If birth control is used, is there any moral reason for siblings from abstaining from sex?  When I asked this on a religious forum a few muslims were disgusted with me.

Views: 1663

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

That is disgusting.
I don't if its morally permissible. I'm sure it would hurt they're family if they found out. If that's not a possibility i guess it would be okay if they're using birth control. But birth control can fail, I got pregnant on birth control. Its just creepy especially if they grew up together.
I don't know how to think in terms of morality, at least not if we're talking about absolute morality. I wouldn't have sex with my hypothetical sister, nor have I ever had sex with my real brother. Why? I'm not gay and I find it repugnant to have sex with your siblings. I just feel this repulsion towards it and with good evolutionary reason. I don't think it's immoral, but I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't condemn anyone who did though.

To sum up, I don't have any rational reason, but an emotional one and that's all I need not to engage in such an act, while not condemning anyone who did.

EDIT: As Chelsea's said, birth control can fail, so my comment applies for a hypothetical situation where totally safe birth control methods were used, or where the siblings have the same sex. In other situations, having a child with your sibling can make that child's life genetically and socially handicapped. It still wouldn't be immoral in the absolute sense, in my opinion.
Would you really not care if your best friend said to you "Dude, I had sex with my sister last night."? I'm sure I would condemn someone for that. not that I would be "right" to but I'm sure I would.
Why? I know two brothers who had sex and neither of them regrets it at all. (no, it wasn't me lol!)
I don't know because its gross. I probably am being closed minded. But I do I just think its gross and if anyone told me that I would be really freaked out.
I would find it repulsive and hard to understand how it feels not to find it repugnant. However, I can understand that genetic and psychological diversity can make people feel attracted to their siblings and not have any problem engaging in sexual acts with them. It's really not their fault if they do feel this way and, given this, I don't see any rational reason not to do it, except for social discrimination.

I feel the same way about criminals. I don't want them free, I wouldn't murder anyone, but I don't see any rational reason not to murder someone if you are willing to endure the consequences. I wouldn't kill someone because of my emotional personality, not because I think it's absolutely immoral. How could there be such a thing as absolute morality? I just can imagine how someone may find it acceptable to kill someone. I can't think of any rational reason why they shouldn't do it, again I say, if they know what consequences probably awaits them. "It causes harm and suffering." I would say, but the criminal would say "That's why it is so fun".

I'm sorry I diverted the discussion that much, but these things are connected. They are things considered by many to be immoral, some more than others. I find them immoral too, but just for me, not for others. I hope it makes sense.
I don't think morality is anywhere near as elusive to define as most people seem to think. There's the sociobiological explanation championed by beckoff and pierce (that it is a suite of behaviours that foster social cohesion) but more realistically for humans, I think it's a matter of "if this action will cause deep existential harm to a being, it's immoral". I don't think it has to be anymore complicated than that. Of course, most people don't agree with me, which makes it apparently subjective, but I don't think it is. Beings generally don't like to suffer, and that's not a subjective claim, that's a fact. So I think moral principles can be based on that objective fact.
Well who says that suffering is immoral? What will you tell a guy who says he feels pleasure when he sees people suffering? Why should he care that those who suffer don't like it?

We can live by moral principles based on that objective fact, as you said, but why should everyone do it? Maybe some people think it's good to make people suffer. I don't see how it could be absolutely immoral for someone to do anything. Is morality embedded in the laws of the universe?
I totally agree with this. But it's still subjective, not absolute. Also, I don't think that all non-psychopaths have the same sense of morality. There are slight differences among normal humans too. Morality is intrinsic to every person, but not to reality as a whole. That's why I think it's not absolute.

Believe me, if it were up to me, people would feel the need to help others much more acute than they currently do. We all talk about morality, but to the standards of my subjective morality, we're all extremely immoral. Whether we are vegans, philanthropists, hippies or whatever, we don't really care. It's all superficial, just to fool our superficial sense of morality.
Actually no, there are universal principles within a species (excluding exceptional cases such as psychopaths). Jonathan Haidt's extensive surveying of over 23 000 people determined that every person believes that matters of harm and fairness are moral matters (IOW, it's immoral to commit infractions of those natures). There are also 3 other moral domains that about %50 of people think exist, which are purity, respect for authority, and ingroup loyalty. So there are indeed universal principles upon which we can establish objective moral codes due to our biological commonality.
I really understand and agree with the inner morality that exists as emotions triggered by certain events, real or imaginary. What I was saying is that there is no morality outside of us. There is no objective moral compass; only the subjective one inside of us. What you and Adriana are suggesting is that everyone, except psychopaths, feels the same. Now, maybe I live in a totally different world, but where do you see this? Some are pro abortion, some against it, some are pro capital punishment, some against it. And that's just in the Western society. The differences are huge when we compare people from different cultures. How about comparing different moments in time. Torture, slaves, executions... they were all there. Almost everyone enjoyed the privilege of seeing people publicly tortured and humiliated. I don't think they were all psychopaths, therefore it can't be an innate thing. And there were some pretty unthinkable ways to torture people. I won't go into details because some may be sensitive to this, but that's only because they live in our times.

Everywhere I look, I see people disagreeing about what is moral and what is not. How are we the same? I don't get it. And even if we were all non-thinking robots and agreed about everything regarding morality. How would that be universal? It would be a morality shared only by the members of our species, not a universal, absolute, objective morality.

Anyway, I feel like I don't make myself understood very well, although I'm really trying. Again, I agree that we have strong feelings that may compel us to do or not to do certain things. These are the result of both nature and nurture, but, because of the differences between cultures, present and past, I think it's more of the latter. That shows how morality changes over time, so it's not absolute. I may be wrong, I agree, but I find it really difficult to find out why.
And how is the alpha status transfered from one male to another... through a successful violent challenge, the defeated alpha not only steps down but generally steps right out of the pack, left on its own to eventually die of starvation, for wolves are social beasts which attain a much higher success rate when hunting in groups.

We had one such wolf hanging around our work camp this summer he was long and tall, but quite emaciated and unfearful of human proximity, he was hungry and weak.



Services we love!

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service