• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Moral Disgust

catsmate1 said:
I would agree, with three additions:

  1. why limit it to two people?
  2. sexual activity should occur where there is a reasonable presumption of privacy (don't scare the horses) so as to avoid forcing others to participate, even if just visually
  3. reasonable consent includes the ability to understand what's happening and what harm may result
Click to expand...

I accept your 3 additions without reservation.
 
As for men needing a rational basis not to have sex with animals, there's always this -
Sex with animals may be tied to risk of penile cancer, study shows

Men who have sex with animals may have an increased risk of penile cancer, a study finds.

A recent case-control study published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Sexual Medicine focused on men who lived in rural areas of Brazil.

Researchers compared the health and sex habits of 118 penile cancer patients to 374 healthy men who served as the control group. Among all the study participants 34.8% reported having sex with animals. More men in the cancer group reported having sex with animals than the controls, 44.9% versus 31.6%. Penile cancer is cancer of the tissue of the penis.
Click to expand...
Full article:
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/16/news/la-heb-sex-animals-penile-cancer-20111116
 
quadraginta said:
The thread began with a question about the perceptions of others toward an intimate act between two consenting adults. In the second and fourth posts Lk had upped the ante to bestiality, murder, and cannibalism. Pedophilia wasn't far behind.
Click to expand...

FWIW I reported myself. Posting while drunk is not a good idea, and I apologize for those earlier posts.
 
Ivor the Engineer said:
Are our feelings and intuitions about particular behaviours a better guide for what acts we ought to prohibit or condemn than rationally evaluating whether there was any harm from those acts?
Click to expand...


Just to go back to the OP for a moment, my major concern is the reason for enacting certain laws. There are quite a few I can think of that are based on emotion rather than rational logic. I consider that to be wrong, but then we could veer off into politics and I don't want to go there.

As for the scenario in the OP; I see nothing remotely morally disgusting with it. But then I don't have a sister.

Little rant:
I often avoid ItE threads, as he tends to come over as a bit of a twit. But once in a while a good topic comes up, like this one. I was disappointed to see it dropping into the mess of paedophilia and bestiality so quickly, but I don't see that as his goal.


V.
 
Verde said:
Just to go back to the OP for a moment, my major concern is the reason for enacting certain laws. There are quite a few I can think of that are based on emotion rather than rational logic. I consider that to be wrong
Click to expand...

Wrong in what way?

I doubt there are any laws which are not based ultimately on emotion, in fact.

Almost everything we do is based on emotion. Reason is mostly just window-dressing.

Read Drew Westen's book on the political brain, for example, and you'll see plenty of evidence for this. Political choices, even those regarding issues of fact, can be predicted with emotional and cognitive data (what you feel about the issue, and what you know about the issue) at about 85% accuracy. Those same choices can be predicted with emotional data alone at about 80% accuracy.

That's why I asked about "harm" being mentioned in an OP on "moral disgust". Morality and disgust are emotional, not logical. So it makes no sense to ask why they don't match up with a utility-based view of reasoning.

And btw, all that utility-based thinking about human choice is dead. But apparently, economists are just starting to get wind of this.
 
Piggy said:
Wrong in what way?

I doubt there are any laws which are not based ultimately on emotion, in fact.

Almost everything we do is based on emotion. Reason is mostly just window-dressing.
Click to expand...

That may well be true, but I think it is wrong when something as personal as emotion is used to enact judgement on a wider population. Perhaps there is a case for it when a large quantity of people have the same emotional reaction to an issue, but I still think that logic, and the ability for critical thought should be the determining factor.

Read Drew Westen's book on the political brain, for example, and you'll see plenty of evidence for this. Political choices, even those regarding issues of fact, can be predicted with emotional and cognitive data (what you feel about the issue, and what you know about the issue) at about 85% accuracy. Those same choices can be predicted with emotional data alone at about 80% accuracy.
Click to expand...

Again, I don't disagree with you. I haven't read the book you mention, but I have seen the political process in action. I just don't think that is the correct way to do things.

That's why I asked about "harm" being mentioned in an OP on "moral disgust". Morality and disgust are emotional, not logical. So it makes no sense to ask why they don't match up with a utility-based view of reasoning.
Click to expand...

I thought it was a fair question, however. There certainly is a disconnect between emotion and logic; which one should dominate in making serious decisions?

But then we're getting back into politics, and a further derail is probably not a good idea.

And btw, all that utility-based thinking about human choice is dead. But apparently, economists are just starting to get wind of this.
Click to expand...

??

V.
 
Verde said:
I thought it was a fair question, however. There certainly is a disconnect between emotion and logic; which one should dominate in making serious decisions?

But then we're getting back into politics, and a further derail is probably not a good idea.
Click to expand...

