Why are most atheists against bro/sis coitus?

[Excellen Browning]

But what you're proposing is a whole new can of worms; "should couples that have a high risk of producing defective offspring be allowed to bear children, regardless of the how or why?"

What I'm proposing is nothing, because there is only one answer that is correct: yes, they should be allowed to bear children. Eugenics is fundamentally wrong in the assumption that some traits are worth more than others. This is not even a matter of opinion, this is an axiom.

[Esau of Isaac]

What I'm proposing is nothing, because there is only one answer that is correct: yes, they should be allowed to bear children. Eugenics is fundamentally wrong in the assumption that some traits are worth more than others. This is not even a matter of opinion, this is an axiom.

How is it wrong? It might not be objectively correct to define some things as better or worse, but it's objectively more advantageous for a child to be born fully-functioning as opposed to deformed.

[Excellen Browning]

How is it wrong? It might not be objectively correct to define some things as better or worse, but it's objectively more advantageous for a child to be born fully-functioning as opposed to deformed.

If you cannot take it for true, then there simply isn't enough time in Emmett Brown's workshop for me to explain it to you.

[Esau of Isaac]

If you cannot take it for true, then there simply isn't enough time in Emmett Brown's workshop for me to explain it to you.

How do you manage to type when you are so high on yourself?

It's honestly kind of alarming

[Marcell]

What I'm proposing is nothing, because there is only one answer that is correct: yes, they should be allowed to bear children. Eugenics is fundamentally wrong in the assumption that some traits are worth more than others. This is not even a matter of opinion, this is an axiom.

Fundamentally wrong? Um... it's certainly not fundamentally right. But it definitely, fundamentally is. I don't think that our genes are anywhere near as relevant as they once were because we gave natural selection a big ol' middle finger as soon as we started industrializing and making rapid technological advancements. But genes did mean everything, once. I don't think they do as much anymore, and thus I don't believe that we can judge a person's worth based solely on their genetic code. But as someone with family members whose lives have been heavily impacted by autism, I can say with absolute certainty that there are some genes that are less desirable. So forgive me if I defy your 'axiom'.

As I previously said, I don't believe that axioms exist in this world with the frequency that many others around me believe that they do. Or maybe I just thrive on controversy. I'll admit, I'm weird like that.

[PresidentEden]

What I'm proposing is nothing, because there is only one answer that is correct: yes, they should be allowed to bear children. Eugenics is fundamentally wrong in the assumption that some traits are worth more than others. This is not even a matter of opinion, this is an axiom.

I disagree with this line of argumentation but agree with its conclusion. Sight is worth more than blindness, hearing worth more than deafness, rapid cognitive function worth more than slow cognitive function... the list goes on. Your premise is sound but your argument is really flawed.

Fortunately it's easily rectified. The reason why I believe eugenics is fundamentally wrong is two-fold. The first is that it assigns different moral value to human lives based on physical traits. It is perfectly acceptable to say sight is preferable and more valuable than blindness; it is not acceptable to say that a person with sight is worth more, morally speaking, than a person blind. The second is that any effort to enforce eugenics laws requires the use of coercion to prevent 'undesirables' from reproducing, which is a violation of self-ownership, the most fundamental right a human being has.

[Excellen Browning]

The reason why I believe eugenics is fundamentally wrong is two-fold. The first is that it assigns different moral value to human lives based on physical traits. It is perfectly acceptable to say sight is preferable and more valuable than blindness; it is not acceptable to say that a person with sight is worth more, morally speaking, than a person blind. The second is that any effort to enforce eugenics laws requires the use of coercion to prevent 'undesirables' from reproducing, which is a violation of self-ownership, the most fundamental right a human being has.

Interesting, because you're arguing the same thing as me. It's just that I rarely care to use full argumentation.

[PresidentEden]

I figured I was. It's just unclear with how you used the terms that you meant what I said (and I've heard people in the past argue the way that I interpreted your statement, hence my interpreting it as such).

[Chiki]

It's funny some people here really think incest is wrong just because laws say so. I thought we were over the whole laws-dictate-morals thing a long time ago.

[Lord Raven]

There are certain things that make sense to me for why atheists would keep the belief and certain things that make sense to me for atheists to reject. This isn't one of the former. Maybe I just needed a sister to see why people would reject it outside of religious reasons.

I think this is precisely the reason why you don't see why atheists would find it wrong.

[Raven]

It's funny some people here really think incest is wrong just because laws say so. I thought we were over the whole laws-dictate-morals thing a long time ago.

Laws don't care about whether or not you think it's right because it's your decision. You're going to jail if proven guilty. So in the eyes of the law, it certainly is wrong. Not many people are above the law, so it's reasonable to either comply to the law or not let the law find out.

That's not so say that laws are right, of course. I too think that if two siblings want to fuck, then let them carry on. It's their life, of course. Just don't go shouting about it, because society hasn't yet opened up to the idea (as proven by the laws against incest). Some people in today's society struggle to get their head around the notion of "kissing cousins" (which is legal in some countries) let alone sex between siblings.

If the laws on incest were changed, then over time, so would the general public stance on the subject. I'm not sure if UK incest laws are influenced by religious preachings or based on health problems which may arise from generations of incestuous breeding. But I'm pretty sure the laws are there to prevent bad shit happening to people's children. It would undoubtedly cost the tax payer millions to help and treat people with deformities and disabilities as a result of generations of incest were it made legal. I think people should wrap up if they want to start sexual relationships with siblings. If not, they should be made responsible to pay for any health problems their child may be born with as a result.

[Duff Ostrich]

Incest between immediate family members is very likely a result a sexual abuse from one perpetrated onto the other. Entertaining a situation where that's not the case, it still seems like a really bad idea. Even a successful long term "relationship" has the potential to permanently alienate the rest of your loved ones, including the parents. And unlike certain other societal taboos, our disgust for incest was not taught but is instead a natural consequence of our brains working as intended.

Ignoring the likelihood of abuse and broken families (which is, again, very high), I suppose I can't point to a moral justification for declaring it "wrong", other than it seems like a horrible mockery of a normal familial relationship, indicating that something has gone very wrong. But as an atheist I am fairly certain that no two people were preordained to have their souls bound together for eternity, and as such any inappropriate feeings someone may have for their brother or sister should probably be ignored in favor of pursuing a real relationship with someone they didn't spend their childhood living with. It's good sense, if nothing else.

[Tamanoir]

Incest between immediate family members is very likely a result a sexual abuse from one perpetrated onto the other. Entertaining a situation where that's not the case, it still seems like a really bad idea. Even a successful long term "relationship" has the potential to permanently alienate the rest of your loved ones, including the parents. And unlike certain other societal taboos, our disgust for incest was not taught but is instead a natural consequence of our brains working as intended.

Ignoring the likelihood of abuse and broken families (which is, again, very high), I suppose I can't point to a moral justification for declaring it "wrong", other than it seems like a horrible mockery of a normal familial relationship, indicating that something has gone very wrong. But as an atheist I am fairly certain that no two people were preordained to have their souls bound together for eternity, and as such any inappropriate feeings someone may have for their brother or sister should probably be ignored in favor of pursuing a real relationship with someone they didn't spend their childhood living with. It's good sense, if nothing else.

That.

If you look at the little sister archetype, and the other incest (parent/child, which may be more frequent), you see that it's extremely close to loli/shota (to not say paedophile...).

And the main problem with it is that a person takes advantage of someone that can't defend itself, that may not even fully understand what happens to him/her.

And genetics doesn't feel like a good excuss, because a family is more than just being blood related.

If a 50 years guy mary a 20-30 years girl, it can pass. If he knows her since she's child, it become wrong.

About law : law was used to condain homosexuals, when there is absolutely nothing wrong with them. That poses me some problems

[Marcell]

Wait, why are we suddenly talking about age differences and sexual assault? Sexual assault in particular in illegal for completely different reasons, irrelevant to incest also being illegal. I thought this was all about two siblings, of a similar age, who are consenting... if they are not consenting then it's wrong regardless of blood ties.

[Paulina]

The premise of this topic caught me off-guard. The OP makes it sound like most athiests are against inter-sibling relationships. I would imagine most people who don't believe in a deity would have less traditional values in general. I'm an atheist, and I don't see anything wrong with inter-sibling relationships.

