if they do end up having a baby and that baby is deformed, then is that still a reason not to have it? Life is better than no life. — Hyper

It's willful engagement in behavior that is likely to produce an unsafe condition of elevated likelihood for birth defects. "Life is better than no life" would not be a way to justify drinking alcohol during pregnancy or competing in a boxing competition while pregnant. Why would it be any different in this scenario?

, because the only case in which this life exists is if the act is done.

It's willful engagement in behavior that is likely to produce an unsafe condition of elevated likelihood for birth defects. "Life is better than no life" would not be a way to justify drinking alcohol during pregnancy or competing in a boxing competition while pregnant. Why would it be any different in this scenario? — Outlander

:up:

,

because the only case in which this life exists is if the act is done. — