Moral Disgust

[Verde]

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.

Yes, we should.

Disgust isn't rational.

I agree.

Neither is morality, at its core.

I'm not sure where you going with that, but I consider morality to be an ingrained piece of our humanity. Details of which can be left to the individual, but there is a certain consensus of right and wrong.
The OP scenario, in my opinion, did not cross any boundary into wrongness.
A bit icky, perhaps, but not really wrong.

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.

I would use the term 'availability' rather than 'utility'.

There are many types of incest that I would consider to be heinous, but the fictitious example given is not one of them.

V.

 

[Verde]

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 think we are aggressively agreeing on this point.

V.

 

[MontagK505]

This question can equally apply to sex with children, right?

Children don't have the maturity to give their consent. So the situation can hardly be considered equal.

While I think humans should avoid extreme in-breeding. I don't get morally outraged at the situation described in the OP.

 

[Matthew Best]

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

Yet several people have said they were not disgusted by the scenario in the OP, so it wasn't that ridiculous, was it?

 

[slingblade]

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.

Yeah, I was just trying to figure reasons besides the "ick factor" for why this taboo is so old and so widespread.

 

[stilicho]

http://www.nd.edu/~wcarbona/Haidt 2001.pdf

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?

Laws and social norms come into it too.

What would your reaction be when your son sat down at the dinner table, with your boss over to celebrate your possible promotion, and began the conversation by explaining that he'd been banging his sister for the past year? How would you place this unharmful act in the context of rational evaluation as your boss glared at you positively dumbfounded? Or is everyone a "rational evaluator" in your world--wherever the hell that is?

 

[H'ethetheth]

No, the couple consent and they are young adults.

So there's your grey area.

Firstly, I am not conflating sexual stimulation with bovine foreplay.
The sexual stimulation I had in mind was hormonal.

I don't know enough about this, but I'm not sure how sexual stimulation by hormones would work. I always think of stimulation as a neurological thing.

My question is why would you even consider using your penis. The cow wouldn't feel a thing.

And it is a good question, as well as a question which I could not begin to answer, but it's not the question of this discussion. The question this thread is about, (Ivor's alleged posting record notwithstanding) is whether or not disgust is enough to declare this immoral.
I would say it isn't.

Sure, I got the question muddled, but the punitive "Burn him" are your words,not mine.
I may be disgusted but I am not vindictive.

I know, I didn't mean to imply you are.

Can one be rational and immoral at the same time?

Yes, of course one can. One can rationally decide that cheating will optimize ones profits, and then proceed scamming people.
But again, being rational and immoral is not what we're talking about. It's whether rationality is a better tool for declaring something immoral than, say, gut feeling.

I am sure the badger would have something to say about it.

Joking aside, I'm sure it wouldn't, which is one of the rational arguments for declaring it immoral.

 

[stilicho]

Originally Posted by Piggy So it's ridiculous to propose that incest is not disgusting when no one is "harmed" by it.

Yet several people have said they were not disgusted by the scenario in the OP, so it wasn't that ridiculous, was it?

This might be why threads like these are futile. Let's say we all make a list of "icky" things. Then we evaluate those which are harmful and create a scale upon which to mark them. We could even make a list of "not icky" things and do the same thing.

What's the point? Are we then supposed to figure out a correlation between "ickiness" and harm? Then what?

That's why at least two posters that I have seen--and I read through all four pages before posting here first--have asked what the OP is asking us to do and what his or her own opinion is. 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.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Laws and social norms come into it too.

What would your reaction be when your son sat down at the dinner table, with your boss over to celebrate your possible promotion, and began the conversation by explaining that he'd been banging his sister for the past year? How would you place this unharmful act in the context of rational evaluation as your boss glared at you positively dumbfounded? Or is everyone a "rational evaluator" in your world--wherever the hell that is?

Honestly, I don't know what my reaction would be, but my, or anyone's reaction to that is irrelevant. The existence of perfectly rational reasons not to do something does not imply that it is immoral.
I mean, there are perfectly good reasons for me not to eat all the autumn foliage from my garden, or invest all my savings in aubergines. That does not mean that it is immoral to do so.

 

[Matthew Best]

This might be why threads like these are futile.

As opposed to all the useful threads?

 

[stilicho]

Honestly, I don't know what my reaction would be, but my, or anyone's reaction to that is irrelevant. The existence of perfectly rational reasons not to do something does not imply that it is immoral.
I mean, there are perfectly good reasons for me not to eat all the autumn foliage from my garden, or invest all my savings in aubergines. That does not mean that it is immoral to do so.

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".

 

[stilicho]

As opposed to all the useful threads?

We could make this one useful, perhaps, by graphing "icky" versus harmful. It would be a great start.

 

[Matthew Best]

We could make this one useful, perhaps, by graphing "icky" versus harmful. It would be a great start.

What's the point? Are we then supposed to figure out a correlation between "ickiness" and harm? Then what?

 

[Skwinty]

Yes, of course one can. One can rationally decide that cheating will optimize ones profits, and then proceed scamming people.

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

Joking aside, I'm sure it wouldn't, which is one of the rational arguments for declaring it immoral .

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

 

[Skwinty]

And it is a good question, as well as a question which I could not begin to answer, but it's not the question of this discussion. The question this thread is about, (Ivor's alleged posting record notwithstanding) is whether or not disgust is enough to declare this immoral.

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

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Why is the lack of (the ability to) consent sometimes considered so important for children but not for animals?

This year about 1 million male infants in the USA will have their genitals mutilated at the behest of their parents. No consent is possible or required from the infants for that procedure on their genitals. 15+ years later the vast majority of them will, if asked, post on a forum that it hasn't harmed them at all.

I think 'lack of informed consent' is something that sounds reasonable, but is often just a rationalisation to justify the initial and far more persuasive feelings of disgust we feel. If we become desensitised to a behaviour such that the disgust response is attenuated or absent, informed consent becomes a lot less important to us.

 

[Skwinty]

I would think that motive is key to the discussion.

What is the motive for non consentual sex between humans or between humans and animals?

My interpretation of motive is one of selfishness. The selfish person who wishes to only satisfy his or her own desires may think they are making a rational decision, but to the community at large, this would be irrational thinking.

 

[stilicho]

What's the point? Are we then supposed to figure out a correlation between "ickiness" and harm? Then what?

I suppose then we'd get to draw some conclusions or at least create a hypothesis. I know you're supposed to establish your hypothesis first but nobody has on this thread yet. I suspect that's because there isn't one.

 

[Cayvmann]

Don't come the raw prawn, mate. You can't compare a homosexual relationship between consenting adults with any of that. That's stumbling into nambla territory.

Why is "consent" and "adult" so difficult for some people to grasp?

The part you didn't quote addresses just that...

 

[H'ethetheth]

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.