Held beliefs without justification

[Borg Refinery]

I think you're using two different arguments interchangeably here - Do you think disabled people who have a high probability of passing on a disability/illness are immoral to have children?

Not at all.



The incestuous types' dysfunctionalism is what's causing this, the disabled people were simply born that way and couldn't help it. Or something happened to them..but the point is that the disabled people can't help it.

In what sense is this different from normalising disabled people having children?

So you're saying disabled people can help it, and should just choose not to be disabled?

[Nalaar]

Well, I believe we have moved the needle, the difference with disabled folks etc is the lack of abusiveness/dysfunctionality in their relationships, and the unnecessity of causing deformities in children with an incestuous relationship.

I think you're using two different arguments interchangeably here - Do you think disabled people who have a high probability of passing on a disability/illness are immoral to have children?

And the other thing you utterly ignored; setting a precedent. You ignore the fact that if you normalized it, horrible things would happen and yes it would effect all of society. Frankly, that pr0n stuff about it alone should be banned, let alone actual relationships...

In what sense is this different from normalising disabled people having children?

[Borg Refinery]

Well, I believe we have moved the needle, the difference with disabled folks etc is the lack of abusiveness/dysfunctionality in their relationships, and the unnecessity of causing deformities in children with an incestuous relationship.



And the other thing you utterly ignored; setting a precedent. You ignore the fact that if you normalized it, horrible things would happen and yes it would effect all of society. Frankly, that pr0n stuff about it alone should be banned, let alone actual relationships...



Then again, we live in a world where one of our most successful countries (Japan) has an epidemic of men looking at paedo-hentai crap in full view of kids on the trains. We call them a 'healthy' society. Maybe Barry's right, our standards are so blurred we can't even tell which way is up anymore..

[Nalaar]

OK, I'll put my feet in the water, but probably will soon take them out.

Who says incest is immoral?

Is homosexuality immoral by the same source?

Is it more moral for a brother to love his sister than to love some random man?

We live in a secular society which disregards morals, as far as I can see. I'm not sure why incest remains one of the bastions of morality.

I think homosexuality certainly had the same kind of reception in terms of disgust (many people will describe the idea homosexual relationships to be disgusting to them, even if they don't think it should be illegal.)

[Nalaar]

To be honest I never saw anybody call it Eugenics before.

I may be using the term inappropriately, however my understand is that 'restriction of sexual partners due to hereditary genetic concerns' seems to fall within the definition of eugenics to me. If it is not I can find suitable alternative description.

As I understood it, the main reason given for this was that there is a much higher risk of birth defects if people who are very closely related have children.



A secondary issue that has become much more well known in recent decades is that it's probably a much higher risk of mental health issues, and such relationships are much more likely to be somehow dysfunctional or even abusive, without the victim necessarily seeing it as such.



I guess one argument which I had never considered might be - if we ban incest on the above basis, why do we not ban other couples from having children where there is a much higher risk of birth defects from one or both of them having pre-existing and already known medical conditions.

This is the thought I have also had.

Therefore I guess the argument I would introduce here is the one about mental health and dysfunctional relationships.  



I seem to recall reading somewhere that such relationships are frowned upon even in isolated cultures that have had little contact with the rest of humanity and don't have anything that we would consider as an advanced legal system.



I think there are probably many other examples of such things that we believe are "normal" or "wrong" without particular logical justification behind them - a less controversial example might be the vagaries of "good manners" and how to conduct oneself in certain social contexts, which often seem to me to have very little logic behind them.

I can understand it in small cultures having a learned history that incest creates poor bloodlines, I don't think that is applicable to our society.

[T00ts]

It's not a good topic for rainy days either.







As I said I don't think the eugenic argument is strong - we don't apply this thinking (especially in law) for other relationships with potential deformity/illness. It also doesn't cover relationships where pregnancy is not possible, for example 2 brothers.







Paedophilia is a separate topic, I don't think anyone's moral position on paedophiles changes depending on whether or not the abuser and victim are related.







As with above, you may find the eugenic argument enough, I do not.

I think you could find a far better and healthier use of your time.

[Nalaar]

(shrugs)



As said, unless you force through a Chinese type system, you can't stop humans from doing weird stuff. Just look at that report I linked to, the web seems to be overflowing with that gross stuff.

Yeah whether or not you  *can* stop it is limited by resources etc, the question of why *should* we stop it is the topic at hand.

It should, it's an extra abuse of trust.

Sure I can see that, but I don't think it's moving the needle.

Well great, you don't think it matters if masses of sheeple interbreed and kids come out looking like the hills have eyes.

I was explicit in the OP that I think the argument from eugenics is a poor one.

[Barry]

OK, I'll put my feet in the water, but probably will soon take them out.

Who says incest is immoral?

Is homosexuality immoral by the same source?

Is it more moral for a brother to love his sister than to love some random man?

We live in a secular society which disregards morals, as far as I can see. I'm not sure why incest remains one of the bastions of morality.

[Javert]

To be honest I never saw anybody call it Eugenics before.



As I understood it, the main reason given for this was that there is a much higher risk of birth defects if people who are very closely related have children.



A secondary issue that has become much more well known in recent decades is that it's probably a much higher risk of mental health issues, and such relationships are much more likely to be somehow dysfunctional or even abusive, without the victim necessarily seeing it as such.



