Moral Disgust

[H'ethetheth]

Okay, perhaps ethical would have been a better descriptor.
Can one be rational and unethical at the same time?

I guess so, that would amount to something like sociopathy, where you are rational but utterly uninterested in the consequences of your actions for other people.

Though perhaps you could call the egotistical philosophy of a con-man a system of ethics in its own right. I think there even is something called ethical egoism (google google, yes there is, it's pretty much that) .

I guess the results would be similar, though.

Must be a very tame badger and not one from Africa.

Africa has wild talking badgers?

The topic of this thread is "Moral disgust" not just the sexual relationship between consenting siblings.

I know, and about rational vs. irrational ethics.
That still doesn't mean it matters in this discussion why someone would choose to do such a thing.
What the OP wonders is if someone has chosen to do X, how best to assess the morality of X.

 

[stilicho]

But the question in the OP is not whether the siblings are engaging in an ill-advised activity. The question is whether it's immoral, and what is the best tool for establishing this.

I care. I care whether people condemn other peoples' actions, however harmless, based on disgust, gut feelings, or dislike.

I've already answered your question. I don't know what I'd say.

But my first guess would be that I'd probably fall off my chair and say "WHAT?!" a lot. Then I'd ask my boss to leave, which I assume he will be more than happy to do, and then have a long talk with my children about if they know what the hell they're doing, and the list of very good reasons not to continue doing so.

So you've replaced "icky" with "ill-advised" and "condemning" with "list[ing] very good reasons not to". I don't think that's going to pass Ivor's muster somehow. Cloaking the "ick"-factor with other words doesn't change the intent. You're just as opposed to the activities represented in the OP as I am.

By the way, with Ivor's just-written post about male circumcision I can see this is just a trolling thread. I wish you the best.

 

[Skwinty]

Africa has wild talking badgers?

Yep, they are wild and talk through their teeth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c81bcjyfn6U

I would like to see someone tickle this beasts bits.

 

[quadraginta]

Of course it's relevant. The example was cited in the OP. Can't be much more relevant than that.

So what do you tell your boss when your son announces he's been banging his sister for the last year? Nobody cares about immoral vs rational or whatever other window-dressing you're putting on it.

Just answer the quesiton. It should be very easy. Something like "I would explain to my boss how he is an irrational clod".

Why should it be easy? The fact is it is a disturbing and controversial issue.

Move your hypothetical scenario back in time fifty years. Your [adult] son announces he's been banging some other [adult] guy for the last year. This is not all that long ago, a time in living memory, and such an act was a felony in most states in the U.S. and most countries in the world. Such activity was prima facie cause for dismissal by any employer. In some cases it constituted sufficient cause if a relative was the guilty party, just by association.

That was disturbing and controversial, then. What should you have told your boss?

Now we are seeing an openly gay U.S. congressman announce his retirement with dignity after three decades of service. More than twenty years of those "out of the closet".

How much harm has been done by relaxing that taboo? Families are no longer being torn apart, careers are no longer being destroyed ... and yet ... the scenario is functionally identical, except for the passage of a generation.

 

[H'ethetheth]

So you've replaced "icky" with "ill-advised" and "condemning" with "list[ing] very good reasons not to". I don't think that's going to pass Ivor's muster somehow. Cloaking the "ick"-factor with other words doesn't change the intent. You're just as opposed to the activities represented in the OP as I am.

No I'm not. The principal reasons I would list have got nothing to do with morals or ickyness. They'd have to do with public perception, being hunted down by the law, the press, the neighborhood, with the lack of future in such a relationship, etc. Basically I'd inform them that it would ruin their lives in ways they can't possibly imagine, and that I'd rather they didn't.

The only moral arguments I'd have against it would be that any future handicapped children they would get would bear the burden of their decision, and that all that negative attention and perception could ruin more peoples' lives than their own. Mine for instance.

But notice how none of that has any bearing on whether I think this is "icky" or an immoral action in principle, which I don't. There are simply much better reasons not to do it, given the world as it is.

By the way, with Ivor's just-written post about male circumcision I can see this is just a trolling thread.

Why is that? If people think consent is important in deciding whether some action is moral, I agree it is reasonable that these people should find circumcision at least as immoral as having sex with a horse.

I wish you the best.

I'll manage, thanks.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Yep, they are wild and talk through their teeth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c81bcjyfn6U

I would like to see someone tickle this beasts bits.

I agree that's a bad-ass badger right there. I didn't understand a word it said though.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

I might add it would be helpful to understand the motivation behind starting the thread. It might just be trolling. Write something sufficiently controversial and tell everyone you have no special interest in it and watch the fur fly with a smug little grin.

Why?

Should the answers be different depending on who asked them?

There are more than a few threads begun by people simply out of idle curiosity. I am not suggesting that to be the case in this instance, but if it could be proven that it had been would your response to the topic be different? Why should that be?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

By the way, with Ivor's just-written post about male circumcision I can see this is just a trolling thread. I wish you the best.

IMO male infant circumcision is an excellent act to consider for this topic because it's one which many posters will have no problem with but others will find disgusting.

What's the difference between the two groups? Are those that find it disgusting being irrational? How might we decide what to value when assessing the harmfulness of the procedure? Can the two groups agree on a common set of values to judge the morality of circumcision? Can the same values be transferred to other non-consensual acts performed on animals, infants or children?

