Is it Morally Permissible for Siblings to Have Sex?
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.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by kelltrill on -
@Radu: I definitely agree with your statement that there's a good evolutionary reason why the majority of people find the idea repugnant. It's possible that because inbreeding results in a weaker or less sturdy genetic makeup some form of biological morality (mentioned in someone else's response) makes us react the way we do to the thought of it. I think that plus intensive socialisation probably has a lot to do with why you rarely hear of incest. There have been cultures in the past where incest was not frowned upon, showing that socialisation certainly has a role to play and that it's possible that our biological aversion to it might have kicked in more recently than we'd like to think. imho
-
Permalink Reply by Marvel on -
Thats raises the question about who decides what's moral and what's not
In ancient Egypt thousands of years ago it was morally accepted for siblings to have sex..they even got married to keep the Royal blood of the ruling family pure..it was accepted during that time..these days it's not accepted.
However marriage between cousins is accepted in Egypt and most of the muslim world these days..it's not accepted in other countries.
The culture and the background has the upper hand in deciding what's moral.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Sizer-Watt on -
"The culture and the background has the upper hand in deciding what's moral."
I agree with that statement, but I don't agree that it should be that way necessarily.
-
Permalink Reply by Brian Stewart on -
The question should have read ....with each other" Leading from that... why do most of us feel it's repugnant? Is it a cultural no-no and/or something religion has foisted on us? I believe that many traditions and rites contained in religions had their origins in 'common-sense' issues: e.g. circumcision was probably a necessity in the dry barren countries of the Middle East; so also with eating pork which one could imagine was pretty infested with diseases in those years. Sex among blood relations proved to be bad for the gene-pool and resulted in taboos in many communities. Our prime aim as a specie is the survival of the specie...hence inter-sibling sex would be a step backward. I live in a community where the gene pool of Indian/Pakistani Muslims is relatively small; it is noticeable that the incidence of physical/mental defects among their children has increased over the last 50 years or so. (To research it would be interesting but politically challenging) To sum up...the morality of inter-sibling sex is based cultural taboos which have created a psychological barrier/resistance against it.
-
Permalink Reply by T A A on -
A child raised without such beliefs would not find sibling sex disgusting. Actually the words gross and disgusting almost always represent a religious attitude based in lack of knowledge. They are words I chose not to use. The incest taboo is a complete social fabrication. Yes the percentage of genetic abnormalities sees an increase hence the common, but NOT universal taboo. But excluding the procreation aspect, if the people were not raised with that taboo, they would not be mentally harmed by their sexual activities. The study cited is very poor science as it has no control group. In order to test a taboo, one would have to subjects of both perspectives.
-
Permalink Reply by Pope OoO (Out of Order) on -
But excluding the procreation aspect, if the people were not raised with that taboo, they would not be mentally harmed by their sexual activities. The study cited is very poor science as it has no control group. In order to test a taboo, one would have to subjects of both perspectives.
.
Can you cite a scientific study to support your claim?
-
Permalink Reply by T A A on
-
do you have a scientific study to support the harm argument?
I think "mental harm" is like god... burden of proof is on the harm side.
-
Permalink Reply by Reggie on -
Morally permissable? Peter Singer posed that popular question in one of his books where siblings had sex once, both used birth control to ensure no baby, they kept it secret, and were closer and happier for it. Was it morally wrong?
Nope.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Sizer-Watt on
-
I'd actually heard it from a video lecture of Hauser's. I think he may have used it in Moral Minds - I don't remember.
-
Permalink Reply by Gaytor on -
Is it morally wrong? Depends on whether or not you've seen my sisters!
I'm with many others that the potential results is the largest problem in the equation. Biologically and socially an offspring is more likely to have problems. Knowingly subjecting them to that potential would be wrong. The social abhorrence of the questions confuses the answer for me. The act is not a moral problem, but results are. It may be a fine line between Ethics, in the sense of cultural norms, versus Morals, being right and wrong, in a given society that you are exposing. It's a tough question.
What's new today
Forum
Does every living animal have a consciousness?
Started by Holo Gram in Neuroscience, Cognitive Science, Psychology. Last reply by Holo Gram 13 minutes ago. 30 Replies 0 Likes
Blog Posts
Fantastic and Courageous Act by Arizona Law Maker!
Posted by Robert Karp on May 23, 2013 at 10:33am 0 Comments 0 Likes
Events
Services we love
Check out our new mobile/tablet version of Think Atheist! www.ThinkAtheist.com/m
© 2013 Created by Morgan Matthew.
