Ethics and Morality

[Ginger_Warrior]

Well... I mean I don't really feel comfortable getting into what I feel on this matter, and I'm certainly not going to argue incest is 'fine' or 'victimless', but as far as facts go, the psychological trauma inflicted on the girl depends on her age, and her relationship to the 'father figure'. I suppose something you'd also have to consider is the strain it would put on the girl's and the "father"'s relationship to the "mother"; not only is incest occuring, but also an extramarital affair, which itself is arguably immoral in the first place.

 

There is also some anecdotal evidence of psychological trauma occuring as a result of incest between two consenting siblings, so just because they're consenting doesn't make it "OK".

 

All in all, it's an incredibly complex issue and one most lay people respond to by saying, "Just don't do it."

[Assume Nothing]

I'd say that acts as a good general rule of thumb, but it goes much deeper than that, because we have to acknowledge that it does actually happen and our objective is to address it. It's not just about what we should/ought do, but 'what we need to do'. It almost goes beyond ethical theories.

 

I think when I made my father/daughter reference, I was referring to a case where they were estranged from a young age and had met again much later in life. I personally don't see the problem with it, since any parental relationship argument couldn't be established.

 

If we argue on the health perspectives of the child, then yes, incest is harmful. It's an incredibly complex situation where there's no clear answer.

[Jonanananas]

As far as I know, laws prohibiting incest are mostly based on the harm that will be caused to a child that may be a result of such a relationship and less the moral problems with incest. Not too sure on this though.

[Will H]

As far as I know, laws prohibiting incest are mostly based on the harm that will be caused to a child that may be a result of such a relationship and less the moral problems with incest. Not too sure on this though.

 

If the laws were purely in the interest of protecting the child, which is a legitimate problem that must be avoided, then they'd only apply to couples who can produce offspring. What if the relationship was homosexual? I'd say the social stigma doesn't get any more positive.

 

(I can't believe I'm bringing homosexuality into a debate about incest.)

[Assume Nothing]

I think we can even grant exceptions to infertility, if that was the case.

[Danqazmlp]

I think this is going down a path which Phd's are produced on. I don't think it's something any of us can give the full consequences and reasons fully to be honest.

[Randox]

On the topic of incenst, something worth pointing out is that we are desensitized to people we grow up with, if you spend enough time together, which as a biological mechanisim (since we normally grow up with our immediate family) does quite a bit to prevent us from becoming attracted to those people, which prevents incest (it also means your not very likely to ever be attracted to any friends you have had since you were say 4-6). If you don't grow up with your family, then obviously this doesn't happen.

 

Also, different places put different limits on it.

 

And as a point of interest, a family tree chart with % gene sharing.

 

Even first cousin is not likely to be a problem, as long as its not done repeatedly over successive generations.

[Furah]

I think it's the same part of us that thinks incest is wrong, which is a biologically completely natural thing (you won't see plants pollinating themselves either).

 

I hope you're referring to incest as biologically natural, not finding it wrong. From a completely biological standpoint, there is nothing inherently wrong with incest. There are undesirable traits that could be passed down through incest, but we haven't even produced any biological safeguards against breeding with others who also possess those same traits.

 

I think it might be an evolutionary thing to discourage cannibalism, since it's going to be against the species' interest to eat each-other.

 

Going beyond that - I see nothing wrong with consensual cannibalism - not to suggest that I would partake in it.

 

 

In the interest of evolution and keeping the species alive, yes, cannibalism is a very undesirable trait.

[aspeeder]

I think it might be an evolutionary thing to discourage cannibalism, since it's going to be against the species' interest to eat each-other.

 

Going beyond that - I see nothing wrong with consensual cannibalism - not to suggest that I would partake in it.

 

 

In the interest of evolution and keeping the species alive, yes, cannibalism is a very undesirable trait.

The mechanics of evolution don't work when the individual thinks of all the others in the species, natural selection occurs when individuals are concerned with propagating their own genetic material as much as possible. As long as cannibalism doesn't limit the ability to produce fertile offspring to an unsustainable degree it doesn't really clash with the mechanics of natural selection. This is also why humans aren't evolving as much, since we are concerned about our species as a whole and our own line.

