Moral Quandary

[Stark Raving]

And how can it be justified biologically? Not to be confrontational, but biologically, the risk of siblings offspring showing negative effects of inbreeding is absurdly low, assuming they are the first generation to inbreed. This happens all the time in nature. Siblings breeding provides the ability to launch a new generation under circumstances where isolation would otherwise prevent the continuation of a species.

Biologically speaking, incest between siblings is only "wrong" if it is detrimental to a species biology. Our couple in question has not produced offspring, and therefore has done nothing wrong in a biological sense, nor have they even risked doing something wrong (again, in a biological sense).

Just sayin.

[Misanthropik]

(23-08-2012 12:18 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  There is an evolutionary explanation as to why incest is a taboo.

Yes, but that is beside the point, given the circumstances of the story. Evolution made sure that we wouldn't mate with our relatives by making it "icky", but with the advent of birth control, John and Sara don't have to worry about negative genetic consequences.

As I said to the other user; the idea is to get people to examine an idea or topic from all angles to determine if it's ethical or not; rather than simply relying on evolutionary instinct.

[Erxomai]

(23-08-2012 11:09 AM)nach_in Wrote:  gross? YES, morally wrong? not necessarily.

it could be wrong because no action comes without a consequence and that event could harm them in some psychological way (keeping secrets can be tough and harmful). But the information provided is not enough to give a reasoned response...

Cool question

Where the hell ya been, Nach?
Would it be less gross of the characters were John and Juan?

[Misanthropik]

(23-08-2012 12:22 PM)Stark Raving Wrote:  And how can it be justified biologically? Not to be confrontational, but biologically, the risk of siblings offspring showing negative effects of inbreeding is absurdly low, assuming they are the first generation to inbreed. This happens all the time in nature. Siblings breeding provides the ability to launch a new generation under circumstances where isolation would otherwise prevent the continuation of a species.

Biologically speaking, incest between siblings is only "wrong" if it is detrimental to a species biology. Our couple in question has not produced offspring, and therefore has done nothing wrong in a biological sense, nor have they even risked doing something wrong (again, in a biological sense).

Just sayin.

What I meant was that the "taboo" can be justified biologically, due to the fact that we're programed through evolution to be repulsed by the idea of incest. In that sense, it's understandable that someone holds the idea that incest is "just wrong".

But logically, it needs to be picked apart, and often after doing so, people can't seem to find a solid basis for why it's "wrong". Given the circumstances presented within the story, that is.

[ghostexorcist]

(23-08-2012 11:09 AM)Red Celt Wrote:  It is societally wrong (by tradition) and for good reasons, when contraception wasn't as reliable as it is today... but, with no offspring (and the dangers of recessive genes) no harm, no foul.

Nature has devised ways to keep incest from happening. Female chimps, for example, leave their family units to join other communities. This insures gene variation is constant. This was most likely practiced by our proto-ape ancestor since humans continue with the practice. Human females tend to leave their families to marry into that of her husband. The females of the Gombe chimp community are the exception. Only 50% of them actually leave, the rest stay. Yet, there is no incest as brothers and sisters have developed social mechanisms that lets them know they are off limits. That's why this would normally not happen in human society. If it did, the two most likely grew up separately and only met later, which means they never developed the aforementioned social mechanisms. Zoos take great effort in making sure chimp siblings reared apart never meet.

It's not my thing, but I see no problem with it as long as they are consenting adults and no offspring result from the union. Although, I will say everybody has that one cousin that they wouldn't mind having a go at. Anyway, here is a video to set the mood:

[nach_in]

(23-08-2012 12:24 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  

(23-08-2012 11:09 AM)nach_in Wrote:  gross? YES, morally wrong? not necessarily.

it could be wrong because no action comes without a consequence and that event could harm them in some psychological way (keeping secrets can be tough and harmful). But the information provided is not enough to give a reasoned response...

Cool question

Where the hell ya been, Nach?
Would it be less gross of the characters were John and Juan?

I couldn't hang around here as much as I liked to because of reasons... but I'm back muahahahahaha


And yeah, it would be less gross if they were John and Juan... you know me so well

[Logica Humano]

(23-08-2012 12:22 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  

(23-08-2012 12:18 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  There is an evolutionary explanation as to why incest is a taboo.

Yes, but that is beside the point, given the circumstances of the story. Evolution made sure that we wouldn't mate with our relatives by making it "icky", but with the advent of birth control, John and Sara don't have to worry about negative genetic consequences.

As I said to the other user; the idea is to get people to examine an idea or topic from all angles to determine if it's ethical or not; rather than simply relying on evolutionary instinct.

The fact that they do not still have those feelings, and have a sexual attraction for each other, shows that either:
a) they are an exception to intrinsic morality
b) they were not raised together

I would submit that it contradicts evolutionary morality.

[Misanthropik]

(23-08-2012 12:32 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  

(23-08-2012 12:22 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  Yes, but that is beside the point, given the circumstances of the story. Evolution made sure that we wouldn't mate with our relatives by making it "icky", but with the advent of birth control, John and Sara don't have to worry about negative genetic consequences.

As I said to the other user; the idea is to get people to examine an idea or topic from all angles to determine if it's ethical or not; rather than simply relying on evolutionary instinct.

The fact that they do not still have those feelings, and have a sexual attraction for each other, shows that either:
a) they are an exception to intrinsic morality
b) they were not raised together

I would submit that it contradicts evolutionary morality.

It does, yes. And our job as readers is to determine if that's ok or not.

[Logica Humano]

(23-08-2012 12:38 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  

(23-08-2012 12:32 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  The fact that they do not still have those feelings, and have a sexual attraction for each other, shows that either:
a) they are an exception to intrinsic morality
b) they were not raised together

I would submit that it contradicts evolutionary morality.

It does, yes. And our job as readers is to determine if that's ok or not.

I would say it is not, purely on the premise that it is against intrinsic morality. Would I punish them for it? No, I would excuse it. Would I tell them not to do it again? Of course.

[Chas]

(23-08-2012 12:38 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  

(23-08-2012 12:32 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  The fact that they do not still have those feelings, and have a sexual attraction for each other, shows that either:
a) they are an exception to intrinsic morality
b) they were not raised together

I would submit that it contradicts evolutionary morality.

It does, yes. And our job as readers is to determine if that's ok or not.

I submit that 'contradicts evolutionary morality' is incorrect.
The evolutionary instinct to avoid mating with close relatives is not moral in basis. And it is not very strong, either.
We also seem to have an evolved attraction to mates who resemble us.

The 'yucky' factor probably comes more from familiarity and conditioning than instinct.