Why are most atheists against bro/sis coitus?

[Narga_Rocks]

Okay, so Theists I understand. In most religious books there are specific passages that categorically state don't do it. Or at least I know there is in Christianity and assume it's there in other religions because they don't either. But in an age like now where almost anything consensual is accepted, why is this an exception? And don't simply say "it's creepy as ****", tell me why it's creepy.

[Knight]

Sort of a traditional sort of thing I assume, incest has never really been socially acceptable in most societies except maybe cousin incest, but still. Also, wasn't it that the DNA gets corrupted or something if they conceive a child? I don't know for sure, I heard something like that. I think it's just part of social norms, hell, most mammals don't do this.

[PresidentEden]

Okay, so Theists I understand. In most religious books there are specific passages that categorically state don't do it. Or at least I know there is in Christianity and assume it's there in other religions because they don't either. But in an age like now where almost anything consensual is accepted, why is this an exception? And don't simply say "it's creepy as ****", tell me why it's creepy.

Against in what sense? I wouldn't personally participate due to a distinct lack of sexual attraction to my sibling (younger brother, but the point remains). I don't give a shit what others do and I object to people trying to force others to conform to their sexual moral code.

My guess is that the social taboo is still strong. There's obvious biological arguments against it, but I'd imagine incestuous couples generally aren't thinking about the defects the kid who won't exist nine months after the fact might hypothetically have -- and besides, the right to self-ownership, expressed through a number of means including consensual sexual activity, is the most fundamental principle and the greatest good; no law can be justified in violation of that maxim, no matter how sound the recommended proposal may be for some other purpose.

ETA: For clarification, the 'biological argument against incest' in a nutshell is that your genetic code is too similar to your partner's. That means the hypothetical offspring is more likely to inherit some kind of genetic defect as a consequence of the interaction of recessive genes.

Edited March 3, 2013 by PresidentEden

[Narga_Rocks]

You think I should say some instead of most? You can't deny that there are a lot of people against it, and many of those people are atheists.

[Rehab]

Westermarck effect maybe, maybe fear that it could damage childhood development [or one's concept of family] [if one is exposed to it during childhood], maybe people aren't able to comprehend it without having experienced [or known anybody who experienced] it, maybe it's a reaction we've evolved to protect against the risk that harmful recessive genes are more assuredly able to pair and manifest in a child if the parents share that recessive gene. Haven't come across extremely hard evidence myself for any stance that could be taken on it [so I guess I don't really know], though I'd be happy if anybody had some to share.

I'm guessing some dudes have already covered at least some of this before I got to posting Yep, beaten fair/square

Edited March 3, 2013 by Rehab

[Espinosa]

Out of health concerns, most probably.

Anyway, it's probably not a religious or Christian thing at all. Pagan tribes, old and new, also appear to be in consensus on this. They also exhibited unity in burying the dead, amongst other things.

[Fruity Insanity]

The world today is conformed mostly to fit the "Western" style.

The world is pretty much westernized thanks to globalization and the European expansionism in the 16-17th centuries.

Europe was a mostly Christian continent, so when people of the time moved to places, such as America, India, Australia, and the like, they took their ideals and morals with them.

I'm not sure of other religious books, but the Bible dictates that you not sleep with your relatives... (Although interestingly, Lot's daughters get him drunk and sleep with him because there were no other men.)

Being Christians, and trying to avoid religious prosecution, people moved to the countries... and were generally very pious. People attended church every Sunday. They observed the Sabbath. They were - so to say - much more strict than Christians today.

So, generation after generation, people passed down the morals they attained through the Bible. Do not sleep with your relatives, being one of them.

After time, many people strayed from God, but the social taboo remained.

There aren't as many strict Christians today, but the ideas from the past remain.

At least, that's how I interpreted things.

I could be wrong, though.

[PresidentEden]

You think I should say some instead of most? You can't deny that there are a lot of people against it, and many of those people are atheists.

Nah, the core question is the same regardless of the modifier. I'm more wandering what the 'against' entails. Roughly speaking you've got three levels to observe:

1. Personal abstention from Activity X without making a negative moral value judgment against X

2. Personal abstention from Activity X with negative moral value judgment against X

3. Personal abstention from Activity X, negative moral judgment against X, belief that the state or another coercive entity should be utilized to compel others to conform with aforesaid judgment against X.