[Furah]

Cannibalism does have the issue of thinning out numbers of a species. If the food is already different then it's not an issue. Our relatively long lifespans does making plotting our evolution a bit more difficult compared to, say, dogs or bacteria.

[obfuscator]

On the topic of incenst, something worth pointing out is that we are desensitized to people we grow up with, if you spend enough time together, which as a biological mechanisim (since we normally grow up with our immediate family) does quite a bit to prevent us from becoming attracted to those people, which prevents incest (it also means your not very likely to ever be attracted to any friends you have had since you were say 4-6). If you don't grow up with your family, then obviously this doesn't happen.

 

Also, different places put different limits on it.

 

And as a point of interest, a family tree chart with % gene sharing.

 

Even first cousin is not likely to be a problem, as long as its not done repeatedly over successive generations.

Neat chart, thanks for posting that. I've always wondered what that "once removed" kind of thing meant...

[Assume Nothing]

... I think we should dive into the morals of the sex industry once again. Does it matter how the sexual gratification is achieved, e.g. through images, or video, or audio - if not physical contact? Would it be any more moral to hire a stripper than to hire a prostitute?

[champion]

Since morality is so largely subjective, you're just asking us our opinion?

[Assume Nothing]

That's the entire premise of the thread. I don't see how morality is largely subjective though - whilst individual acts can be valued, morality itself is pretty hardwired if we define it under consequentialist views.

[champion]

Okay, well then I don't think it matters how one achieves sexual gratification as long as it's not directly harming another person or infringing on their rights.

[Assume Nothing]

I don't believe in human rights, though. It's impractical in that there's far too many conflicts, like in the abortion arguments we've had on this board.

[Jonanananas]

I don't believe in human rights, though. It's impractical in that there's far too many conflicts, like in the abortion arguments we've had on this board.

 

You...don't believe in human rights? Care to elaborate? Do you mean that these rights are not predetermined by nature, or do you actually mean that humans shouldn't have these rights?

 

And yes, obviously they will conflict with each other, that's not unusual. You have to choose which one is more important then. This of course can sometimes be difficult.

[Omar]

I think trying to establish some kind of universal truth about morality is probably far more efficient methodologically speaking than discussing specific issues.

 

The way I see it, there can be no such thing as absolute morals if there is no point of reference beyond humanity to define what is right and what is wrong. There is no such thing as a true sin. Morality is simply a way to establish trust amongst individuals of a society who have a common will (no murder because we all want to live, no lying because we all want to know with at least some certainty what is real and what is not, etc.). Much of the process behind this is ideological, which isn't a good thing at all: it prohibits the understanding of morality as a rational and efficient tool and its constant redefinition as social, technological, and economic conditions (and therefore the common desires at the root of morality) change.

[champion]

I think trying to establish some kind of universal truth about morality is probably far more efficient methodologically speaking than discussing specific issues.

 

The way I see it, there can be no such thing as absolute morals if there is no point of reference beyond humanity to define what is right and what is wrong. There is no such thing as a true sin. Morality is simply a way to establish trust amongst individuals of a society who have a common will (no murder because we all want to live, no lying because we all want to know with at least some certainty what is real and what is not, etc.). Much of the process behind this is ideological, which isn't a good thing at all: it prohibits the understanding of morality as a rational and efficient tool and its constant redefinition as social, technological, and economic conditions (and therefore the common desires at the root of morality) change.

 

ya i agree w/ dis guy lol ~(._.)~ ^

[Assume Nothing]

I don't believe in human rights, though. It's impractical in that there's far too many conflicts, like in the abortion arguments we've had on this board.

 

You...don't believe in human rights? Care to elaborate? Do you mean that these rights are not predetermined by nature, or do you actually mean that humans shouldn't have these rights?

 

And yes, obviously they will conflict with each other, that's not unusual. You have to choose which one is more important then. This of course can sometimes be difficult.