No need to derail.

The OP describes a scene of incest, then asks "Was it OK?" given that there was no "harm" done to anyone, and suggests that we should approach this rationally.

But we shouldn't approach it rationally.

Disgust isn't rational. Neither is morality, at its core.

We aren't disgusted by incest because of some balance of utility weighed in our heads.

So it's ridiculous to propose that incest is not disgusting when no one is "harmed" by it.
 
Verde said:
??
Click to expand...

For the past, oh, about 3 centuries the prevailing view of the mind has been one of rational utility. Supposedly, people are rational beings who make decisions based on weighing outcomes.

This has turned out to be entirely wrong. That's not at all how people think.

Our choices are dominated by emotions, and we will often ignore obvious realities, or even do things that are detrimental to ourselves, in order to satisfy these emotions.

If you attempt to persuade people with reason (on just about any subject) while your opponent persuades with emotion, if y'all are equally skillful, you will lose.
 
I have no problem with it.

I would also have no problem with it if it were two brothers or two sisters.

I don't recommend that they have a child together, strictly on genetic grounds, but apart from that let them lead their lives as they will.
 
Piggy said:
No need to derail.

The OP describes a scene of incest, then asks "Was it OK?" given that there was no "harm" done to anyone, and suggests that we should approach this rationally.

But we shouldn't approach it rationally.

Disgust isn't rational. Neither is morality, at its core.

We aren't disgusted by incest because of some balance of utility weighed in our heads.

So it's ridiculous to propose that incest is not disgusting when no one is "harmed" by it.
Click to expand...

Why is the same not also true for homosexuality?

Personally, I'm as disgusted by the thought of homosexuality as incest, but rationally I support gay rights, gay marriage, and equal treatment of gay people under the law, for all the usual reasons. Heck, I'm disgusted by major facial scars and lots of other things too, but I remind myself that there are people involved, and use rationality to try to treat them as I'd like to be treated.

Child molestation can be rejected easily, on a rational basis, because of the lack of consent, not just because it's disgusting.

But why should someone reject a rational approach and follow their disgust when it comes to incest, but not homosexuality? What about back in the day when a lot of people thought interracial marriage was disgusting?
 
lionking said:
And society has decided, in the main, that incest is inappropriate. This thread will not remain about incest for long.
Click to expand...


I am utterly unconcerned with what 'society' thinks about anything. I certainly don't look to it for moral guidance.

I did not read the other thread that you are so upset about. This thread stands on its own.
 
Complexity said:
Such as?
Click to expand...

Economic and social concerns, for the most part. Those reasons are just as good as genetic ones, perhaps even better than.

Economically, it makes more sense to gain resources by reserving your offspring for marriage outside your family.

In the father/daughter dynamic, no, you can't have sex with them first; they need to be presented at full value in the transaction, and no one wants your leavings.

With the mother/son dynamic, the son is usurping his father's property. Gee, that can't be good. Get your own woman, kid; I was literally here first. And besides, there could be a significant power imbalance: a son obeys his mother, but a wife obeys her husband...so how does it work if your lover is also your mother? Probably not too well. Besides, he's needed to form new social and economic alliances, just as his sister is.

With brother/sister pairing, we actually do see that in some systems, but usually amongst the royalty, the elites. Not so much among the commoners, because such a pairing interrupts the economics again. Better to have your kids making new alliances and drawing in more economic and social benefits than wasting their potential on each other.
 
slingblade said:
Economic and social concerns, for the most part. Those reasons are just as good as genetic ones, perhaps even better than.

Economically, it makes more sense to gain resources by reserving your offspring for marriage outside your family.

In the father/daughter dynamic, no, you can't have sex with them first; they need to be presented at full value in the transaction, and no one wants your leavings.

With the mother/son dynamic, the son is usurping his father's property. Gee, that can't be good. Get your own woman, kid; I was literally here first. And besides, there could be a significant power imbalance: a son obeys his mother, but a wife obeys her husband...so how does it work if your lover is also your mother? Probably not too well. Besides, he's needed to form new social and economic alliances, just as his sister is.

With brother/sister pairing, we actually do see that in some systems, but usually amongst the royalty, the elites. Not so much among the commoners, because such a pairing interrupts the economics again. Better to have your kids making new alliances and drawing in more economic and social benefits than wasting their potential on each other.
Click to expand...


I am not comfortable with incest when there is an unwilling participant or a signficant power difference between participants.

I am not comfortable with incest when it is between a parent and a non-adult child. Even then, I have an 'icky' reaction, but that is my problem, not theirs.

I am not comfortable with incest that results in pregnancy, for genetic reasons.

I am more comfortable with sibling incest the closer the participants are in age.

With regard to sibling incest, I was referring more to sex and/or affection, not to marriage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom