should incest between brothers and sisters be legal?

[Shalot]

Ok, so let's say that 1% of the current population commits incest. What if legalizing it created a situation where now 10-20% might participate? Drug studies I've seen say that legalizing drugs increases the population's use. Once society removes boundaries of norms, then participation in that behavior goes up. As an anology, pre-marital sex was seen as immoral, and certainly it occured, but certainly not by everyone. But once that moral stigma was removed, everyone participates in pre-marital sex.

I don't think society removes boundaries of norms - I think over time, people come to their own decisions about some of these issues, through observing their parents, friends and relatives. Over time, more and more people reach the same conclusions and cultural norms shift. They realize their beliefs might need modification. It's a gradual shift.

Take the above example of pre-marital sex. It's not the like sixties happened overnight and suddenly everyone started practicing free love. I think over time, men and women observed their parents in unhappy marriages and eventually got up the courage to bring it out in the open in a movement and declare that they were going to have sex outside of marriage. They weren't buying the "you get married and live happily ever after" line anymore. They were not going to find themselves sealed into an unhappy situation that they couldn't get out of. I mean, you wouldn't buy a car without taking it out for a test drive. What if it sputtered and stalled? What if it wouldn't start at all?

Of course, there are problems with that, such as kids without fathers and STD's, but it's not like these issues were non-existent before. As a society we're learning how to take care of those issues. Individuals can take it upon themselves to NOT get knocked up or knock someone up. They can get treated for STD's instead of being ashamed and spreading it on to more people if they're educated about the nature of viruses and bacteria, instead of lying to themselves and to others about what what they're doing.

As far as drugs go, people want to use drugs and the law says certain substances are illegal. So what do people do? They buy acetone, anti-freeze, lantern fuel and drano and cook up some meth. It's much better to have a methhead in a make shift lab with volitile chemicals in some apartment than it is to legalize and regulate drugs.

And as for incest, most cases that I've heard about involve abuse of a younger child, or weaker person (either physically, mentally handicapped, or emotionally disturbed) by an older or dominnat person. I just haven't heard of many consensual incest cases that didn't arise out of some weird circumstance of adoption or separation and I couldn't believe that someone had actually created a thread about whether it was right or wrong. And I was even more surprised when my YUCK response was criticized and the thought of me being brainwashed or misinformed about Incest never crossed my mind.

I was reading about the specific case that prompted the creation of this thread and I began to wonder if this was the beginning of some major cultural shift. What if, in the future, I have to take an alternate route through town to avoid some Incest Rights Movement? Is this little case in Germany the beginning of a cultural movement? What if there are closeted incestual relationships all over the world? I doubt that, but then again, homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder up until 1973.

As progressive as I like to think I am, I am going to have to step back and declare myself misinformed, brainwashed, and narrowminded on this issue of incest and I stand by initial Yuck No reaction. If I can't smoke marijuana, then Patrick Stuebing can't diddle his sister.

[Virgil]

I don't think society removes boundaries of norms - I think over time, people come to their own decisions about some of these issues, through observing their parents, friends and relatives. Over time, more and more people reach the same conclusions and cultural norms shift. They realize their beliefs might need modification. It's a gradual shift.

Take the above example of pre-marital sex. It's not the like sixties happened overnight and suddenly everyone started practicing free love.

Your post had a lot in there that I might agree with Shalot. But let me highlight a word "suddenly" above that I somewhat disagree. The sixties weren't really the "sixties" as people understand them today until the late sixties, and the sixties revolution was fairly complete by the late seventies. That's a ten year span. Ten years is a blink of an eye compared to the centuries of established sexual inhibitions. So I would say it was rather sudden.

[Shalot]

Your post had a lot in there that I might agree with Shalot. But let me highlight a word "suddenly" above that I somewhat disagree. The sixties weren't really the "sixties" as people understand them today until the late sixties, and the sixties revolution was fairly complete by the late seventies. That's a ten year span. Ten years is a blink of an eye compared to the centuries of established sexual inhibitions. So I would say it was rather sudden.

I took a class in college (and that makes me an expert, because I took a class ) and we discussed the fifties, and how that decade is perceived and has been portrayed in popular culture. And we discussed what had been going on in the decades leading up to the fifties and how instead of the fifties being the last decade of the golden age and happy days and innocence and gee things are swell, they were actually a transitional period. There wasn't some sudden shift between 1959 and the free love, hippie, late sixties --- it was coming, it was brewing and the cultural shift was underway way long before you saw long-haired hippie boys in bellbottoms.

Of course, I wasn't even born then so I am no expert on this at all and I have nothing to go on other than what was presented in this class that I took several years ago. Still, the idea of gradual change in regard to sexual norms makes sense to me.

Then again if you could be brainwashed into thinking a certain sexual behavior is disgusting, then you could be brainwashed into thinking that other sexual behaviours are okay as well (I guess).

It's all so confusing. As far as incest goes, I still say, "Yuck, No, Pervert. Nasty."

[papayahed]

I took a class in college (and that makes me an expert, because I took a class ) and we discussed the fifties, and how that decade is perceived and has been portrayed in popular culture. And we discussed what had been going on in the decades leading up to the fifties and how instead of the fifties being the last decade of the golden age and happy days and innocence and gee things are swell, they were actually a transitional period. There wasn't some sudden shift between 1959 and the free love, hippie, late sixties --- it was coming, it was brewing and the cultural shift was underway way long before you saw long-haired hippie boys in bellbottoms.

Of course, I wasn't even born then so I am no expert on this at all and I have nothing to go on other than what was presented in this class that I took several years ago. Still, the idea of gradual change in regard to sexual norms makes sense to me.

Then again if you could be brainwashed into thinking a certain sexual behavior is disgusting, then you could be brainwashed into thinking that other sexual behaviours are okay as well (I guess).

It's all so confusing. As far as incest goes, I still say, "Yuck, No, Pervert. Nasty."

You jogged my memory, I remember a show/class/something where they pinpointed prohibition as a turning point in social norms. It was the first time that men and women interacted socially on that large a scale, not to mention the automobile which gave more oppotunities for sexual relations. So in actuality the 60's really started in the 20's.

[Virgil]

It may have been brewing in the fifties but it still wasn't the late sixties. But ok 20 years is still a blink of an eye. It's one generation.

[JBI]

No it should not be legalized. Though I personally wouldn't care if two siblings late in life decide, "What the hell" (yes I find it grotesque, but it is really not my problem). The legalization of it would create an opportunity for older siblings (generally male ones I would argue) to take advantage of younger siblings (either male or female). This to me is a problem. How can there be consent, truly, between siblings. The incestuous upbringing can be manipulated to create a master-slave relationship between siblings which is wrong and disgusting. So no, I don't think it should be legalized, but yes, I have no problem with people logically consenting to it.

[TheFifthElement]

There is a difference between killing someone and sleeping with my brother. Because in killing someone you easily see how I harm someone. The same goes for stealing.

but it's not that simple is it. Your statement relies on everyone having the same definition of 'harm' but this can only exist because we have set ourselves rules, which the majority concord with, about what is designated as 'harm'. But if you believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe, then you have to throw all of the 'common' rule books away, not just selective ones. For example:

Imagine this scenario. A person (person A) truly and faithfully believes that when you die you go to a 'better' place, a place with no suffering, no pain, no grief. This person is walking in the park and sees a homeless person (person B). This person is emaciated, starving, cold and suffering. So person A kills person B, thereby relieving person B from their suffering. This was done as an act of compassion, person A took no pleasure in the act. Has person A caused harm, even though the act of killing the person was a compassionate act? If so, why do you think this is causing harm?

Imagine a different scenario -person A (again) truly and faithfully believes that when you die you go to a 'better' place, a place with no suffering, no pain, no grief. Person B has a debilitating, painful and terminal illness. Person A kills person B thereby relieving them from their suffering. Has person A caused harm? If so, why? Would your view be different if a few days after person B was killed they discovered a cure for the terminal illness?

But see, you also admit that the lines are blurred, here:

Also, killing is not always immoral. If someone did something very wrong to someone I love, I would be tempted to kill the person in question.

I think the difference between you and me is that you think in terms of society whereas I think in terms of individuals.

not necessarily. I don't think that it is possible to divorce yourself from society, and I also think it is still possible to be in individual within society. I take the benefits of being in a society, for example healthcare systems, education systems, welfare systems, food supply, water supply, electricity supply, gas supply, etc, etc the list goes on - none of these could exist if we were truly individualistic, and truly free. Neither do I think I can only take the good bits and reject the bad, but this does not mean I have to accept the bits I don't like, I either find a way to make them work, or I look to change them. But you can't change anything if you don't take part.

Huh...Yeah. And I don't want to make 'moral' choices,

but you do, in fact you can't stop yourself. I wonder, do you associate 'morality' with 'disgust'? There's been a lot of talk of disgust on the thread, but I don't think that having a law against certain acts and being disgusted by them necessarily go together.

To tell you the truth, I'm damn sick of being part of this whole. I want people to leave me alone, I want to go away.

Then perhaps this is something you need to work out, but think, could you have lived this long without being 'part of this whole'? Could you go to Oregon and fulfil your fream without being 'part of this whole'? Existing in a vacuum, separated entirely from human 'society' would mean just that, build your own home, find your own water, source your own food, learn everything yourself entirely from scratch with no help, no support. Is that really what you want? Because in your truly free, truly individualistic world there would be no room, no time, and no need for this:

I want freedom, dreams, poetry on top of a mountain while watching the moon.

So, perhaps (after going on so long!) what I'm saying is, I think that rather than tolerance we should be seeking compromise.

Perhaps when you are ready let go of selfishness...you shall know it ;-)

Lote, everyone is selfish, and selfishly motivated. Even altruism is selfish. In fact I'm not sure that altruism really even exists.

[Lote-Tree]

Lote, everyone is selfish, and selfishly motivated.

The Axial Age Philosophers weren't ;-)

Buddha even tramped all over india demonstrating the ego-less existence.

We can't all be Buddhas but we can at least aspire towards it...

Even altruism is selfish. In fact I'm not sure that altruism really even exists.

Altruism exists but that is obiviously a discussion for a separate thread ;-)

[Sweets America]

Fifth, your comments are always challenging and interesting, I love them.

Imagine this scenario. A person (person A) truly and faithfully believes that when you die you go to a 'better' place, a place with no suffering, no pain, no grief. This person is walking in the park and sees a homeless person (person B). This person is emaciated, starving, cold and suffering. So person A kills person B, thereby relieving person B from their suffering. This was done as an act of compassion, person A took no pleasure in the act. Has person A caused harm, even though the act of killing the person was a compassionate act? If so, why do you think this is causing harm?

Here I think that yes, the person harmed the other one, not because he killed him, but because he did so 'according to his own point of view of what would be better for person B'. See? We should not impose our views on other people. It would have been ok here if person B had killed himself or asked person A to help him do so.
A lot of things work like that. Like parents who impede their kids from doing this or that because 'it is better for them'. I don't like having someone deciding at my place, even if I recognize that the person does it thinking it is right to do so.

Imagine a different scenario -person A (again) truly and faithfully believes that when you die you go to a 'better' place, a place with no suffering, no pain, no grief. Person B has a debilitating, painful and terminal illness. Person A kills person B thereby relieving them from their suffering. Has person A caused harm? If so, why? Would your view be different if a few days after person B was killed they discovered a cure for the terminal illness?

I don't see why person A would choose to kill person B even if person B is suffering! I would wait that person B wants to die, or tells person A to help him to die. Then it would be ok cause person A would have decided for himslef, according to his own beliefs and choices.

not necessarily. I don't think that it is possible to divorce yourself from society, and I also think it is still possible to be in individual within society. I take the benefits of being in a society, for example healthcare systems, education systems, welfare systems, food supply, water supply, electricity supply, gas supply, etc, etc the list goes on - none of these could exist if we were truly individualistic, and truly free. Neither do I think I can only take the good bits and reject the bad, but this does not mean I have to accept the bits I don't like, I either find a way to make them work, or I look to change them. But you can't change anything if you don't take part.

I see what you mean and you've got a point here. It is just that I am not sure it is really possible to exist as a free individual within society, because we are always smothered. This has no solution other than taking my car and run away...but there is no 'away' because there will always be another society with new rules. The only solution for me would be to become an outlaw or a bum of some sort.

but you do, in fact you can't stop yourself. I wonder, do you associate 'morality' with 'disgust'? There's been a lot of talk of disgust on the thread, but I don't think that having a law against certain acts and being disgusted by them necessarily go together.

No, I don't associate them. I associate morality with each individual's choices on what is right or wrong, and my desire to escape from morality might be a sort of morality in itself. I don't know.

Then perhaps this is something you need to work out, but think, could you have lived this long without being 'part of this whole'? Could you go to Oregon and fulfil your fream without being 'part of this whole'? Existing in a vacuum, separated entirely from human 'society' would mean just that, build your own home, find your own water, source your own food, learn everything yourself entirely from scratch with no help, no support. Is that really what you want? Because in your truly free, truly individualistic world there would be no room, no time, and no need for this:

Yeah, I see. Of course the Oregon thing as it is works thanks to my being part of a group. But, without that, I still could have gone to Oregon by myself. All that you're talking about here, water supply and the like, is not something which is imposed on me like a law. Humans have worked together to make things like that available and that's ok. What is not ok for me is how they want to build a frame about how people should live their lives inside of this environment.

So, perhaps (after going on so long!) what I'm saying is, I think that rather than tolerance we should be seeking compromise.

I think compromise is good, but I still prefer tolerance cause compromise involves restraint on personal choices which do not affect the choices or freedom of others. Compromise would be ok in your previous example: A thinks it would be better if B died, but B doesn't have the same beliefs as A, so A will say 'ok it's your choice, if it had been me, I would have died, but I am not you so I will let you choose and I will maintain my own choices for my own life'.

[Virgil]

I think the difference between you and me is that you think in terms of society whereas I think in terms of individuals. To tell you the truth, I'm damn sick of being part of this whole. I want people to leave me alone, I want to go away. I've always wanted that but sometimes I want it more. However, I do think that what you are saying here is accurate, I mean yes, when you are part of a society it's better to accept the rules. But there is this part of me which hates it very much and this part has waken up for several weeks. I don't know, sometimes I just think life as humans live it is a big big joke. That's a waste.
...I don't want to. I don't want to be human.

not necessarily. I don't think that it is possible to divorce yourself from society, and I also think it is still possible to be in individual within society. I take the benefits of being in a society, for example healthcare systems, education systems, welfare systems, food supply, water supply, electricity supply, gas supply, etc, etc the list goes on - none of these could exist if we were truly individualistic, and truly free. Neither do I think I can only take the good bits and reject the bad, but this does not mean I have to accept the bits I don't like, I either find a way to make them work, or I look to change them. But you can't change anything if you don't take part.

Wow, have you two been reading D.H. Lawrence? These are themes right out of Lawrence and Sweets, Lawrence had the same inclination to remove himself from society and its constraints. But he also comes to the conclusion that it is impossible to remove himself from society as long as one has to interact with other people. It is a physical impossibility. One's humanity dictates connection with humanity and that requires social agreements. You should join our D.H. Lawrence short story thread. One story we discussed that is particularly relevant to Sweets' sentiment of escaping society is "The Man Who Loved Islands." We discussed it in a lot of detail here: http://www.online-literature.com/for...=22801&page=45 starting on page 45 and going for about 10 pages. swwets i think it's a story that you would associate with and perhaps disagree with.

[Lote-Tree]

Wow, have you two been reading D.H. Lawrence? These are themes right out of Lawrence and Sweets, Lawrence had the same inclination to remove himself from society and its constraints.

I haven't but I have made the same realisation ;-)

There you don't need books

[Virgil]

I haven't but I have made the same realisation ;-)

There you don't need books

Yes, if we looked at our lives we can draw our own conclusions. Some people think that writerws have some greater insight into life than the rest of us. No, it's the same, it's just that they have an ability to write.

[TheFifthElement]

Here I think that yes, the person harmed the other one, not because he killed him, but because he did so 'according to his own point of view of what would be better for person B'. See? We should not impose our views on other people. It would have been ok here if person B had killed himself or asked person A to help him do so.

but if everyone is free to act according to their personal beliefs then Person A has exercised their freedom of choice and acted accordingly. According to their personal belief they have not caused harm. The fact that the other person might not have wanted it is irrelevant, because all we are concerning ourselves with is our own freedom of choice. The very statement 'we should be free to choose as we wish as long as it does not cause harm' is a morally restricted statement (and an imprecise one at that) which requires consensus. If we were totally free without moral restriction then the statement would be 'we should be free to choose as we wish.'. No more, no less.

There is then the question of how far do we go down the route of 'not imposing our views on other people'. There is in all dealings between people an 'assumption' that we have common frames of reference. I assume that you are a sentient person in the same way as I am, though your thoughts might differ to mine. I assume that you exist, that you are a real person. If I did not make this assumption then every encounter with another person would be like making alien contact, but then it is still a method of 'imposing my view' because I am imposing my assumptions about myself as a sentient human being onto you. This may be a mistake, but if I did not do so it would be virtually impossible to operate in life at all.

Yeah, I see. Of course the Oregon thing as it is works thanks to my being part of a group. But, without that, I still could have gone to Oregon by myself.

not necessarily because your going to Oregon at all relies on a co-operative society, it requires that USA and France have agreed rules between themselves by which they agree or don't agree to accept each other's citizens, it also requires someone (unless you have worked and saved up and paid) for someone to stump up the cash for you to go, to pay for you while you are there, to pay for the university to run, it requires someone to risk operating an aircraft or boat to take you there, it requires a man to be prepared to give up his time to fly a plane or sail a boat that will take you there, etc, etc, etc. Society is a big massive interlinked web, you can't unravel one part of it without affecting the whole; which leads onto this point here:

All that you're talking about here, water supply and the like, is not something which is imposed on me like a law. Humans have worked together to make things like that available and that's ok. What is not ok for me is how they want to build a frame about how people should live their lives inside of this environment.

again, all part of the web. These things, these amenities exist only because we work within a co-operative society. Why would anyone start a company generating a water supply, which involves cost, time and resources, if they had no means of securing payment for these services? Why would you pay for water from a central water supply if you had no means of ensuring that the water supplied was drinkable and would not poison you or make you sick? It is true that you do not have to accept a water supply, but it is also true that there would not be a water supply without laws existing to protect all parties involved in both the supply and the consumption of it. This is why compromise is necessary, we accept minor infringements on our absolute freedom because the alternative is either unacceptable or the benefits are greater. Idealism is great, this concept of personal freedom, but if you take your personal freedom literally then you consign yourself to a life of toiling in the dirt, and your dream of poetry on the mountainside is overwhelmed by simply surviving. This is the compromise of living in a human social structure, with all its warts and all its beauty. I get clean water, but in so doing I have to agree not to have sex with my brother. I think that's a pretty fair deal (but then my brother does look like he's been dragged through a hedge most of the time!).

These are themes right out of Lawrence and Sweets, Lawrence had the same inclination to remove himself from society and its constraints. But he also comes to the conclusion that it is impossible to remove himself from society as long as one has to interact with other people. It is a physical impossibility. One's humanity dictates connection with humanity and that requires social agreements. You should join our D.H. Lawrence short story thread. One story we discussed that is particularly relevant to Sweets' sentiment of escaping society is "The Man Who Loved Islands." We discussed it in a lot of detail here: http://www.online-literature.com/for...=22801&page=45 starting on page 45 and going for about 10 pages. swwets i think it's a story that you would associate with and perhaps disagree with.

interesting Virgil, I'll give that one a read.

[Koa]

And as for incest, most cases that I've heard about involve abuse of a younger child, or weaker person (either physically, mentally handicapped, or emotionally disturbed) by an older or dominnat person. I just haven't heard of many consensual incest cases that didn't arise out of some weird circumstance of adoption or separation and I couldn't believe that someone had actually created a thread about whether it was right or wrong. And I was even more surprised when my YUCK response was criticized and the thought of me being brainwashed or misinformed about Incest never crossed my mind.

Well I personally hadn't thought of this because I was thinking of CONSENSUAL incestuous relations, as the example that opened the thread. I think the way those things are described is rather "abuse" than incest, well of course technically it is incest but if it's not consensual then it's first of all abuse. But then yeah, if it were legal I guess all those creepy men wouldn't mind abusing their daughter even more ok.
And still the idea of a brother and sister marrying, especially if they didn't grow up together, doesn't make me go yuck, while the idea of anyone abusing of anyone, be it a little (or big) sister, a daughter, or the first person who happened to cross the street tonight, does make me go yuck.

[Sweets America]

First, Virgil,
I have never read DH Lawrence but it sounds interesting. Thanks.

Now, Fifth...

but if everyone is free to act according to their personal beliefs then Person A has exercised their freedom of choice and acted accordingly. According to their personal belief they have not caused harm. The fact that the other person might not have wanted it is irrelevant, because all we are concerning ourselves with is our own freedom of choice. The very statement 'we should be free to choose as we wish as long as it does not cause harm' is a morally restricted statement (and an imprecise one at that) which requires consensus. If we were totally free without moral restriction then the statement would be 'we should be free to choose as we wish.'. No more, no less.

You are great. What you say really pisses me off because it is true. No, it scares me more than it pisses me off, actually. Because I see the value of what you say here and that contradicts my ideals. I know my ideals might remain ideals and that I will never have my freedom anyway in this world as it is made, but that makes me sad.
But, the thing is, here person A wants to be free to kill person B, which should be ok according to what I said. But, it is not ok because I also said that we must be free as long as what we do does not erase other people's freedom. So that means that I put a limit to my own freedom. I dislike that. God.
But, the other thing is that I was talking about freedom only regarding the things which did not affect the spehre of other people's lives. By killing someone, I enter this person's sphere. By making love with my brother, I do not. So my question actually was not one of absolute freedom, it was one of wondering why we couldn't be free regarding things which did not enter the sphere of someone else. See? There is a difference. I am only questionning one kind of actions, those which are personal. My question is not 'why can't we be free to do anything we like?'. My question rather is 'why can't we be free to do the things which only affect ourselves?'.

There is then the question of how far do we go down the route of 'not imposing our views on other people'. There is in all dealings between people an 'assumption' that we have common frames of reference. I assume that you are a sentient person in the same way as I am, though your thoughts might differ to mine. I assume that you exist, that you are a real person. If I did not make this assumption then every encounter with another person would be like making alien contact, but then it is still a method of 'imposing my view' because I am imposing my assumptions about myself as a sentient human being onto you. This may be a mistake, but if I did not do so it would be virtually impossible to operate in life at all.

I don't assume that we have common references, and this is why I will not force you to do something according to my own preferences. (oh and for me, every encouter with humans is like an alien contact ). I am not sure I follow you here, but I think you've got a point, somehow.

not necessarily because your going to Oregon at all relies on a co-operative society, it requires that USA and France have agreed rules between themselves by which they agree or don't agree to accept each other's citizens, it also requires someone (unless you have worked and saved up and paid) for someone to stump up the cash for you to go, to pay for you while you are there, to pay for the university to run, it requires someone to risk operating an aircraft or boat to take you there, it requires a man to be prepared to give up his time to fly a plane or sail a boat that will take you there, etc, etc, etc. Society is a big massive interlinked web, you can't unravel one part of it without affecting the whole; which leads onto this point here:

That's true. And that makes me think again that I can never really escape from humanity. But I think we are going away from the subject here. I mean, since we somehow have to live amongst people, why couldn't we decide for our own life? I'm not deciding for anyone else's life. No, again, I think I should go away. On another planet.
I don't see the link between water supply and sleeping with my brother. The only link is this web we're all part of, but I see myself as an individual, a solitary one and I cannot stand the idea of someone entering my sphere, my own little world. That would feel like a denial of myself. I easily feel smothered. That's why I don't like having too many people around me. Only some that I carefully select because I'm fond of their personality or mind, or whatever. People that I can learn from but only because I want to, not because they impose anything on me.