I guess one argument which I had never considered might be - if we ban incest on the above basis, why do we not ban other couples from having children where there is a much higher risk of birth defects from one or both of them having pre-existing and already known medical conditions.



Therefore I guess the argument I would introduce here is the one about mental health and dysfunctional relationships.  



I seem to recall reading somewhere that such relationships are frowned upon even in isolated cultures that have had little contact with the rest of humanity and don't have anything that we would consider as an advanced legal system.



I think there are probably many other examples of such things that we believe are "normal" or "wrong" without particular logical justification behind them - a less controversial example might be the vagaries of "good manners" and how to conduct oneself in certain social contexts, which often seem to me to have very little logic behind them.

[Borg Refinery]

It's not a good topic for rainy days either.

I hope you don't overthink it on those days either.

As I said I don't think the eugenic argument is strong - we don't apply this thinking (especially in law) for other relationships with potential deformity/illness. It also doesn't cover relationships where pregnancy is not possible, for example 2 brothers.

(shrugs)



As said, unless you force through a Chinese type system, you can't stop humans from doing weird stuff. Just look at that report I linked to, the web seems to be overflowing with that gross stuff.

Paedophilia is a separate topic, I don't think anyone's moral position on paedophiles changes depending on whether or not the abuser and victim are related.

It should, it's an extra abuse of trust.

As with above, you may find the eugenic argument enough, I do not.

Well great, you don't think it matters if masses of sheeple interbreed and kids come out looking like the hills have eyes.



I think it is 'enough' of an argument.

[Nalaar]

A nice sunny day and this is what you're thinking about.

It's not a good topic for rainy days either.

Ok, it's bad because it causes deformities and illnesses most of all

As I said I don't think the eugenic argument is strong - we don't apply this thinking (especially in law) for other relationships with potential deformity/illness. It also doesn't cover relationships where pregnancy is not possible, for example 2 brothers.

it's also an abuse of trust (a lot of incest is also paedophilic which in my opinion deserves the harshest of sentences to deal with..)

Paedophilia is a separate topic, I don't think anyone's moral position on paedophiles changes depending on whether or not the abuser and victim are related.

and more importantly; humans are very sheep-like and if you said it's ok, I'd hate to think what'd happen (it's not funny) and our society's children would come out damaged and deformed, like in the past.

As with above, you may find the eugenic argument enough, I do not.

[T00ts]

I start with a simple disclaimer that this will not be a popular (in terms of mindset) topic. The central claim is one that I think we will all agree on, the question is what justification we have for that agreement. I understand if someone does not want to engage because they don't want to question their justification.



The claim is this 'Incest is morally wrong, and so it follows it should be illegal'.



I think it is important the claim is as non-grey as possible, I am not talking about vague relations of 3rd cousins etc, but direct family relations such as incestuous siblings and the like.



I think there are only 2 arguments against these relationships, the argument from disgust, and the argument from eugenics. However, neither of these have much weight morally, and less so legally. So I find myself in the position of believing strongly in something I can not justify.



With that I open the topic to others, do you find the disgust/eugenic argument enough? Or is there another that I have not considered, and which provides a better grounding than either of those arguments?

In England Scotland and Wales it is illegal. In the Republic of Ireland it isn't. So here it is a done deal.

[Borg Refinery]

A nice sunny day and this is what you're thinking about.



Ok, it's bad because it causes deformities and illnesses most of all, it's also an abuse of trust (a lot of incest is also paedophilic which in my opinion deserves the harshest of sentences to deal with..), and more importantly; humans are very sheep-like and if you said it's ok, I'd hate to think what'd happen (it's not funny) and our society's children would come out damaged and deformed, like in the past.



Even 3rd cousins are too close - that's what Saudi 'royalty' is all about nowdays.



There you go, a scientific and ethical justification for harshly deterring it. If two adults want to do it, however, there isn't much the plod can really do about it, short of a Chinese 24/7 social credit ultra-Stasi system. But yes it must be harshly deterred. What's gross is the amount of pr0n out there about it and it's some of the most searched out stuff....https://fightthenewdrug.org/2019-pornhub-annual-report/">https://fightthenewdrug.org/2019-pornhub-annual-report/

[papasmurf]

With that I open the topic to others, do you find the disgust/eugenic argument enough? Or is there another that I have not considered, and which provides a better grounding than either of those arguments?

I think you are treading on dangerous ground, so I won't take part.

[Nalaar]

I start with a simple disclaimer that this will not be a popular (in terms of mindset) topic. The central claim is one that I think we will all agree on, the question is what justification we have for that agreement. I understand if someone does not want to engage because they don't want to question their justification.



The claim is this 'Incest is morally wrong, and so it follows it should be illegal'.



I think it is important the claim is as non-grey as possible, I am not talking about vague relations of 3rd cousins etc, but direct family relations such as incestuous siblings and the like.



I think there are only 2 arguments against these relationships, the argument from disgust, and the argument from eugenics. However, neither of these have much weight morally, and less so legally. So I find myself in the position of believing strongly in something I can not justify.



With that I open the topic to others, do you find the disgust/eugenic argument enough? Or is there another that I have not considered, and which provides a better grounding than either of those arguments?