Moral Quandary
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-08-2012, 12:56 PM
RE: Moral Quandary
(23-08-2012 12:25 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  
(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.

No, we're not programmed by evolution to be repulsed by incest. We are culturally programmed to be repulsed.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
23-08-2012, 12:58 PM
RE: Moral Quandary
(23-08-2012 12:54 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-08-2012 12:38 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  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.

With that argument, the non-desire to kill is not instinct.

It is no too incredibly yucky to me. It is simply unfavorable and wrong in my eyes.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2012, 12:58 PM
Moral Quandary
(23-08-2012 12:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-08-2012 12:25 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  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.

No, we're not programmed by evolution to be repulsed by incest. We are culturally programmed to be repulsed.

Agreed, because it both siblings were homosexual there is no evolutionary reason for them not to have sex.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of Calvinism is that good Atheists do nothing." ~Eric Oh My
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2012, 01:00 PM
RE: Moral Quandary
(23-08-2012 12:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-08-2012 12:25 PM)Misanthropik Wrote:  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.

No, we're not programmed by evolution to be repulsed by incest. We are culturally programmed to be repulsed.

It is more of a combination of the two.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Logica Humano's post
23-08-2012, 01:02 PM
RE: Moral Quandary
(23-08-2012 12:58 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  
(23-08-2012 12:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, we're not programmed by evolution to be repulsed by incest. We are culturally programmed to be repulsed.

Agreed, because it both siblings were homosexual there is no evolutionary reason for them not to have sex.

That would imply that the same set of genes that influence sexual preferences would effect the ones that assist in selecting favorable traits in sexual partners.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2012, 01:05 PM
RE: Moral Quandary
(23-08-2012 01:00 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(23-08-2012 12:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, we're not programmed by evolution to be repulsed by incest. We are culturally programmed to be repulsed.

It is more of a combination of the two.

I mentioned that stuff above:

(23-08-2012 12:29 PM)ghostexorcist Wrote:  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.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2012, 01:09 PM
Moral Quandary
(23-08-2012 01:02 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(23-08-2012 12:58 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  Agreed, because it both siblings were homosexual there is no evolutionary reason for them not to have sex.

That would imply that the same set of genes that influence sexual preferences would effect the ones that assist in selecting favorable traits in sexual partners.

Genetics is not my fortè, but I don't see what your point is. If there is an evolutionary instinct that makes incest taboo, my assumption is its because it's a bad idea to pass on potential genetic flaws. If two brothers are both homosexual and they have incestuous sex with one another, there is no risk of passing on genes, so no necessary taboo.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of Calvinism is that good Atheists do nothing." ~Eric Oh My
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2012, 01:23 PM
RE: Moral Quandary
(23-08-2012 12:58 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(23-08-2012 12:54 PM)Chas Wrote:  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.

With that argument, the non-desire to kill is not instinct.

It is no too incredibly yucky to me. It is simply unfavorable and wrong in my eyes.

You make remarkable non sequiturs. The instincts to protect one's own and to kill others are clearly evolutionary, as is the one to avoid mating with one's own. But all of these vary in effect. We are not bound by our instincts, merely directed.

Your judgement that incest is wrong is primarily cultural. That it might not be desirable is instinctual.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
23-08-2012, 01:24 PM
RE: Moral Quandary
(23-08-2012 01:09 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  
(23-08-2012 01:02 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  That would imply that the same set of genes that influence sexual preferences would effect the ones that assist in selecting favorable traits in sexual partners.

Genetics is not my fortè, but I don't see what your point is. If there is an evolutionary instinct that makes incest taboo, my assumption is its because it's a bad idea to pass on potential genetic flaws. If two brothers are both homosexual and they have incestuous sex with one another, there is no risk of passing on genes, so no necessary taboo.

Different sets of genes effect different behaviors. If there is an order of genes that influences non-incestuous sex, and you were correct, that set of genes would need to be modified along with the homosexual set of genes.

What I am saying is this: Even if the genetic composition means a person is homosexual, it doesn't mean that the genetic composition overrides anti-incestuous influences.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2012, 02:05 PM (This post was last modified: 23-08-2012 02:10 PM by kim.)
RE: Moral Quandary
(23-08-2012 12:47 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  I would say it is not, purely on the premise that it is against intrinsic morality.

There is no intrinsic morality, sexual or otherwise. Ethics possibly, morality no.

Ethically, the people in the story did nothing to infringe on anyone else - they are adults. No harm, no foul. If one or the other develops some odd, social taboo guilt or psychological discomfort from the event, well then they fucked up by lying to themselves that they could handle it. I'm sure in the future, they'll pay a ton of money to some shrink to tell them that.

Obviously these two people have been way far apart for a very long time. The family dynamic itself is cause enough for anyone to hate their sibling's guts to the point of repulsion.

If I were the woman, my brother better fucking be George Clooney... otherwise.... ew. Sadcryface

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like kim's post
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Moral Relativism Vs. Absolute Morality, and Does morality evolve? godofskeptic 47 7,480 30-06-2014 02:07 PM
Last Post: Just Another Atheist
  Is it moral to take absolute power away from a democracy if it's used for good? pppgggr 25 401 29-03-2014 03:58 PM
Last Post: Luminon
  Argument against The Moral Landscape Enlightened Romantic 30 1,292 15-10-2013 12:51 PM
Last Post: postorm
  Breaking the Moral Contract NotSoVacuous 48 3,550 14-09-2012 04:19 AM
Last Post: Birdguy1979
  Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand? TrulyX 96 8,103 20-06-2012 09:17 PM
Last Post: zeldamaster17
  Is veganism at the "moral baseline"? streetwaves 203 8,849 08-05-2012 10:57 AM
Last Post: NoahsFarce
  Would it be moral to starve, hypothetical question. NotSoVacuous 43 1,876 06-04-2012 11:18 AM
Last Post: Antirepublican
Forum Jump: