Incest against the law, yes or no?

[FATBOY]

http://www.wpxi.com/news/trending-now/woman-marries-daughter-after-the-two-hit-it-off/440569908

There is no logical reason to punish someone for this
If so, it would be the same logic used to punish homosexuals.

Agree?

If not: please address

1) freedom of choice
2)reproduction is irrelevant since the sexual nature is not considered
3)how does this choice affect you in any way, so that if it doesn't, why do you care?

 

[Cognisant]

I've no doubt siblings and cousins everywhere have done a bit of "show me yours I'll show you mine" it's just human nature to be curious about something that (from an innocent perspective) is inexplicably taboo.

But marrying ones own offspring that's pretty weird, I don't see the harm in a homosexual mother and daughter having such a relationship but it baffles me how it started.

Still it's good practice to make incest illegal to discourage sickos abusing their children and siblings/cousins inbreeding, not that it ever stopped the royal family.

 

[Owl]

I would say outlawed because inbreeding creates more stupid humans. Also white-trash.

It fucks up genetics and is a common sign of family abuse.

But I find human reproduction unethical anyways.

What logical reason would you want to fuck someone in your family?

 

[Sinny91]

Gross.

 

[TBerg]

Campaigns for "rights" quickly become the demand that society accept them in their discourse. Although it is not necessarily any worse than many virtual fetishes we can find in pornography these days, which people seem to waste time in fantasy rather than the achievement in reality. The thing is, our bar is set so low these days that it is hard to have a strong opinion on favor of strong societies instead of atomized individual nihilism.

 

[Pressure's Spring]

I don't see the harm in a homosexual mother and daughter having such a relationship but it baffles me how it started.

What do you think about a sexual relationship between a father and his son/daughter, or, a mother and her son?

 

[Auburn]

it is hard to have a strong opinion on favor of strong societies instead of atomized individual nihilism

Curious way to put it. I agree with Dawkins and others who say "we need to take back Morality from religion". The problem with the nihilistic (imma lump in atheist/agnostic there) and by extension the whole postmodern viewpoint of this century, is that it offers no sensible ground from which to build an ethical societal structure -- though it capitalizes on personal ethics quite well.

So any inter-personal moralism is felt as stemming from the same dogmatic trajectory from which religion and other outdated ideologies emerged -- and is subject to the same suspicion and realitivization. But I think what we need is to develop a new morality stemming from our modern information-rich era, which (when you look closely) actually offers more in the way of dependable sources for ethics; build around biological and psychological human needs.

also;
​

@Pressure's Spring - A 40+ year old father who marries his 18 year old daughter, claiming the two are deeply in love, would present quite a suspicious situation, wouldn't it. What if the father's influence during child-rearing lends to this sort of affection?

In such a situation, I think what we need is some achitecture for "the role of the father", "the role of a son/daughter". Psychology tells us how important it is for the parent to provide certain things to the child, and if psychology can provide a type of social obligation to parents to do this -- based on what research shows -- then the role of the parent is well defined; and isn't one of romantic attraction.

Rather than being arbitrarily dogmatic about it, we can look at parent-child incest as a signal of unhealthy psychological complexes (re: Oedipus/Elektra) and address the matter more fairly.

But I find up to 10 years of incarceration totally hilarious. Incarceration is about taking people who may be damaging to others, out of society and placing them in quarantine. In a case like this, that does no good. They aren't really endangering anyone: the problem is within the person. Mandatory therapy and a revocation of marriage license is as far as I'd go.

also;
​

If the parent was actually not the guardian (for example, was absent for the whole of the child's upbringing) then the two really are strangers -- a la the Oedipus myth itself, which was accidental incest -- then I don't really see that as violating any moral values; although it is quite an ironic and rare situation.

The same really is true for step-sisters or brothers, who merge into a new family after initial infancy has passed. Romance could develop there as well, and the matrimonial ties of the parents are a circumstance without which the romance would be quite appropriate. Hence, it suddenly becoming inappropriate because the two children's parents happen to love each other romantically as well, seems somewhat unfair. There's definitely some grey area here, which I think is probably always gonna exist.

 

[Pizzabeak]

All things considered they try to ban things for the good of the people. It's a consequence of where you are contributing to society, and if you don't like it you have to move or do something else. They try to claim they know what's best for us, whether authorized or not. In this case it's the same as outlawing drugs. In more serious instances I would say a fine is enough but repeat offenders could perhaps serve a little jail time. We aren't really at the point anymore where this kind of freedom can be exercised.

Otherwise the state might have reason and authority to believe something suspicious is going on, which is why it may be outlawed in the first place, regardless of the sexual nature. The church or state would make a case that the family is being manipulated, which perhaps isn't in the best interest of the individual(s) involved, which has a domino effect on the rest of society, indirectly affecting people, obviously.

