Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Incest

Let us examine here the moral question of incest and the social and Christian view V.S. the rational view.

Society and Christianity as well as most world religions teach that incest is wrong. We immediately run into problems when we begin to examine the question of incest as a universal however. The major problem is that societies around the world and historically disagree with what incest is. Depending on the society it may not be considered incest for first cousins to have intercourse, in some societies its not incest for mother and son to sleep together, yet still in others its not incest for father and daughter. There is no universal definition of incest though there is universal taboo on who one may or may not sleep with, who this is however varies greatly.

Let us ask then what is the purpose of "incest bans" regardless of culture. This is much easier to answer than the question of what exactly is incest. Such bans exist not to protect the individuals involved in copulation, but rather any offspring which might occur. It was rather easy for early humans to see that certain couplings brought about higher rates of birth defects. Part of their definitions of taboo coupling depended on their beliefs of how children were conceived. For example while mother son relations are not universally considered incest, it is the nearest thing to. This is because regardless of weather or not the society was monogamous, or polygamous this coupling was obviously the highest rate of defect. Why not daughter father? My dear boy you have a cuckoo in your nest. Even (or especially) in monogamous societies women sleep with men not their husband, if she catches and the child is not hers then any pairing from a father daughter relationship is no more hazardous than non father daughter couplings. Let us agree then that in societies without gene mapping it is best to avoid especially high chances of defective children. Why especially high, as best I can determine the chance of a child being defective is somewhere between one in eight and one in ten. This is from parent offspring coupling, the number of course decreases with the distance between relations.

However let us introduce contraception into society. The question now becomes what is the moral objection to incest? The legitimate objection before was the chance of a defective child, theses chances however greatly decrease (to near zero) with proper application of contraception. Depending on ones view of abortion or the newly invented (yes it actually exits) artificial womb this decreases the chances of a defective child to zero. How can an artificial womb reduce the chances to zero? By designing it to have a better selection module than body wombs. Back to the topic. How then can incest be immoral?

In such a case the question of incest is no longer a moral question, but a question of tastes. What about the scientific evidence saying we are programmed against incest? I challenge you to actually examine that "evidence". Lets begin by acknowledged that incest does occur among humans. Further, incest is widely practiced among animals, a bitch will mate with her whelp as quickly as any other male, the same goes for all other species. What then makes humans so radically different from other animals? Because we are is not an answer it is a desire to wish away facts. "What about the UK study?". There was a recent study in the UK which took pictures of male subjects, feminized them, then asked the male about how attracted he was to the person in the photo was. Most of the males scored themselves as low level of attractiveness. Could this possibly be because they recognized subconsciously themselves in the picture, and no man (not male) enjoys thinking of himself as a woman. This survey however did not take into account the physical differences between siblings and parents, we have all met siblings that at first and third glance did not look like siblings. Its not until someone says "brother and sister" that you go "Oh ya I see it." the same applies to parents.

Incest in fact is the default setting, this much Freud was right about. When we raise our children do we not raise them to have our values? Do we not want them to find others with our values? Has not the observation in fact that Daughters marry more often then not a man much like their father, and sons marry women much like their mothers? "Yes but they are not actually having intercourse with their mothers and fathers?" and what does that have to do with anything. When we choose long term mates we do so not for the reason of a one night stand, that is to say not just because of how they look and smell. Rather we do so because they share the same values as us. This is the differences between us and every other animal. Given the fact that we now have reliable means of contraception coupling with ones close relative can in no way be considered immoral.

We humans are one of the few species that have sex not only for offspring but also for enjoyment. Sex be it intercourse of masturbation brings us closer to one another. Take for example an indecent I know of from my youth. I once knew two brothers that constantly fought with one another, one day the younger walked in on the older masturbating, it ended up with the two of them masturbating together and each other. The two had girlfriends and got married eventually yet throughout their time at home they masturbated frequently together after that. I was at their house one day when their mother observed that they had not been fighting nearly as much as they used to. This shared sexual activity brought them closer together. A sane and healthy society distinguishes between sex for pleasure, and procreation.

When incest is evil.


There are times when incest is evil, this is not due to the incest itself but rather the nature of the relationship. For example a father who sleeps with his young daughter, it is not the fact that the father is sleeping with the daughter but rather that the relationship is abusive. Also such relationships as create offspring. Regardless of weather or not the offspring is born healthy or not no one has the right to play Russian roulette with the life of a child. Any relationship between two rational and consenting individuals is of no ones business but those individuals. It is only in the case of child abuse that any such relationship is or can be considered immoral by a rational person.


Does this mean Howard's support incest?


Haven't you been reading? It's none of our business so long as its not child abuse. I have simply chosen to write this article as a means of expressing that single fact. Given that few people even among atheists have re-examined the question of incest in light of a scientific mindset, we here found it prudent to do so. It is also our hope that those who do choose to take part in such practices keep in mind the fact that they do not have the right to risk the well being of children. 




My personal view


While I personally have not had any desire in my life to practice incest this does not mean that I think its my business if someone else does. My lack of desire for an incestuous relationship stems from the fact that I am the black sheep of my family, meaning that my values are radically different than theirs. This does not mean that I cannot look at them and acknowledge that they are physically attractive, it simply means that I have never desired to take it beyond "you look nice" because I find them intellectually repulsive. I do however support other peoples right to carry out such practices so long as they willingly choose to do so.

No comments:

Post a Comment