 

I say 'I don't believe in human rights' as to suggest that I don't believe they serve the purpose they are intended to serve, and they tend to be rather meaningless/trivial when it boils down to its effectiveness in resolving ethical dilemmas - especially when applying non-basic human rights. It may be useful on a micro level, but on the grander scale - it doesn't do its job very well.

 

What determines which rights we should have, and why should we have them? Could you apply exceptions? I dislike the concept of universalized laws when situations that arise are so complex - it's unclear whether my right to freedom of expression should inhibit your right to privacy/not be offended or whathaveyou, and if so, to what extent.

 

They're not perfectly compatible to create a hierarchy either - it's difficult to establish set values for each human right. It cannot be said that the right to life is 5 times greater than the right to liberty, for example. It's difficult to apply in practice to provide a strong argument in ethical dilemmas, e.g. abortion, or perhaps gun control.

 

Good efficiency does not imply good efficacy - it's important to be aware of the distinction. I do agree on the notion of common goals though - that's what I believe to be the objective of morality.

[Crocefisso]

I don't see in what ways the above argument opposes the idea of human rights. It think that the details of situations tend not to have a great deal of impact on the application of universal, codified principles, because human rights are always applied with some basic recognition of circumstance.

[Assume Nothing]

Uh, I should have been more clear.

 

Premise 1: Human rights are universalized

Premise 2: Universalized human rights are silly because they lack exceptions - sometimes very obvious ones

Premise 3: They lack a good hierarchy to function properly - e.g. abortion

Premise 4: It's difficult to establish human rights in the first place, unless we agree that its for a common cause

Premise 5: It has a tendency of being completely trivial in ethical arguments

 

Do note that I'm talking purely in the context of ethical arguments though.

 

EDIT - well, it honestly depends on what level we're talking at. If we're talking mainly about micro-level ethical arguments, then sure. I'd like to see human rights to operate well in an argument like Truman's dilemma. If I'm not mistaken, it's pretty much deontology.

[Randox]

I'd actually have to agree that the concept of universal truths (like human rights) as an absolute truth is kind of silly, because the world is very complicated.

 

For example, abortion which seems to be our hot example is (or can be) a violation of the right to life on both sides of the argument, both because child birth can be fatal to the mother and even more so if you include any kind of quality of life qualifier (because having a child can easily impact on everyone's quality of life, including the childs which adds a third layer to the whole thing).

 

As an aside, I would say that Consequentialism is actually very subjective. It only has meaning so long as there is a scale to determine what consequences are desirable and why.

 

For example, I would say that our species is best served if certain individuals are not allowed to propagate (and before anyone gets all huffy on me, I am actually one of those people who carries a potentially life threatening genetic defect, which means I am including myself in that group), and the most effective way to do this would be genetic tests at birth followed by a culling of every baby with undesirable traits (eugenics).

 

Consequentialism is at its core pure unfeeling logic. I would consider morality to be the 'logic' of emotion. While consequences are important, I don't think one should rely entirely upon them to judge, or else you can justify a lot of things that under what I would consider to be common first world morality, are atrocities (such as eugenics and genocide, as well as whatever killing off all the people to old to work is called).

[Omar]

Yes, but only if the scale chosen is atrocious to begin with.

Possibly but not necessarily related: consequentialism and deontology are answers to two different questions, I think. Respectively, "What should be/have been done?" and "How, if at all, should we judge this action?".

[Assume Nothing]

Consequentialism is at its core pure unfeeling logic. I would consider morality to be the 'logic' of emotion. While consequences are important, I don't think one should rely entirely upon them to judge, or else you can justify a lot of things that under what I would consider to be common first world morality, are atrocities (such as eugenics and genocide, as well as whatever killing off all the people to old to work is called).

 

Are you suggesting that atrocities can't be justified, whatever the likely outcome? I'm pretty certain consequentialist views would take into account the likelihood too, so if it was just a stroke of luck - it would still be deemed a bad action.

 

I don't think killing off the old arguments takes into account the scope of the consequences, since that would put the young into fear of aging too. It reminds me of the 'kill the traveler' arguments against utilitarianism, which doesn't even work as a rebuttal.