 

[quadraginta]

No I'm not. The principal reasons I would list have got nothing to do with morals or ickyness. They'd have to do with public perception, being hunted down by the law, the press, the neighborhood, with the lack of future in such a relationship, etc. Basically I'd inform them that it would ruin their lives in ways they can't possibly imagine, and that I'd rather they didn't.

<snip>

This is a telling observation. The true cost of the taboo isn't in the act, or its direct consequences, but rather the disproportionate punishment inflicted by others.

We decided that was unacceptable for religious preferences, for interracial marriages, for same-sex relationships ... But somehow this is different.

The biological consequences of sexual intercourse have been far less significant since the advent of effective birth control. Only two generations ago merely engaging in sex outside of marriage was a social faux pas, or at least getting caught at it was. If the evidence was made public in the form of a child out of wedlock the social consequences could be quite extreme and far reaching.

Is there any way that the relaxation of that particular taboo can be justified which doesn't bear nearly as much on a consensual act between adult siblings? Remember, our hypothetical pair in the OP had taken multiple effective steps to prevent pregnancy, a technology which wasn't even available that long ago.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Is there any way that the relaxation of that particular taboo can be justified which doesn't bear nearly as much on a consensual act between adult siblings? Remember, our hypothetical pair in the OP had taken multiple effective steps to prevent pregnancy, a technology which wasn't even available that long ago.

I'd like to answer this question, but I don't actually understand the highlighted part. I'm not a native speaker, I'm afraid.

Could you try asking it again, in another way?

 

[quadraginta]

I'd like to answer this question, but I don't actually understand the highlighted part. I'm not a native speaker, I'm afraid.

Could you try asking it again, in another way?

In the not very distant past sex out of wedlock between two consenting, unrelated adults was socially taboo. The roots of that taboo were based on the problems caused by out-of-wedlock pregnancy. (And women took the brunt of the disapproval, but that's a different topic.)

Birth control has changed that for all practical purposes, and we ("we" being western culture) rarely feel that a woman's (much less a man's) reputation is ruined merely for engaging in such relationships.

Judging from this thread, the two main reasons that consensual sex between adult siblings is felt to be a justifiable taboo are the problems which might result from pregnancy, and the consequences of social disapproval.

I'm having trouble seeing a huge difference here.

 

[H'ethetheth]

In the not very distant past sex out of wedlock between two consenting, unrelated adults was socially taboo. The roots of that taboo were based on the problems caused by out-of-wedlock pregnancy. (And women took the brunt of the disapproval, but that's a different topic.)

Birth control has changed that for all practical purposes, and we ("we" being western culture) rarely feel that a woman's (much less a man's) reputation is ruined merely for engaging in such relationships.

Judging from this thread, the two main reasons that consensual sex between adult siblings is felt to be a justifiable taboo are the problems which might result from pregnancy, and the consequences of social disapproval.

I'm having trouble seeing a huge difference here.

Oh, okay, then I completely agree. I don't see much of a difference either.

But I guess my stance is that it's not a justifiable taboo. It's just that, if they were my children, I'd at least want to know if they're aware of what they're getting themselves into.

 

[Skwinty]

I agree that's a bad-ass badger right there. I didn't understand a word it said though.

Thats what the abuser says of his/her victim's complaints.

Talking of circumcision. I was circumcised as an infant. It has caused no problems in my life but I am still disgusted about the fact.

The only reason I am disgusted is because it was done without my consent.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Talking of circumcision. I was circumcised as an infant. It has caused no problems in my life but I am still disgusted about the fact.

The only reason I am disgusted is because it was done without my consent.

That is at least rationally consistent.

 

[quadraginta]

Oh, okay, then I completely agree. I don't see much of a difference either.

But I guess my stance is that it's not a justifiable taboo. It's just that, if they were my children, I'd at least want to know if they're aware of what they're getting themselves into.

I agree with that as well. The depth of my conviction won't be put to a test, since both of my young 'uns are male and (at least so far ) hetero.

When I was in high school, in West Virginia in the late sixties, I dated a black girl for a couple of semesters. My parents were relatively liberal by the standards of that time, but still found the situation to be very disconcerting. To their credit, although I was given exactly the sort of counseling from them that you describe, they did not forbid me to continue the relationship.

I hope I could do as well.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Thread crash in progress;

I will only remark that what SHOULD be and what IS is usually not what you think.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

IMO male infant circumcision is an excellent act to consider for this topic because it's one which many posters will have no problem with but others will find disgusting.

What's the difference between the two groups? Are those that find it disgusting being irrational? How might we decide what to value when assessing the harmfulness of the procedure? Can the two groups agree on a common set of values to judge the morality of circumcision? Can the same values be transferred to other non-consensual acts performed on animals, infants or children?

What about circumcising badgers ?

 

[H'ethetheth]

African or European?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

What about circumcising badgers ?

I think most people would prefer their own or their child's circumcision to be performed by a human who is well trained in the procedure.

 

[Skwinty]

I think most people would prefer their own or their child's circumcision to be performed by a human who is well trained in the procedure.

I agree. the Ratel has a tendency to castrate rather than circumcise.