Also, what EmceeLucas said. I also thought this was between two consenting adults.

[Esau of Isaac]

Ignoring the likelihood of abuse and broken families (which is, again, very high), I suppose I can't point to a moral justification for declaring it "wrong", other than it seems like a horrible mockery of a normal familial relationship, indicating that something has gone very wrong.

What is a "normal familial relationship"?

[Marcell]

What is a "normal familial relationship"?

Yeah, this. I'd be very careful throwing around the word "normal" nowadays.

[Tamanoir]

Wait, why are we suddenly talking about age differences and sexual assault? Sexual assault in particular in illegal for completely different reasons, irrelevant to incest also being illegal. I thought this was all about two siblings, of a similar age, who are consenting... if they are not consenting then it's wrong regardless of blood ties.

Yeah, but you have to treat these terms at one moment or another.

Maybe we should use a different terms for these two forms.

But they have the same name by now, and it always caught me off guard.

When you heard of incest, it's rarely about a daughter and a brother that leaves perfect love.

(That's also an answer to the initial question : conditionning).

Besides, the long talks about eugenics were more out topic, because blood isn't the main point here.

Family isn't designed by blood only.

This version is more idealized by fiction than anything.

So yeah, it can be romantic, and there is nothing wrong with liking incest in fiction.

To each their own taste, I'm probably the less likely person to judge them.

And I actually have nothing about an Ephraim X Eirika, for example because, except the fights they are twins, there aren't really problem with this pair.

In reality, things works differently. I'm under the impression that it is pretty rare.

If someone have more exact facts on the domain, I'll really be interrested to see them.

And I think it's a fallacy to only present the most favpurable outcome and completely forgetting the others aspects.

It is like only talking about all the benefits of nuclear energy and omitting the radiations...

And, if it's between adolescent, I won't trust them for these kind of things...

They're completely lost with their sexuality and don't really think straight.

And I wasn't the one who talked about the little sister trope

Besides, how many time does this "perfect" setting happened ?

Whoa... I really seems like a troll here...

But I thought it have to be said...

...Back to the topic

Once again, the problem isn't blood. The problem is family, and how it twist the expectation of it.

And I think it's why many people disagree. Even non-Christian believe family is important, for one reason or another.

[Rewjeo]

stuff

The only case of "healthy" incest I can think of off the top of my head is Mausollos and Artemisia, which did leave us with a word and one of the seven wonders of the ancient world.

[Hawkeye]

I only read pages 1 and 4 so I apologize for the fact that my points have probably been repeated.

1. The genetic problems are severely overstated. Without going too deep into the biology of it all, incest has a higher chance of bringing out recessive illnesses and the like that may have been present but not expressed in the parents. It does not guarantee that the child will have any sort of genetic problems.

2. For the social stigma part I'm going to use a comparison of incest and homosexuality don't shoot me. So for both we all know that the social stigma has been there for a long time (obviously there have been cultures accepting of homosexuality all throughout history but I'm just using it as an example so let's stick with British-inspired North America). In the present the stigma against homosexuality is finally ending, but obviously the incest thing isn't. Really the main reason behind that is that incest is so dramatically less common. From a biological perspective, family members have a predisposition to not be attracted to each other sexually (haven't looked at the research for this in a long time, but it is out there I just don't have the time right now to look), and this is further reinforced by social pressure throughout their entire life. So with that in mind it's easy to see that there will likely never be a broadening of acceptance for incest, just like there won't be for other types of sexual partners (the examples that come to mind are necrophilia and bestiality). The same type of biological indoctrination does not exist against homosexuality, aside from the obvious prime genetic directive of reproducing, but that one's a lot more complicated in how it affects people. So homosexuality is much more widespread, and because we are generally a progressive society it becomes socially and legally acceptable. Incest is not common enough to inspire such a movement, so that will never happen.

tl;dr

For people who don't have religious reasons, incest is considered bad because it has always been considered bad and there will never be enough people who care to change it.

[Duff Ostrich]

What is a "normal familial relationship"?

I'm open minded enough to accept a large number of definitions, though none that include romance or sex.

I realize that's a really easy answer, but its almost certainly not an unreasonable one.