Maybe someday we can see more of this, as mostly Christians or other religious nuts would be mad over it. I would judge that the parent could be afflicted by some trauma, thereby acting it out or vicariously affecting her spawn and family. Any other mental illnesses, in some cases at least, need not be involved but if this can be looked at and accepted, in some way, maybe it could lead to non legal intervention, and if so, it can be diagnosed, or, if people want, even left alone for the individual to enjoy their freedoms.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

This particular instance doesn't bother me, mainly because both made the decision at an appropriate age and there's no way they're going to reproduce.

Intent to reproduce (she apparently previously married her son? wtf?) or adult-child relations would be a no go.

 

[Pressure's Spring]

Each unit [on whatever scale] is responsible for its own self-understanding and to make accurate predictions of possibilities as a consequence of itself and to respond adequately.

The psychological boundary between illness and personal freedom continues to dissipate, at a cost.

 

[Not Anyone To Care For]

http://www.wpxi.com/news/trending-now/woman-marries-daughter-after-the-two-hit-it-off/440569908

There is no logical reason to punish someone for this
If so, it would be the same logic used to punish homosexuals.

Agree?

If not: please address

1) freedom of choice
2)reproduction is irrelevant since the sexual nature is not considered
3)how does this choice affect you in any way, so that if it doesn't, why do you care?

Incest is illegal because of the possibility of producing inferior offspring, correct? So questions 1-2 are out the door.. So, about the "How does it affect you?" question. What if my superior genetic offspring decide to reproduce with your inferior genetic inbred baby? My bloodline would be corrupted and my superior genes would just become moderate

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Campaigns for "rights" quickly become the demand that society accept them in their discourse. Although it is not necessarily any worse than many virtual fetishes we can find in pornography these days, which people seem to waste time in fantasy rather than the achievement in reality. The thing is, our bar is set so low these days that it is hard to have a strong opinion on favor of strong societies instead of atomized individual nihilism.

/vote TBerg

 

[EyeSeeCold]

This particular instance doesn't bother me, mainly because both made the decision at an appropriate age and there's no way they're going to reproduce.

Intent to reproduce (she apparently previously married her son? wtf?) or adult-child relations would be a no go.

How could authorities know there was burgeoning intent to reproduce until it was too late? And then what can they do, force an abortion? It seems to me reproductive rights are inherently part of the package if you allow incest.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

How could authorities know there was burgeoning intent to reproduce until it was too late? And then what can they do, force an abortion? It seems to me reproductive rights are inherently part of the package if you allow incest.

Ignoring the limitations of authority in stifling agency (Note that I never said a thing about actually regulating it, just what bothered me personally, because I don't think it should be. Natural selection isn't going away any time soon), the easiest way to regulate would just be to outlaw heterosexual incest.

But yes, given the realistic genetic outcome of reproduction and how the offspring are likely to be treated by potential mates in their peer group, I'm not particularly worried about it at all.

 

[Thurlor]

I think a distinction needs to be made regarding the different forms of incest. There is a vast difference between a loving and consensual relationship and an exploitive one.

If you wish to argue against reproductive incest on the basis of genetic health then you would logically also have to be against all other reproductive pairs that could result in equally (or greater) genetically unhealthy offspring. Should it be illegal for prospective parents to reproduce if there is a certain chance their offspring will be afflicted with a genetic disorder? The same question applies to older women and the incidence of down syndrome.

As I have said before; too many morals are based on the 'ick factor'.

 

[FATBOY]

Incest is illegal because of the possibility of producing inferior offspring, correct? So questions 1-2 are out the door.. So, about the "How does it affect you?" question. What if my superior genetic offspring decide to reproduce with your inferior genetic inbred baby? My bloodline would be corrupted and my superior genes would just become moderate

Thank first of all for taking my attempt at discourse seriously

I don't know if "1-2 are out the door"

You simply just make "incestual reproduction" illegal-- I can agree with that.

However, the simple relationship itself does no harm if no children are produced.

So then the compromise is to outlaw the reproduction, but not the cohabitation.

----

As for the corruption of bloodlines? You're following a slippery slope. What if I used that same logic to prevent anyone from having relations with a certain race of people because that people were deemed to be, on average, less intelligent, or less of whatever characteristic we're trying to promote?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I think a distinction needs to be made regarding the different forms of incest. There is a vast difference between a loving and consensual relationship and an exploitive one.

If you wish to argue against reproductive incest on the basis of genetic health then you would logically also have to be against all other reproductive pairs that could result in equally (or greater) genetically unhealthy offspring. Should it be illegal for prospective parents to reproduce if there is a certain chance their offspring will be afflicted with a genetic disorder? The same question applies to older women and the incidence of down syndrome.

As I have said before; too many morals are based on the 'ick factor'.

