcome should help forge the mindset that makes the choice. To only exist in the moment and make choices with out regard to the outcomes seems to me to be short sited.
Perhaps I should say choices based upon likely results, using a reasonable person standard.
I agree fully, and I thought my example showed clearly, that expected results are extremely important here. However, being stupid does not necessarily get you of of a moral quandry.
If you push the button on my TV remote that is set up to launch the entire U.S. nuclear arsenal you cannot be moral held liable for the holocaust you unleash because no reasonable person would expect my TV remote to be launching nuclear weapons. One the other hand, if you point a shotgun at me and pull the trigger because you believe it isn't loaded and blow my head off you will be morally responsible for my death because a reasonable person should know that shot guns are dangerous.
In the case of people of limited intelligence, it can be far more difficult to judge. Their capabilities are difficult to determine.
Mostly, I use my moral standards to judge myself, not others. However, we do have to discriminate right from wrong, more cases than not though are fairly clear.
Remember also, I have a different standard for punishment than I do for merely being immoral.
Geez are you guys wallowing in an orgy of moral issues in this thread.
Dave says, “Perhaps I should say choices based upon likely results, using a reasonable person standard.”
This begs the question of how we find the rulebook for “a reasonable person standard”?
Since the question of morality is basically the question of right and wrong, the answer will always sway based on the relative viewpoint from the observer of the act in question.
I believe you will all agree that what is morally acceptable for one, is not necessarily morally acceptable to another.
Religious folks base many of their morals on their religious teachings. This is the framework for their view on what is an acceptable thing to do. In this respect, religion is a great measuring stick for what should and should not be done.
Another moral measuring device is our laws. If it is against the law, then chances are it is also morally wrong.
Unfortunately, there are religious teachings and laws that we can all argue about that are perhaps over the top when it comes to our own personal moral beliefs.
I prefer a fairly basic approach when examining a situation for being morally right or wrong. The Wiccans say it eloquently, so I'll use their phrase even though I am not Wiccan. “If it harms none, do what you will.”
Morally, my stance is that if your actions will not harm another, go for it!
In the case of the incest question, nobody has been harmed in any way. To thrust some made-up “what if” scenario on this situation is imposing variables that are not in the question. The religious or legal parameters for these siblings was not addressed, therefor, cannot be entered into your assessment of the moral question.
That being said, in this scenario I would say that morally they have done nothing wrong. Add a religious background, or a legal precedence at where they are living, and the question morphs into a whole different situation.
As to the statements throughout these scenario's about people not finding out. I tell my children that this reflects on your integrity, which I define as doing the correct thing, even when nobody is looking.
First off, I am becoming disturbed by the number of comments on a post about incest. Troubling, very troubling.
Getting a few google hits here as well ...
It has become obvious that I need to put together a more detailed, and thought out post explaining my view of morality. I will get to work on that. I think the basics of what I think are here in this post, and the comments and the other posts, but it is certainly not well organized.
As a quick further explanation though, when I am talking about a reasonable person standard, I am talking to what outcomes a reasonable person would expect to arise from their actions. I am not talking about what a reasonable person would, or would not consider moral.
So the moral thing is to choose the 'best choice' based upon reasonable inference of outcomes. I will discuss what best means and how one can arrive at that in a later post.
Mystic Knight also brought up legality. One could say that obeying laws is a moral obligation, even if the law has no intrinsic moral basis. A compelling arguement for this can be made.
However, I believe that laws should be based upon morality, rather than the reverse, so in terms of this discussion, it is probably best to treat this question as is it intrinsically immoral, and if so, is it immoral to a level where it should be illegal (hence punishable.)
First off, I am becoming disturbed by the number of comments on a post about incest. Troubling, very troubling.
Getting a few google hits here as well ...
That's right, Dave the Pimp of the Internet. Go to Dave's site for Incest and other naughtness with frozen chickens.
Anything for hits i guess :)
Post a Comment
<< Home