Moral Quandary
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-08-2012, 02:13 PM
RE: Moral Quandary
(23-08-2012 02:05 PM)kim Wrote:  If I were the woman, my brother better be fucking George Clooney... otherwise.... ew. Sadcryface

Didn't know you held your siblings to such high standards Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2012, 03:59 PM
RE: Moral Quandary
(23-08-2012 01:23 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-08-2012 12:58 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  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.

I fail to see how my argument is incoherent.

(23-08-2012 02:05 PM)kim Wrote:  
(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.

I disagree.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2012, 07:49 PM
RE: Moral Quandary
(23-08-2012 11:12 AM)Misanthropik Wrote:  
(23-08-2012 11:11 AM)Jeff Wrote:  What does Sara look like?

Elizabeth Banks. Lmao

I think this behavior is fine.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Jeff's post
25-08-2012, 01:00 PM
RE: Moral Quandary
This situation could be either right or wrong. All it takes is good evidence and a good argument.

[Image: pudalo15fa2.png]

Blog.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-08-2012, 01:06 PM
RE: Moral Quandary
If I substitute my name and my brother's name in that scenario, I throw up a little in my mouth.

If they can really not involve anyone else and they don't suffer any guilt then I suppose, WTH, we all have secrets.

But it's still creepy to me...siblings, cousins...don't blur the family relationships...things are difficult enough.

There is a publication written by a relative of mine and in the caption, she says, "here I am with my sister, who is also my cousin". Get the fuck outta here.

'See here they are, the bruises, some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way.' -JF
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-08-2012, 12:31 PM
RE: Moral Quandary
I don't have a sister, but giving my sister a back rub or an orgasm is only of matter of where I rub and with what appendage.
I wouldn't fuck my brother because I'm not gay, but if we both were, who cares.

The old gods are dead, let's invent some new ones before something really bad happens.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2012, 09:39 AM
RE: Moral Quandary
(23-08-2012 10:50 AM)Misanthropik Wrote:  I have a rather extensive history in the field of Psychology, and while attending a lecture on morality a few years ago, the professor presented a moral question to the class. To this day, it remains one of my favorite demonstrations of how we, as a society, often use illogic and unreason to label certain things as "right" or "wrong". Bear in mind, I'm not arguing for or against anything by relaying this to the forum, I'm simply presenting an interesting question for others to ponder over. :-)

John and Sara are brother and sister. One Summer, they decide to spend a week at their parents' cabin in the mountains. It will be just the two of them; hiking, fishing, doing whatever it is that they wish to do.

One night, as they sit in front of the fireplace, Sara tells John that she's greatly enjoyed the camping trip and the time it's allowed them to spend together. John agrees, and puts him arm around his sister. After a few moments, Sara looks up at John and, after a moment's hesitation, asks him if he'd like to have sex. John is taken aback by this, but he also finds himself intrigued.

Eventually, the two of them decide that they are open enough with one another to have sex - just one time - and afterward nobody will find out. It will be their special secret. Sara is already on birth control, but John decides to use a condom anyway - "just to be safe". They have sex together, then cuddle for the rest of the night; having been brought closer together. It is the only time they will ever have sex with one another; Sara did not get pregnant; and nobody was hurt by their actions.


Have John and Sara done something morally wrong? If so, what; and in what way is it "wrong"?

I have come across this question before and I think it was at a talk by Marc Hauser. Although I don't think this is wrong in the strongest sense that things could be wrong (like if John had raped his sister instead of it being mutual), I think it is still wrong independent of social norms and biology. And here is why. First, their actions are most likely not destined to contribute to their well-being. I think keeping the secret and suppressing their new feelings is likely to have some negative consequence on their psychologies that could rub off on those around them. This burden that they will have for the rest of their lives is most likely not a positive experience for them. And the information, if it were to leak, could be very destructive for both of them (although that has a social component). Needless to say, there are ways that they could have satisfied their desires that would contribute more to their well being, for example, choosing to shack up with someone not related to them. If this were the case, there would be no need for secrets, no risk of anything backfiring, no need to suppress their feelings, and they would avoid complicating a normal brother-sister relationship. So it's not wrong with a capital "W," but certainly not right with a capital "R." Sam Harris would say that there are better moves to be made on the moral landscape. The right path would be the one that causes the least suffering, which in the case of John and Sara is needless suffering because they could easily find love elsewhere.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes CopperFish's post
20-10-2012, 10:13 AM
RE: Moral Quandary
I've seen this question before and answered it. I was not happy with my answer.

First, each person is challenged toward bias if we believe ourselves openminded.

Im going to skip the nature of the question and instead comment on Logico Humano's response (above), which I believe is more important.

I believe morality, as the judge against incest, developed after ancient people began to observe, over time, the consequence of incest. Our ancient ancesters were quite keen in observation once they began husbandry. They first watched their animals, then they made connections to themselves. For thousands of years, tribes traded brides for a reason.

I believe the taboo against incest is quite solid.


Sorry, my grandchild is crying and I really want to hold him.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2012, 11:04 AM (This post was last modified: 20-10-2012 11:08 AM by Vosur.)
RE: Moral Quandary
I find questions about whether or not something is morally or ethically correct redundant. Why? Because both of them are completely subjective.

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2012, 11:23 AM (This post was last modified: 20-10-2012 11:31 AM by Funtheist.)
RE: Moral Quandary
(20-10-2012 09:39 AM)CopperFish Wrote:  First, their actions are most likely not destined to contribute to their well-being. I think keeping the secret and suppressing their new feelings is likely to have some negative consequence on their psychologies that could rub off on those around them. This burden that they will have for the rest of their lives is most likely not a positive experience for them.

It says in the question that this is not true, that they were fine afterwards. You are changing the question.

To everyone who feels "icky," that is because you have a very strong repulsion toward incest built into you by millions of years of evolution. Which does beg the question to Christians, why would anyone think incest is morally wrong if we all were descended from Noah, who must have practiced incest for many generations? Most of our morality is built in, pre-programmed by evolution, but much is also programmed by society.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Funtheist's post
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Moral Relativism Vs. Absolute Morality, and Does morality evolve? godofskeptic 47 7,473 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 25 400 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 3,547 14-09-2012 04:19 AM
Last Post: Birdguy1979
  Moral Philosophy: Where do you stand? TrulyX 96 8,102 20-06-2012 09:17 PM
Last Post: zeldamaster17
  Is veganism at the "moral baseline"? streetwaves 203 8,846 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: