I'd dispute the idea that ethics implies meaninglessness
and I deal with the biology above; I don't see that there has to be so big a problem there.

(BTW: At least as far as the law is concerned, cousins are perfectly OK.)
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:08, 1 reply, 14 years ago)

Enzyme- you're an intelligent chap
Is this just some civilized trolling? You must see that incest is taboo throughout human societies (obviously there are exceptions through human history, but it's more or less a universal taboo) and that there are many reasons that feed into this.

Biological- covered already
Religious- covered already
Moral- touched on (excude the pun).

Also, if you've grown up with a person as your sibling, seen them grow, and all that, then it's distasteful in the extreme to view them as a sex object (though I see in this case that this isn't the situation with Bert/ Cat Hater).

Can you genuinely not understand why it's taboo?

And it's also just urgh.
(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:15, Reply)

Not trolling.
An observation about taboo isn't going to tell us the first thing about why that taboo exists, or about its justification.

To whom is it distasteful? Clearly not to the people involved. To the observer? Perhaps - but then that somewhat takes the action itself out of the equation, and doesn't explain the grounds or justification for the distaste. Besides: to look at anyone as a sex object is arguably pretty morally shoddy anyway, so the A and B situation doesn't seem to be all that different.

No, I genuinely do not understand.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:32, Reply)

we get that enzyme, you keep saying it.
Bert is a mentallist and the more 'normal' his actions are the better. Shagging his sister will lead to Nuclear Armageddon. I know, I dreamt it.

Plus have you got a sister?
( SteveFrench Cardio is for homo's. do you even lift bro?, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:37, Reply)

Plus
though I'm not entirely agreeing with Enzyme, read any anthropological book- especially the seminal work by Levi-Strauss, and the excellent collection of anthropological exploration 'The Golden Bough' and inside are excellent dissections a) of taboo and b) of the cultures and societies in which incest as a taboo is breakable. It's certainly not a universal
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:42, Reply)

I suppose there is a certain amount of social conditioning involved
But the Ancient Greeks and the Romans were big on pederasty. It was viewed as healthy, normal acceptable behaviour back then. Do you see no real objection to pederasty too?

And of course merely observing a taboo does not explain its nature. I was about to suggest that a part of the reason you don't get it is because you don't have a sister, but that would be doing you and I a disservice. Where do you stand on cannibalism then?
(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:48, Reply)

Pederasty
though the right name, was not practiced below a certain age. I believe it was generally 14-15 which while still a bit dodgy, is hardly a 7 year old
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:51, Reply)

I didn't mention 7 year olds
I'm well aware of what pederasty means and how it was practised in those societies. I'm not asking Enzyme to justify paedophilia, just exploring his views on other 'yuck' based taboos, like pederasty and cannibalism.
(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:54, Reply)

Ooh, slight mindpiss
See below
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:55, Reply)

I haven't tried to justify anything in this thread.
I've raised a question about why people think it wrong, but that's not the same as attempting a justification.

I don't think you can justify paedophilia. I don't see what that has to do with it, though. (Your strategy seems here to be that, when I say I don't understand the problem with x, you respond by saying, "Ah, but what about y?" - and that's either missing the point, or poisoning the well.)
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:59, Reply)

No dude
I take the view that just because something is distasteful, it shouldn't be proscribed, abortion for instance, is distasteful to many people but is clearly something that should be available in society. Similarly homosexuality, viewed with distaste by some people but no justification for proscribing it. I do see, however, that there are some things that in (western) society are very much frowned on, legally and morally. Incest is one of these things. There are reasons why this is so. You are an intelligent guy, I can't fathom why you can't see incest as being wrong in any way at all.

Surely if sibling incest isn't automatically wrong, then neither is child/ parent incest? And if not, why not?
(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:05, Reply)

Hyar hyar.

( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:07, Reply)

"There are reasons why this is so"
And I want to know what they are. I've not heard anything convincing yet. Noone has offered an explanation of its wrongness here. The most that's been offered is a claim that we're disposed against it. But that's a bare fact of biology, not a moral claim; it won't tell us anything about how we should think about someone who doesn't share the aversion that most putatively have, or whether that's a moral problem or simply an interesting personality quirk.

See my reply to Roota below about the parent thing.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:20, Reply)

well, what did Noone say?

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:23, Reply)

One of those reasons is the point about growing up with that person

(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:24, Reply)

*bangs head on desk*
*grits teeth*
But that's not a moral reason!
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:35, Reply)

Pederasty is potentially different
because of the consent issue. That is to say: in principle, there ought to be nothing wrong with sex with children if the children give valid consent. But it also seems reasonable to assume that they will never give valid consent, because they're incapable of doing so. That, it seems to me, has to be where the most powerful objection lies.

Cannibalism, too, seems to fit into the same sort of analysis: if a person can give consent to be eaten, then the problem seems to be lessened. It's just hard to see how anyone who would give such consent is sane - and so we have a prima facie reason to assume that any such "consent" would be, in fact, no such thing.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:56, Reply)

I reckon I'd allow someone to eat me once I'd died of natural causes
if they felt so inclined.

I like to think I am sane.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:59, Reply)

I think Enzyme might have been thinking
more of the German cannibal man, whose victim gave his consent and wanted to be eaten.

I think there is little morally dodgy about cannabalism of someone who died of natural causes
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:02, Reply)

yeah, I think you are right
had never thought much about it though
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:05, Reply)

Even if it's non-natural, it's potentially OK
as long as the consent is valid. And it might be valid. It's just that I think that a reasonable starting point is the assumption that it isn't.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:09, Reply)

It would save your family a fortune in funeral costs.
You'd have to shave your silly beard off first though.
( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:05, Reply)

I suspect that they wouldn't be eating my chin

( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:06, Reply)

Depends
on how fat it's got by the time you've karked it, dunnit?
( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:08, Reply)

it's dwindling away
I'm going the unusual route of getting more hair on my head and getting thinner as I age.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:12, Reply)

Freak.

( Davros' Granddad a voice of calm reason in a world of spastics., Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:14, Reply)

What if they give consent to be eaten after they have died, that is, not consent to be murdered then eaten.
How do you see that event? And as Greek and Roman pederasty was accepted, then their consent becomes a moot point.

It surely comes down to moral objections, which you know are somewhat fluid in societies. I don't think that 14 is acceptable as an age to get married at, there are countries where 14 year old girls are married off. Consent is more or less a legal construct.

But to reiterate, the incest thing, is a 'yuck' reaction for many reasons. I do get the impression you're playing devil's advocate here.
(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:01, Reply)

If there are reasons for the yuck reaction,
then let's hear them. The yuck reaction would then not be where the action is after all.

As for consent about the post-mortal use of a body: well, why not? Actually, I don't think that would matter so much, because - frankly - you're dead and it's a bit late. It's for similar reasons that I don't think you should have to give consent for your organs to be taken for transplantation: you're not using them any more, so it's nothing to do with you.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:08, Reply)

They've already been aired, I don't need to go back through them.
Isn't a 'yuck' reaction to some things a healthy reaction?
(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:12, Reply)

I say yuck to shit smells

( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:12, Reply)

"Healthy" by what standard?
Healthy doesn't mean morally justified.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:17, Reply)

I know
But I meant 'healthy' as in, if you eat bad meat, you'll get ill. You get a 'yuck' reaction there. If you smell that your milk's off, you don't drink it.
(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:21, Reply)

But it wouldn't be *wrong* to do so.
It'd just be daft. f you really wanted to, though... well, why not?
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:33, Reply)

yeah
organ harvesting is how it should be. Opt out by all means, but it should be the norm.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:13, Reply)

People who 'consent' to sex with their brother, especially if he's Bert, are not 'sane'.
They're evidently tapped.
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 11:05, Reply)

I think you and Roota might have a point
and as you say it might not apply in this case, but most people having grown up siblings would find the idea absolutely repulsive, hence the reaction.

The biology of it is irrelevant; as Enzyme points out, your genes don't make you think or feel anything really.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:36, Reply)

Morning BFF

( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:38, Reply)

morning
how's you?
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:39, Reply)

I'm coooool
Except my shower's leaking and I wanted today to be free from human contact.
Mind you, with no shower, people might steer clear anyway...
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:42, Reply)

uh oh!
I'm planning to do fuck all today. Within bounds of things I'd already agreed to. Got to get my barnet altered, and help some friends with some packing for their house move
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:44, Reply)

'altered'
I like this.
( Roota zweeeeeoooooowm, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:45, Reply)

well I'm not really getting it cut shorter
but it gets really thick and looks like Luke Skywalker.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Sat 11 Sep 2010, 10:48, Reply)