It's not vastly different from the outside is it? That's the conundrum, how could you tell if there was exploitation in the relationship before an incest couple went public? You can only know what you see and what they tell you.

 

[Thurlor]

It's not vastly different from the outside is it? That's the conundrum, how could you tell if there was exploitation in the relationship before an incest couple went public? You can only know what you see and what they tell you.

To a lesser extant this also applies to all relationships.

Beyond that, I think we need to trust someone's expressed motivations and desires until given a reason to do otherwise. I realise that some might consider incest to be such a reason, but I'm quite confident a psychological expert could determine the level of freedom and autonomy of such a relationship.

All of these negative traits of incestuous relationships (grooming, power-imbalance, exploitation, etc) are negative in any relationship and don't always occur in incestuous relationships.

we need to look at the dynamics of any given relationship to determine whether or not it is 'good' or 'bad'.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

To a lesser extant this also applies to all relationships.

Beyond that, I think we need to trust someone's expressed motivations and desires until given a reason to do otherwise. I realise that some might consider incest to be such a reason, but I'm quite confident a psychological expert could determine the level of freedom and autonomy of such a relationship.

All of these negative traits of incestuous relationships (grooming, power-imbalance, exploitation, etc) are negative in any relationship and don't always occur in incestuous relationships.

we need to look at the dynamics of any given relationship to determine whether or not it is 'good' or 'bad'.

Indeed it's not just incest, which is why student-teacher and supervisor-employee relationships are looked down upon as well, and 'Hollywood' is known for the casting couch folklore like the Catholic church is synonymous with sexual abuse. This may all sound very drastic and I'd agree there must be some level of trust in a functioning society.

You propose we look at the dynamics, but that is the one thing incest relationships do not share with these other relationships mentioned above. Incest happens in home(obvious, I know) where private matters are kept private. At least with any of the other relationships a person can go home to their parent, spouse, or sibling and share their feelings and thoughts to make some sense of a potentially dangerous or traumatizing experience they've had.

 

[crippli]

If it's illegal and they have broken the law, they need to get punished. Otherwise the law is pointless. That would certainly be illogical.

Marriage is somewhat of an exclusive right. Groups of people have always been excluded, and always will. Incest is going to be a though call to get accept for. But the time may be right to get the ball rolling. With 7,5 billion people as of now. Specialization, rather then generality may be an interesting path. Well, we may see.

One way to protest is to not marry. Why take the chance if doing tabu stuff? Ignorance is not an excuse. As always if caught in being a criminal, then it's time to repay for what one gained.

Jail time for these two. Maybe 4-5 years could be enough. The maximum sentence 10 years may not be necessary.

Not to come off as a total ISTJ. But laws aren't that hard to follow. If they are bullshit, then put in the work to have them changed. Or do the crime where the government will not find out. Most police and government people are idiots, so they should never find out when laws are broken.

Basically what upsets me most is that 'there is crime'. There must be a whole lot of idiots out there who are even more stupid then those in charge of those laws. Utterly depressing.

 

[FATBOY]

If it's illegal and they have broken the law, they need to get punished. Otherwise the law is pointless. That would certainly be illogical.[...]

who let the INTJ in here?

I tend to think that sadomasochistic tendencies (the urge to need to punish someone) is not good for society.

 

[Not Anyone To Care For]

Thank first of all for taking my attempt at discourse seriously

I don't know if "1-2 are out the door"

You simply just make "incestual reproduction" illegal-- I can agree with that.

However, the simple relationship itself does no harm if no children are produced.

So then the compromise is to outlaw the reproduction, but not the cohabitation.

----

As for the corruption of bloodlines? You're following a slippery slope. What if I used that same logic to prevent anyone from having relations with a certain race of people because that people were deemed to be, on average, less intelligent, or less of whatever characteristic we're trying to promote?

I would agree with incest if the possibility of having no children was possible because it is just sex at that point.. What kind of contraception would you use and how would you enforce the incest to use it?

Also, studies have shown that mix raced babies are generally more intelligent/healthy, I would actually like my future children/grandchildren to reproduce with other races to add more diversity to the population. What I said would apply better to people with genetic disorders with high chances of passing that disorder on.

 

[crippli]

who let the INTJ in here?

I tend to think that sadomasochistic tendencies (the urge to need to punish someone) is not good for society.

Is that a joke? If a law is broken, you get punished! If caught. The only exception is if the system is corrupt.

That is teoretically. Writing that murder is illegal is clear. But excactly what is the case of a persons death is not. Few responsible ever get punished.

So most rules and laws are pretty much crap.

Mariage is teoretical, mostly. A very easy crime to punish. Paper trail from one end to next.

 

[FATBOY]

Is that a joke? If a law is broken, you get punished! If caught. The only exception is if the system is corrupt.

That is teoretically. Writing that murder is illegal is clear. But excactly what is the case of a persons death is not. Few responsible ever get punished.

So most rules and laws are pretty much crap.

Mariage is teoretical, mostly. A very easy crime to punish. Paper trail from one end to next.

I tend to seem aggressively insulting when there is a much larger point at stake

That point is to address this dark cloud hovering over the conversation: the need for control, and the need to control.

For, if we do not first address: 1)THE NEED for CONTROL

then we cannot progress to the creation of laws that control behavior

for-- if you have no need to control the other-- then there will be no law created, and thus no lawbreakers, and no one in jail.

So if you want to free up the jails, then get rid of the laws.

It may sound preposterous to you.

But it sounds just as preposterous, the existence of law in the first place, to someone who operates first from a plane of no laws.

 

[crippli]

I tend to seem aggressively insulting when there is a much larger point at stake

That point is to address this dark cloud hovering over the conversation: the need for control, and the need to control.

For, if we do not first address: 1)THE NEED for CONTROL

then we cannot progress to the creation of laws that control behavior

for-- if you have no need to control the other-- then there will be no law created, and thus no lawbreakers, and no one in jail.

So if you want to free up the jails, then get rid of the laws.

It may sound preposterous to you.

But it sounds just as preposterous, the existence of law in the first place, to someone who operates first from a plane of no laws.

The higher the density of people, aka more social, the more laws there will be. I do like your ideas above, but realistic, if free thought process is important to you. I see this happening with excessive implementation of control...That they are all programmed to think in a similar pattern. You can achieve what you want, through what you don't want. What is gained and lost?

1 person need no laws? Already with 2 people, even if not needed, there will be rules ->onto laws.

Punishment is only and nothing more then the flip side of a rule/law.

What I have argued is your claim there was no logical reason about punishing someone for incest marriage/braking the law. I say that it is logical to punish someone for braking the law. Like lawbreaking+punishment=result. Adds up for me. Result can be shit. But the equation should be logically sound.

Also, the question, Incest against the law? The two people got arrested due to having married as parent/child. It says in the article that incest/sex is irrelevant. It is illegal marry this close, even if done for fun. It can be punished with 10 years jail.

So I'm not sure what you are asking. What is it that you actually want to put a light on? Do you wish people where not punished for braking the law? Generally? Or only in this case for these people?

 

[Kuu]

Illegality of incest is "good enough" historically for preventing genetic problems and abuse. Nowadays we have better methods to screen genetics and control reproduction, so it is more likely to be seen as a morality hangup. Why don't we ban people that carry genes for serious diseases from reproducing? Why don't we have massive genetic screenings and a reproduction matchmaking algorithm?

who let the INTJ in here?

I tend to seem aggressively insulting when there is a much larger point at stake

You might want to reconsider this conversation strategy. Misunderstanding is likely. It's not rational to deliberately pursue suboptimal communication if understanding is what is sought.

All communities have standards, may I suggest you check out the forum rules?

 

[Yellow]

We're always going to have instincts to protect the genes within our own breeding population. These instincts have been integrated with our morals and laws.

A sign of good mental health in someone of reproductive age is a repulsion with the idea of breeding with someone who is less likely to produce healthy offspring. A sign of population health is to encourage the same. That's why we discourage breeding within families, with those who are outside of a healthy age-range, and those who are unfit for parenthood (people who are mentally disabled, for example).

We've woven this into our societal ideals because we like to complicate things, but the point is that it's "wrong" on primitive level. It brings unnecessary risk to our gene pool, and as organisms that reproduce, the health and future of our genes is a high priority.

To the thread title, incest isn't illegal. Adults are allowed to have sex with any adults capable of consent, provided they do consent. That is, in most Western countries. I haven't scoured the earth for contrary laws (with recent precedence of being upheld). If you're talking about marriage (the legal registration of a mating pair), who fucking cares? As far as I'm concerned, marriage itself should cease to be a legal institution.

Fun fact: I have an aunt and uncle who are cousins and half-siblings. They weren't legally registered as half siblings, but they are. They are legally only first cousins. They got married in Texas. They had two kids. One was severely retarded, and the other had a brain tumor (which was successfully removed when she was like 16). They insist that their relation to one another is a coincidence.

 

[crippli]

A sign of good mental health in someone of reproductive age is a repulsion with the idea of breeding with someone who is less likely to produce healthy offspring.

With the cows. Low index cows can produce outstanding offspring with a premium bull. I've even had cows with -5 on breeding index. Pair those with a +30 Bull and good things should happen. And have.

Basically, what you write I'd say is mostly relevant for those with low breeting quality. If good, it should be of little concern what the other is(down to a limit off course).