All three of those could feasibly be defined as one being 'against' X, but obviously 1, 2, and 3 are very different positions. I hold to (1), I'd imagine most hold to (2) or (3) and can't really explain why they do.

[Narga_Rocks]

Nah, the core question is the same regardless of the modifier. I'm more wandering what the 'against' entails. Roughly speaking you've got three levels to observe:

1. Personal abstention from Activity X without making a negative moral value judgment against X

2. Personal abstention from Activity X with negative moral value judgment against X

3. Personal abstention from Activity X, negative moral judgment against X, belief that the state or another coercive entity should be utilized to compel others to conform with aforesaid judgment against X.

All three of those could feasibly be defined as one being 'against' X, but obviously 1, 2, and 3 are very different positions. I hold to (1), I'd imagine most hold to (2) or (3) and can't really explain why they do.

It's true that 2 and 3 are different, but I kinda meant either 2 or 3 when I said it. I'm not sure 1 even falls under the definition of "against". That's more like "if I was attracted to my sibling I might consider asking him/her what (s)he thought about having a little experiment" so it's hardly what I'd consider "against" to entail.

[PresidentEden]

It's true that 2 and 3 are different, but I kinda meant either 2 or 3 when I said it. I'm not sure 1 even falls under the definition of "against". That's more like "if I was attracted to my sibling I might consider asking him/her what (s)he thought about having a little experiment" so it's hardly what I'd consider "against" to entail.

Gotcha. In that case, I'd just be hypothesizing. I'm a little conflicted with the empirical aspect of the statement; I can't think of a single atheist I know (and I know plenty) who thinks incest is morally wrong, just distasteful (which is a matter of subjective preference). But they have to be out there....

[Narga_Rocks]

Gotcha. In that case, I'd just be hypothesizing. I'm a little conflicted with the empirical aspect of the statement; I can't think of a single atheist I know (and I know plenty) who thinks incest is morally wrong, just distasteful (which is a matter of subjective preference). But they have to be out there....

When you say "distasteful", how do you mean? Obviously, personal abstention due to lack of attraction is implied. But what else? If they hear about a pair of siblings who hook up would they react like Integrity and go "ewww" or would they say "not my bag, but if they like it more power to them?"

[Momo]

A relationship between an older sibling and a younger one creates an awkward authoritative thing I'd rather not have to deal with.

[Darros]

As an atheist myself I guess I can throw in my two cents here. From my understanding, it screws up lots of things with genes and can make offspring super messed up both physically and mentally. There's also the societal taboo against it. It's just something that has been more or less defined as wrong, and it's always been that way. I can't exactly explain why, but most people conform to societal norms and values and I guess being against incest is one of those things.

It's also illegal which serves as a big reason not to do it. And I'm talking big time illegal here. In Canada, incest is punishable by 14 years (!!!) in prison if the blood link is known.

[PresidentEden]

When you say "distasteful", how do you mean? Obviously, personal abstention due to lack of attraction is implied. But what else? If they hear about a pair of siblings who hook up would they react like Integrity and go "ewww" or would they say "not my bag, but if they like it more power to them?"

The former. "Ewww gross nasty" kinda reaction. And that's not to say all or even most of my fellow nonbelievers hold that notion, just that some do, and thus they'd still react that way.

Now, WHY they'd do that... can't really say. I've always been in the "not my bag" camp on sexual "deviancy." (As long as the deviancy is fully consensual. Child rape is "deviant," but I'm sure as hell not ambivalent about it.)

[Fruity Insanity]

As an atheist myself I guess I can throw in my two cents here. From my understanding, it screws up lots of things with genes and can make offspring super messed up both physically and mentally. There's also the societal taboo against it. It's just something that has been more or less defined as wrong, and it's always been that way. I can't exactly explain why, but most people conform to societal norms and values and I guess being against incest is one of those things.

It's also illegal which serves as a big reason not to do it. And I'm talking big time illegal here. In Canada, incest is punishable by 14 years (!!!) in prison if the blood link is known.

I think that, while passing down bad genes is a factor, it is not the main one. Mostly because that find is a relatively recent find.

Incest was a social taboo prior to genetics.

Which means that something else contributed to that taboo.

It's defined wrong because people viewed it as wrong. And people viewed it wrong because, I think, religion made it that way. The only religion I know condemns incest, like I said before, is Christianity...

The ideas they held seem to have carried over to the current generation of people.

Also, yeah, people don't want to go to jail, so... that could be a big factor, too.

