Moral Disgust

[zooterkin]

I agree. The odd thing is this thread was born out of the fact that people feel the 16 year old in your example is a "victim" only because they had this "legal compromise" enforced on them (assuming it was consensual).

It was? Are you reading the same thread as the rest of us? Could you show us how you construe the OP to be anything to do with the age of consent?

 

[Cainkane1]

Finkelhor addresses that in part:
A second argument rejects adult-child sexuality because it entails a premature sexualization of the child. From this point of view, childhood should be a time of relative immunity from sex, where a child enjoys freedom from an often problematic aspect of life. When adults approach children sexually, they draw them into a world for which children are not yet ready. Unfortunately for this argument, children are sexual. Most children are curious about sex. Many explore sexuality with one another. There is increasing professional and scientific agreement that sexual interest and activity among children is healthy and perhaps even salutary to later sexual functioning (Yates, 1978). This argument seems inadequate also.

Look up the Rind et al. controversy controversy in Wikipedia.
The authors\' stated goal was \"...to address the question: In the population of persons with a history of CSA [child sexual abuse], does this experience cause intense psychological harm on a widespread basis for both genders?\" Some of the authors\' more controversial conclusions were that child sexual abuse does not necessarily cause intense, pervasive harm to the child;[3] that the reason the current view of child sexual abuse was not substantiated by their empirical scrutiny was because the construct of CSA was questionably valid; and that the occurrence of psychological damage depends on whether the encounter was consensual or not.

Furthermore, your examples were of generational incest, which involve a high level of direct power over the child in that the adult is in control of so many other aspects of the child\'s life from where she lives to what she eats to what she wears and when she goes to bed. That leaves little room for free will to refuse.

I do find it interesting that you say that someone who was married three times was unable to have long-lasting relationships.

Theres nothing wrong with two children the same age satisfying their curiosity with another close to tof their same age child of the opposite sex. However seeing a fully developed adult naked and with sexual activity going on betwen the two is plainly wrong. Its wrong even if there is no penetration. Its true even if the child initially enjoys it.

My cousin was ruined for life because of what her dad did but I imagine it would have been even worse had a non relative committed the act. Her three marriages failed because she hated sex with men. She tried other women but she didn't like that either. She said it was because of her dad and I believe her.

I'm not a doctor so I have no professional opinion> I'm just going by what she told me.

 

[Furcifer]

It was? Are you reading the same thread as the rest of us? Could you show us how you construe the OP to be anything to do with the age of consent?

The common theme is moral outrage of course. In one it was wildly misplaced and here it's the OP.

 

[Piggy]

Yes, the way the mechanism of disgust works is fascinating. One aspect is that the things which cause that disgust are not all universal, and are often culturally dependent.

Oh, sure. Like I find the idea of eating spiders or dogs disgusting.

 

[Roboramma]

No, drinking milk equals not being concerned about cows being sexually exploited by humans.

I don't think the cow views it as a sexual act. Neither does the human. So how is it a sexual act?

ETA: Wow, didn't realise this thread had become so large.

 

[Democracy Simulator]

In a limited sense, moral revulsion (disgust) is rational to the extent that it is in accordance with one's moral beliefs (values).

However, there is a great deal of contention as to whether moral beliefs are based on any objective moral truths, i.e that they represent propositions that can be found true or false, using only reason and evidence.

Of course, that is another big question, for which there are several fat threads on JREF. I would encourage people to decide whether they want to talk about disgust and its relation to moral beliefs, or moral beliefs and their relation to truth, for which other threads may be more appropriate. If you're going to tackle it all in a head-on-collision, it's going to look like a train wreck.

In answer to the OP's question (let's remind ourselves):

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?

It depends on your criterion for 'better'. If your criterion is that harm is the indicator for prohibition, then probably not. However, perhaps we could say that there is generally a good correlation between what we know to be harmful and our feelings and intuitions about what behaviours should be condemned, and that while our feelings and intuitions are not as accurate at discovering harm as rational analysis, they are generally on the money.

 

[Furcifer]

I don't think the cow views it as a sexual act.

Well cows probably don't see much "as a sexual act". Not to deflate your ego, but even if you had sex with a cow, a cow probably wouldn't see it as a "sexual act" either.

