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: 1452

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

@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
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.
"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.
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.
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.

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?

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.

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.
Oh, I see Adriana found the source material above my post.
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.
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.
Is it morally wrong? Depends on whether or not you've seen my sisters!

Oh, I needed a laugh this morning. Thank you!

RSS

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service