[PresidentEden]

The scientific explanation may be a recent find, but the understanding that incest = genetic defects has been around forever. In fact, my suspicion is that the incest taboo arose because pre-scientific man noted the correlation between incest and genetic defects and assumed that incest was cursed (and thus condemned the progeny of an incestuous couple to a curse). Once you have a wide perception of Action X being cursed, the taboo builds itself. Christianity, of course, just copied and pasted.

[Tamanoir]

Well, there's the obvious scientific issue.

It can deteriorate gens and makes them mentally and physically challenged.

There's also the fact that, even if we are atheist, we westerner live in a Judeo-Christian world.

So, we have this bias established deeply on us.

[Fruity Insanity]

The scientific explanation may be a recent find, but the understanding that incest = genetic defects has been around forever. In fact, my suspicion is that the incest taboo arose because pre-scientific man noted the correlation between incest and genetic defects and assumed that incest was cursed (and thus condemned the progeny of an incestuous couple to a curse). Once you have a wide perception of Action X being cursed, the taboo builds itself. Christianity, of course, just copied and pasted.

True, true... you're probably right. People have seen that since the start. Although I still think we think incest is wrong mainly because of what TendaSlime said. We live in the western Judeo-Christian world, where people are biased in that way.

Except Adam and Eve's children intermarried. And Christianity didn't really copy and paste. They more like got the rule from God, but whatever. This is not the place to talk about that.

[Excellen Browning]

Okay, so Theists I understand. In most religious books there are specific passages that categorically state don't do it. Or at least I know there is in Christianity and assume it's there in other religions because they don't either. But in an age like now where almost anything consensual is accepted, why is this an exception? And don't simply say "it's creepy as ****", tell me why it's creepy.

Social conditioning. All western European countries come from a christian background and much of the christian dogma can still be found in our law systems. There's also the increased chance of children from incestuous relationships being born with defects. As a side note; children between first cousins do not run this risk, and it is highest amongst offspring of brother/sister relationships

Relatively recently in Germany, there was the case involving the Stübings, which was basically the case of a boy being placed out of his family at a young age, coming back to live with them 20 years later, and ends up in a relationship with his sister, and four children with her. The guy was sent to prison for committing incest (a crime under German law), and his case has sparked public debate about how acceptable incestuous relationships between consenting adults is.

[Chiki]

It's probably an evolutionary trait. Inbreeding makes awful offspring.

If it isn't that though, then it's for the same reason atheists look down on killing etc. There's no such thing as objective moral values so our cultures determine our moral values for us.

I don't agree with atheists saying it's wrong because of the offspring it produces because there's protection.

Edited March 3, 2013 by Olwen

[Rehab]

I wonder if there's any discernible difference in what relative number of people without siblings think of incest, as opposed to those with siblings. I'm wondering whether the latter might have a "Do what with my sibling? That dude? Bleh no way" [kind of reaction] that might not be easy to replicate in as visceral a way for somebody who hasn't had a sibling.

watch the stats be like nope

Edited March 3, 2013 by Rehab

[Kon]

I've always been of the mindset that if they love each other, then it doesn't matter, but the case of incest is a grey area for me. I personally could never see myself being attracted like that to either of my siblings, because to me that's mixing up platonic love and romantic love, and that's more than a bit creepy to me. There's also the fact that it's illegal in quite a few areas and there are genetic risks that comes with inbreeding.

[Rewjeo]

At this point in time there should be no problem avoiding offspring.

But morality and religion are different things. Atheism =/= only goes through life making choices based on logic.

Edited March 3, 2013 by Rewjeo

[Raven]

Because incest is illegal in my Country.

Also on a personal level, I've heard a lot about multiplying the chances of certain health defects when two siblings conceive a child together. I'd rather avoid a relationship with a close blood relative for this alone.

[Florete]

Atheist (most likely) here, and leaving out offspring, I don't agree that there should be anything wrong with it when consensual, not from what I've heard. The law is subjective and changes with time. Again, leaving out the matter of offspring, I see no reason it should be so condemned. It's not like suddenly lifting the laws on it will make more people want to commit incest, most family members just don't see each other that way. But if they do for whatever reason (Westermark effect, etc.), well, I won't be surprised if this one day takes the road of homosexuality (in that it's seen as immoral/illegal/etc. but people gradually start to accept it). It'll probably be harder for people to accept, though, since it's much closer to home. Literally.

To each their own. If it has no negative effect on society, who are we to judge?