 

[Roboramma]

Well cows probably don't see much "as a sexual act".

Considering that reproduction is such an important part of animal life, I find that unlikely, but if you can demonstrate it, that's cool: it doesn't really have anything to do with my point.

Not to deflate your ego, but even if you had sex with a cow, a cow probably wouldn't see it as a "sexual act" either.

Damn. Most of my self worth comes from my ability to please cows.

 

[gumboot]

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?

I think the rational evaluation of harm is a better measure of what we should prohibit, and I think that tends to be how it is applied in society. Feelings and intuition should not be discredited entirely, because these too exist for a reason.

In the past, when we lacked the scientific knowledge to assess many things rationally, we relied more on feelings and intuition. As our scientific knowledge advances those feelings and intuitions that are mistaken can be put aside.

I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with the story example, as that is an anecdote (a hypothetical one at that!), and therefore is itself not "rational evaluation".

 

[gumboot]

I don't think the cow views it as a sexual act. Neither does the human. So how is it a sexual act?

Dairy cows are sexually exploited because milk production peaks about 60 days after calving, after which they need to be bred again for the next cycle.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

I'm not entirely sure what this has to do with the story example, as that is an anecdote (a hypothetical one at that!), and therefore is itself not "rational evaluation".

The hypothetical story in the OP gives an example of a behaviour that is prohibited and condemned, but which (in the story at least) was not harmful and possibly beneficial.

If there was no prohibition against sibling incest, would we see an explosion in the number of people engaging in it?

 

[quadraginta]

The hypothetical story in the OP gives an example of a behaviour that is prohibited and condemned, but which (in the story at least) was not harmful and possibly beneficial.

If there was no prohibition against sibling incest, would we see an explosion in the number of people engaging in it?

Probably not.

I'm not going to try and dig up references, but in a past thread that touched on this topic someone found research which suggested that as a rule siblings usually just aren't interested in each other "that way".

If I recall correctly it didn't even have much to do with consanguinity, but rather with being brought up together in the same family group.

I suspect, like many other 'slippery slope' arguments, there really isn't much of a slope at all, just a difference which would result from a lack of concealment.

For example, I don't think that there is an increase in the percentage of people who are gay since it is no longer a moral transgression which ruins careers and lives, just more people who are willing to be open about it.

 

[sgtbaker]

Something else worth considering is that the disgust people feel about particular behaviours may increase the harm to those who we associate with them.

For a little perspective, I will use a comparison to a subject I am pretty sure I know your position. In another thread, you were adamantly against any form of physical punishment. In quite a few of the pro spanking articles, they claimed that studies show; the mental harm of corporal punishment seems to only take effect in areas where spanking is frowned upon. In areas where spanking is the norm, they didn't measure the same results. Would knowing that change your view on spanking?

*disclaimer* Not looking to bring the debate on spanking into here, this is just to point out that social acceptance doesn't justify the action.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

For a little perspective, I will use a comparison to a subject I am pretty sure I know your position. In another thread, you were adamantly against any form of physical punishment.

I'm strongly against hitting children or doing things to them that cause physical pain and/or severe emotional trauma.

In quite a few of the pro spanking articles, they claimed that studies show; the mental harm of corporal punishment seems to only take effect in areas where spanking is frowned upon. In areas where spanking is the norm, they didn't measure the same results. Would knowing that change your view on spanking?

*disclaimer* Not looking to bring the debate on spanking into here, this is just to point out that social acceptance doesn't justify the action.

No, because I don't believe any children want to be hit by adults.

 

[Furcifer]

Considering that reproduction is such an important part of animal life, I find that unlikely, but if you can demonstrate it, that's cool: it doesn't really have anything to do with my point.

I thought you were suggesting that a cow need to "see" it as a sexual act, which is a bit strange since I doubt if cows are conscious of what is or isn't a sex act. I would imagine to a cow they're just constantly feeding a strange metal calf with a very healthy appetite.

 

[L.Y.S.]

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

Are our feelings and intuitions about particular behaviors a better guide for what acts we ought to prohibit or condemn than rationally evaluating whether there was any harm from those acts?