The gain is pairing low quality with good quality. Two 30 produces another 30. 30 and 0 produces 15. Average is maybe 5-10.

In humans I guess average could be -10. So improvements could be ridiculously easy to achieve, disregarding some ethics. The error I suspect is to mate top female and top male. And low female and low male. As is what tends to happen. The high are few. They die out.

 

[Tannhauser]

1) Freedom of choice in itself is irrelevant, because we make rules exactly to limit freedom of choice in the hope that it will result in a better society.
2) Reproduction is relevant.
3) The bad outcomes of incest in terms of genetic quality is ultimately a cost to society. Retardation, low IQ, and a myriad of health problems follow from too little genetic variation. Not only is it a cost to society, it is a burden that must be carried by the offspring themselves (see examples in Yellow's post).

 

[Pressure's Spring]

A human life is not valuable in and of itself, just as an infected, diseased animal is not equal in value to a healthy animal.

Equalizing value is an error, and leads to decay.

 

[Pressure's Spring]

Given the predispositions of family members, the probability of incestry is low.

The fact there are no successful communities present with a high rate of incestry indicate that it is a very poor reproductive strategy.

Taking both these statements into account, incestry should be recognized as a disorder.

 

[Yellow]

With the cows. Low index cows can produce outstanding offspring with a premium bull. I've even had cows with -5 on breathing index. Pair those with a +30 Bull and good things should happen. And have.

Basically, what you write I'd say is mostly relevant for those with low breathing quality. If good, it should be of little concern what the other is(down to a limit off course).

The gain is pairing low quality with good quality. Two 30 produces another 30. 30 and 0 produces 15. Average is maybe 5-10.

In humans I guess average could be -10. So improvements could be ridiculously easy to achieve, disregarding some ethics. The error I suspect is to mate top female and top male. And low female and low male. As is what tends to happen. The high are few. They die out.

Well, to be fair, I was talking about human instinct regarding our own breeding. That's a little different from artificial selection, as practiced with our livestock, which presumably has a recorded history of predictable outcomes and a different level of vested interest. (i.e., we can experiment with livestock breeding in a more detached and legal way than with human breeding)

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

We're always going to have instincts to protect the genes within our own breeding population.

Indeed. Check out these hawt hunks:

Spoiler

I'm really tempted to say that attractiveness/genetic fitness alone might serve as enough of a deterrent that regulation isn't necessary, but then I realized that experiences in your line of work stand a good chance of disproving that.

Illegality of incest is "good enough" historically for preventing genetic problems and abuse. Nowadays we have better methods to screen genetics and control reproduction, so it is more likely to be seen as a morality hangup. Why don't we ban people that carry genes for serious diseases from reproducing? Why don't we have massive genetic screenings and a reproduction matchmaking algorithm?

1. There is value in adversity.
2. There may actually be hidden or unknown value in "bad" genetics, which actually increase diversity and thus adaptability.
3. An algo would likely be more ineffective than you think, considering that people change over time and have individual life histories and emotions that can't be quantified.
4. It's existentially futile.

A human life is not valuable in and of itself, just as an infected, diseased animal is not equal in value to a healthy animal.

Equalizing value is an error, and leads to decay.

Nah. Life in one category is just as valuable as anything else in that category. Equalizing value across categories is when you have problems.

The fact there are no successful communities present with a high rate of incestry indicate that it is a very poor reproductive strategy, and thus, it should be recognized as a disorder.

You might be interested in the concepts outlined here and their thresholds and mechanisms: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_vortex

 

[Pressure's Spring]

Rock music, that is a category, no?

Do you have preferences? I would imagine so.

Do these preferences indicate value judgements? Yes (but not necessarily accurate value judgements.)

You're not saying that, all rock music is equal, simply because they exist in the same category?

The word 'category' does not imply equality, unless one imagines it do so.

Furthermore, it is a mistake to think human categorization changes the nature of reality, categories are abstractions.

 

[Tannhauser]

Why don't we ban people that carry genes for serious diseases from reproducing? Why don't we have massive genetic screenings and a reproduction matchmaking algorithm?

Lower-quality genes can – and do – survive through many generations by optimizing the quality of genes they pair themselves with. Incest does the opposite – it does probably the worst possible pairing you can find. Hence there is a significant qualitative difference between preventing incest and doing what you describe. Incest is inherently pathological.

 

[Pressure's Spring]

There may actually be hidden or unknown value in "bad" genetics, which actually increase diversity and thus adaptability.

Probablities and degrees.

Have you ever seen another specie preserve its sickly kin, because there just might be a possibility of growth and progress?

Be realistic on those odds. A risk/benefit analysis.

I would imagine such a strategy to be a highly inefficient.

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

Rock music, that is a category, no?

Do you have preferences? I would imagine so.

Do these preferences indicate value judgements? Yes (but not necessarily accurate value judgements.)

You're not saying that, all rock music is equal, simply because they exist in the same category?

The word 'category' does not imply equality, unless one imagines it do so.

Furthermore, it is a mistake to think human categorization changes the nature of reality, categories are abstractions.

Actually, no. Rock music is a category in name, but not in function. It's purely subjective, vs, say, functional categories like MBTI or taxonomy. Functional categories in music would ignore genres entirely and be based on things like time signatures and lyrical content.

But anyway, the middle part of that is basically repeating what I said earlier about problems resulting from equalizing value across categories.

And no, it does intrinsically imply equality on a functional level independent of abstraction, unless you really want to make an empirically-based argument that one particular orange in the crop is the most worthy of being eaten as I just pick one up and start eating. Micromanagement has its own thresholds to absurdity.

Spoiler

[bimgx=600]http://c8.alamy.com/comp/AP1FGC/truckloads-of-citrus-at-a-juice-plant-grapefruit-in-the-foreground-AP1FGC.jpg[/bimgx]

*EDIT: Also, on the whole idea of categories being nothing more than abstractions, consider convergent evolution and construct validity.

Probablities and degrees.

Have you ever seen another specie preserve its sickly kin, because there just might be a possibility of growth and progress?

Be realistic on those odds. A risk/benefit analysis.

I would imagine such a strategy to be a highly inefficient.

Have you seen another species with the foresight and awareness to even consider that?

Mutations exist within populations which are subject to things like bottlenecks and adaptive radiation in response to external stimuli. Vestigiality and circumstantially detrimental traits provide adaptive benefit, which happens without that foresight in apparently ignorant species.

 

[crippli]

Well, to be fair, I was talking about human instinct regarding our own breeding. That's a little different from artificial selection, as practiced with our livestock, which presumably has a recorded history of predictable outcomes and a different level of vested interest. (i.e., we can experiment with livestock breeding in a more detached and legal way than with human breeding)

I mentioned this due to an uncertainty if similar systems are not in play abstractly with humans, only much less professionally done. How do do you distinguish instinct and nurture?

On incest in various species, few seems reluctant if there is a problem reproducing. So I think that what it comes down to, if other options are available. Great. If not, incest will do to,

With 7,5 billion people. If one want, basically everyone can reproduce elsewhere. IRL people may get trapped in an artificial reality.

What I'm trying to say, is that incest, if available, is instinctual, if their existence feels threatened.

If it happens it's unclear to me if society forced it fourth. Or due to some mental madness. It seems in most species an instinctual last resort.

Therefor, it's unclear who actually committed a crime when incest is the crime. The law is clear though. Indirectly the law disregards instincts. Humans are expected to act according to nurture.

If instinctual behavior is relevant, i'm not at all sure if punishment is justified regarding incest.

 

[Pressure's Spring]

Life in one category is just as valuable as anything else in that category.

Degrees of value (i.e. hierarchies.)

Would you choose a 3-legged, toothless chihuahua to protect your house or a healthy German Shepherd?

Mutations exist within populations which are subject to things like bottlenecks and adaptive radiation in response to external stimuli. Vestigiality and circumstantially detrimental traits provide adaptive benefit

What are you proposing then? Please clarify.

Preserve the ill, create incentives to increase their chances of reproduction, and hope for a genius?

 

[Pressure's Spring]

Reality, outside the human mind, has no inherent value.

To say, all life is equally valuable, means nothing.

It also contradicts human behavior.

Valuing is an objective function, not a word one throws around freely to feel emotionally validated.

 

[Pressure's Spring]

Incestry is immoral. It is dysgenic and imposes an unnecessary cost on communities. This is empirical, and was mentioned in this thread several times.

Who cares if it is an instinct or not? Since when is an act justified or tolerated simply because it is instinct?

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

Degrees of value (i.e. hierarchies.)

Would you choose a 3-legged, toothless chihuahua to protect your house or a healthy German Shepherd?

What are you proposing then? Please clarify.

Preserve the ill, create incentives to increase their chances of reproduction, and hope for a genius?

They're not in the same category. The former is a toy breed and the latter is a working breed. Being toothless and missing a leg doesn't have any negative implications for the function of a toy dog, which is basically to eat, defecate, and have irrational humans project emotions upon them as if they were human. If I'm choosing a guard dog, I'm personally going terrier, specifically a pit bull.

That construct validity has validity? That question assumes that natural selection has some sort of intent. Who said anything about increase or hope? Just let things develop and react.

Reality, outside the human mind, has no inherent value.

To say, all life is equally valuable, means nothing.

It also contradicts human behavior.

Valuing is an objective function, not a word one throws around freely to feel emotionally validated.

1. Prove it.
2. Even if you can (you can't), neither does solipsism at any level of organization.

No, to say all life is equally valuable in all ways means nothing. You can't compare across categories. A hammer will never replace a pair of pliers. You need both in your toolbox. And human behavior is full of errors.

Value is entirely subjective lol. Function is objective.

Incestry is immoral. It is dysgenic and imposes an unnecessary cost on communities. This is empirical, and was mentioned in this thread several times.

Who cares if it is an instinct or not? Since when is an act justified or tolerated simply because it is instinct?

It's usually dysgenic (see: selective breeding in domestic livestock) and any cost is either the result of an error in judgment on the part of the community, or subject to a higher moral bound than incest, if it's deemed to be immoral not to incur those costs.

I thought it was instinct not to partake in incest...?

 

[Pressure's Spring]

I am making a simple point, and I think you are over-complicating the matter.

Value is entirely subjective lol. Function is objective.

Value is objective and subjective.

We can objectively determine different types of values across a range of human minds, and determine the qualities of each as it relates to objectives.

A hammer will never replace a pair of pliers

Yes, we value one over the other depending on the circumstance, or to the degree which we require either.

Simply apply this to humans, this is where value comes in, in relation to objectives or needs, or even feelings (think a mother's love for her offspring, but even that has a probable objective.)

Value in and of itself is a narcissistic concept.

It's usually dysgenic

Yes, there is a relatively high probability.

Are you a gambler or something?

I thought it was instinct not to partake in incest...?

Read crippli's post.

Reality, outside the human mind, has no inherent value.

Prove it.

Value exists within the human mind. What you are doing is called projecting, or otherwise hypothesizing.

 

[Pressure's Spring]

They're not in the same category. The former is a toy breed and the latter is a working breed. Being toothless and missing a leg doesn't have any negative implications for the function of a toy dog, which is basically to eat, defecate, and have irrational humans project emotions upon them as if they were human. If I'm choosing a guard dog, I'm personally going terrier, specifically a pit bull.

Yes. I'm not that knowledgeable about dogs, but...

Why are you choosing the pitbull over the other dogs in the same category?

If they are all equal, your preference for one over the other would make no sense.

If they are equally valuable, then, I suppose that all the dogs in that category carry our their function to the exact same degree? Seems unlikely.

If one was superior to the other in defending your territory, would it not be, preferable, that is to say, of higher value?

 

[Yellow]

I mentioned this due to an uncertainty if similar systems are not in play abstractly with humans, only much less professionally done. How do do you distinguish instinct and nurture?

On incest in various species, few seems reluctant if there is a problem reproducing. So I think that what it comes down to, if other options are available. Great. If not, incest will do to,

With 7,5 billion people. If one want, basically everyone can reproduce elsewhere. IRL people may get trapped in an artificial reality.

What I'm trying to say, is that incest, if available, is instinctual, if their existence feels threatened.

If it happens it's unclear to me if society forced it fourth. Or due to some mental madness. It seems in most species an instinctual last resort.

Therefor, it's unclear who actually committed a crime when incest is the crime. The law is clear though. Indirectly the law disregards instincts. Humans are expected to act according to nurture.

If instinctual behavior is relevant, i'm not at all sure if punishment is justified regarding incest.

Our laws aren't created in a vaccuum. They are molded to our collective will in freer societies, or to the whims of one or a few in less-free societies. In all cases, humans are at the heart, and we remain animals, in a biological sense.

An unhealthy population will do all sorts of things to cling to life as long as possible. Some resort to incest, others extreme pedophilia, and beyond. Survival is the first priority, the second is the quality of the survival.

The then question becomes: will the population bounce back? Some go back to normal breeding behavior, avoiding the least reproductively fit individuals by preference (as well as parent-child or sibling breeding). Others will have integrated the unhealthy breeding patterns in their culture and eventually die out.

As far as the law, I don't think punishment is necessary in the absence of other sex crimes. I mean, I'd prefer if it was abnormal enough to avoid population-level inbreeding, but otherwise, I don't see the big deal. Obviously rape and pedophilia, which usually accompany incest, are a big deal and should remain so.

Personally, I can't imagine what an of-age, consenting parent/grandparent-child or sibling-sibling sexual relationship would look like. In my line of work, I only come across non-consenting and/or under-aged brands of incest. .. and boy, do I.

(in the case of my aunt and uncle, they were informed of their half-siblingness after they began dating, and they didn't meet until they were adults, so there was no sibling relationship, only sibling genes).

 

[Ex-User (13503)]

I am making a simple point, and I think you are over-complicating the matter.

Ditto.

Value is objective and subjective.

We can objectively determine different types of values across a range of human minds, and determine the qualities of each as it relates to objectives.

I think 1) you might be mixing different definitions of "value" 2) you're conflating the collective subjective with the objective. From an epistemological perspective, if objective truth exists, it is unknowable.

Yes, we value one over the other depending on the circumstance, or to the degree which we require either.

Simply apply this to humans, this is where value comes in, in relation to objectives or needs, or even feelings (think a mother's love for her offspring, but even that has a probable objective.)

Value in and of itself is a narcissistic concept.

No. It's not a matter of placing categories in a hierarchy based on circumstances. There is one and only one category to choose from in a given set of circumstances. The generic outline for a category is "Options that X" where X is the goal.

Value is a utilitarian concept. Misusing it is narcissistic.

Yes, there is a relatively high probability.

Are you a gambler or something?

You're betting at the individual level, and I'm betting at the population level and above. There's simultaneously a high probability that a given individual will fail and that an individual within the larger system will succeed. Consider a colony of bacteria on a petri dish. The agar in the dish is divided into 4 levels, the far right containing normal agar and each of the others progressively higher concentrations of antibiotic. Start the colony in the normal agar and it expands until it hits the antibiotic barrier. "Look how many individuals are failing!" you say. And then one lucky one develops resistance and survives, to populate the adjoining layer that the others have failed to access, and I casually turn to you and whisper gently in your left ear "Told you so."

Value exists within the human mind. What you are doing is called projecting, or otherwise hypothesizing.

Nope, not projecting. You made a claim and I asked for evidence to support it.

Yes. I'm not that knowledgeable about dogs, but...

Why are you choosing the pitbull over the other dogs in the same category?

If they are all equal, your preference for one over the other would make no sense.

If they are equally valuable, then, I suppose that all the dogs in that category carry our their function to the exact same degree? Seems unlikely.

If one was superior to the other in defending your territory, would it not be, preferable, that is to say, of higher value?

You're missing that pitbull is the category from which I'm choosing.

 

[Pressure's Spring]

Before we continue, define value.

Everything has value with respect to what? Do tell.

Are you saying, that all living organisms have value, irrespective of whether one places a value upon the organism?

A self-existing value?

In that case, why do inanimate objects not possess their own self-existing value or do they?




In addition, clarify whether there exists more than one component within a category (not that it would matter, since all pit bulls are not equal, their value in relation to their function will thus differ, and an observable hierarchy would exist amongst them in any case.) Are there different types of pit bulls or not?

 

[Pressure's Spring]

Start the colony in the normal agar and it expands until it hits the antibiotic barrier. "Look how many individuals are failing!" you say. And then one lucky one develops resistance and survives, to populate the adjoining layer that the others have failed to access

Right, so we should be tolerant of incestry in our communities, allow, or even support reproduction to spring forth from these relationships, and all because, more or less...

one lucky one develops resistance and survives

...The costs being undermined.




You really are a gambler.

The likelihood of an improbable possibility is enough of a justification for you to endure very uneven and expected costs.

In reality, where there is a consequence to making judgment calls, should you have had the power to put such ideas to the test, you would likely be in very dire, regressive circumstances.

Luckily here, there is no risk, yes? No need for you or others to hold the weight of your poor judgments.

Nothing to be responsible for.

 

[Pressure's Spring]

if objective truth exists, it is unknowable.

Why would anyone waste their time with such speculations?

Truth also exists within the human mind, not outside of it.

We simply work with what we have, from our mode of experience (wherein everything is objective and subjective.)


Either our interpretations of reality are connected, accurate, referential symbols reflecting reality to a greater or lesser degree (i.e. degree of objectivity, or truth value), or, they are detached, not bringing any insight into the reality of activities (i.e. subjectivity, self-existing, solipsism).

Both states are subjective, yet also existing in the world of objects, and thus, empirical, open to the possibility of qualitative determination.



Thought has no value in and of itself. Their function is to discover reality, not to create reality (i.e. fantasy), and it is in this sense, their ability to discover the nature of reality, that determines their degree of objectivity.

Words are just words, they mean little until they are brought closer to the world of phenomena, which precedes the word. Therefore, logical systems whose presuppositions are detached from reality are mere speculations (e.g. all life has value - a detached, emotional hyper-extension, a manipulative, feminine method of ensuring protection & resources regardless of status, rather parasitic, wouldn't you say? Indeed, it would make perfect sense for the irresponsible or the malicious to praise such a statement.)

 

[Pressure's Spring]

Valuing is a conscious activity.

So the question arises, do other living species value?

It is more probable that other living species have evolved behavioral patterns and responses.

It appears as if they are valuing, but in reality, they probably aren't.

What supports this statement, is that, even among the human species, the process of valuing appears to be more or less likely among different groups, individuals, and so forth, dependent on the level of cognitive sophistication (which is unequally distributed).

Another way to say this is, where the potential for the process is present, the quality of the process and the degree to which the potential is present also differs, and may be influenced by environmental factors.