[PresidentEden]

Laws don't care about whether or not you think it's right because it's your decision. You're going to jail if proven guilty. So in the eyes of the law, it certainly is wrong. Not many people are above the law, so it's reasonable to either comply to the law or not let the law find out.

That's not so say that laws are right, of course. I too think that if two siblings want to fuck, then let them carry on. It's their life, of course. Just don't go shouting about it, because society hasn't yet opened up to the idea (as proven by the laws against incest). Some people in today's society struggle to get their head around the notion of "kissing cousins" (which is legal in some countries) let alone sex between siblings.

If the laws on incest were changed, then over time, so would the general public stance on the subject.

Don't you see, though? This mentality of "don't make any noise about it until the law goes away" is PRECISELY why things don't change. The law here explicitly coerces people into NOT opposing societal norms. As a very limited analogy, take the civil rights movement. How many people had to get themselves arrested for completely inane and harmless things, or get executed by the state on tenuous pretenses, or lynched by angry mobs with no repercussions for the killers, before public opinion FINALLY swayed and took the rightful side of the oppressed?

Public opinion defended by the law only changes when people push the boundaries of the law or explicitly violate it in the name of the oppressed. If they have a case, then the system is exposed for its foolish obsessions, whether they be homophobia, racism, irrational paranoia of the irreligious, you name it. You cannot work within the legal system to get people to accept your point of view. That's not how people, or society, work, it never has been and likely never will be.

[Esau of Isaac]

I'm open minded enough to accept a large number of definitions, though none that include romance or sex.

I realize that's a really easy answer, but its almost certainly not an unreasonable one.

It's not unreasonable to conclude that it's not normal, but it is unreasonable to presuppose that there is such a thing as normal in the modern family unit.

I mean, yeah, without stretching too much, it's easy to paint the picture of a "normal" family. As in the traditional, western-style family. Mother, father, brother, sister, one home, nice van, mowed lawn, picketed fence, etc. There are so many exceptions to this in everyday life, however, that it's simply silly to refer to that as the "normal" way of doing things. Or for that matter to state that the "normal" life is somehow sacred and deviating from it is shameful.

[Duff Ostrich]

It's not unreasonable to conclude that it's not normal, but it is unreasonable to presuppose that there is such a thing as normal in the modern family unit.

I mean, yeah, without stretching too much, it's easy to paint the picture of a "normal" family. As in the traditional, western-style family. Mother, father, brother, sister, one home, nice van, mowed lawn, picketed fence, etc. There are so many exceptions to this in everyday life, however, that it's simply silly to refer to that as the "normal" way of doing things. Or for that matter to state that the "normal" life is somehow sacred and deviating from it is shameful.

I consider myself a modern conservative, which means that despite championing "family values" I consider a stable household with (for instance) a homosexual male couple raising adopted children to still be in keeping with those values. The key part for me is "stable". While the modern world has room for all types of families, I still think that there are objective ways to determine whether or not a home is fundamentally healthy. I can't imagine a scenario where two siblings expressing sexual attraction towards one another (mutual or otherwise) could be indicative of anything other than a serious problem within that family.

Given how strong the Westmark Effect is, it is very unlikely that the attraction will be mutual, and if it is, then... I have nothing to add. I assume you'd agree with me that the government can't effectively legislate on something like this, and if both siblings are adults I see no reason not to allow them to live their life as they want to.

Mind you, if I were a father with two children who were expressing (what I consider to be) inappropriate behavior towards one another, I would do everything in my power to put an immediate end to it.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Duff Ostrich

[Esau of Isaac]

I consider myself a modern conservative, which means that despite championing "family values" I consider a stable household with (for instance) a homosexual male couple raising adopted children to still be in keeping with those values. The key part for me is "stable". While the modern world has room for all types of families, I still think that there are objective ways to determine whether or not a home is fundamentally healthy. I can't imagine a scenario where two siblings expressing sexual attraction towards one another (mutual or otherwise) could be indicative of anything other than a serious problem within that family.

Really? You can't, using the fullest extent of your mental faculties, imagine a single scenario where two siblings sexually attracted to one another is stable?

What is inherently unstable about an incestuous relationship? Given that you've used an example of homosexuality, you're going to have a tough time not sounding hypocritical arguing from either a cultural or biological standpoint of stability.