I will start by saying that I am not an uninterested or uninvolved party. I know very well what such “relationships” can lead to.

I don't know what exactly to think about this thread, I am confused. I know the brother and sister took adequate time and preparation to prevent conception. They also took very "swift" measures to silence the manner. However, I would still think that having sexual relations with a family member would put the rest of the family at risk. It could potentially damage relationships and change opinions, whether or not the sex was consensual or non-consensual. The fact that these two had to hide the fact that they've had sex suggests that they at least in part feel that what they've done is wrong. And to add to this complexity, the vast majority of human cultures on Earth consider incest taboo. I understand that taboo alone is not grounds from preventing the rational if there is no consequence, but in at least this situation there must be some universal standard to which all men can agree to. I understand that I am not using reason based logic, but this is a very ethical situation indeed.

In the very least, we can say no one was immediately harmed by this act. However, the fact that this act could have damage beyond the physical and in the realm of the mental and social should be more than enough probable cause for this deed to be wrong. Now this again is my opinion, however, I think that many other individuals will side with this opinion. I am trying to be open minded about this situation, but I just can't see how a society of immediate family members having sex with one another is either productive or safe for anybody. And most of all, I fail to see how this situation can benefit anyone. However, there remains the grave potential for harm.

 

[gumboot]

Just as you want to introduce harm into a scenario that has none, so that you can justify a ban on incest.

I see two threads that could be explored on this topic; you are discussing whether it is justified to keep incest illegal as a practical matter in the real world. And yes, in the real world there are some good reasons to do so - the genetic issue is one, the fact that families often have power relationships and situations where for instance a father could raise a daughter with the intent of influencing her to be available to him on reaching the age of consent. For these reasons, on balance such a prohibition very likely does more good than harm. No argument.

But that misses the point of the OP, or at least what I took to be the point of the OP. Is incest inherently wrong? Is incest wrong even in a situation where those involved are willing partners without coercion or particular risk of genetic issues or whatever?

I see no reason to think that it is.

If you accept that legislating against incest is justified, the hypothetical in the OP is wrong because it's illegal.

 

[gumboot]

The hypothetical story in the OP gives an example of a behaviour that is prohibited and condemned, but which (in the story at least) was not harmful and possibly beneficial.

Yes, I'm aware of that, but the problem is it's an anecdote, and therefore worthless for assessing the legitimacy of a prohibition on incest.

If there was no prohibition against sibling incest, would we see an explosion in the number of people engaging in it?

I was actually thinking along those lines just now. Does anyone have any sort of hard data on frequency of incest?

My understanding is that incest is overwhelmingly non-consensual and overwhelmingly between people of disparate power position within the family unit.

Interestingly...

Father-daughter incest was for many years the most commonly reported and studied form of incest. More recently, studies have suggested that sibling incest, particularly older brothers having sexual relations with younger siblings, is the most common form of incest, with some studies finding sibling incest occurring more frequently than other forms of incest. Some studies suggest that adolescent perpetrators of sibling abuse choose younger victims, abuse victims over a lengthier period, use violence more frequently and severely than adult perpetrators, and that sibling abuse has a higher rate of penetrative acts than father or stepfather incest, with father and older brother incest resulting in greater reported distress than stepfather incest.

Source

And from the same source:

Russia, China, The Netherlands, Spain, France, Turkey, Israel and the Ivory Coast have no legal prohibitions on consensual incest between adults, and Switzerland has considered decriminalizing it.

I must confess that when I think confess, I immediately envisage non-consensual relations, and it's that which disgusts me; the fact that someone is abused by those who are supposed to protect them. It's the same disgust I feel when I hear about a parent bashing a child.

A scenario between two consenting adults like in the OP just doesn't disgust me, nor generate moral outrage.

 

[zooterkin]

The common theme is moral outrage of course. In one it was wildly misplaced and here it's the OP.

What are you talking about this time? Common theme in what? The OP is about incest between a brother and sister of unspecified age. You were talking about a 16 year old; there isn't one in the OP.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

What are you talking about this time? Common theme in what? The OP is about incest between a brother and sister of unspecified age. You were talking about a 16 year old; there isn't one in the OP.

The OP is about moral disgust and gives sibling incest as an example of something that often generate it in many people.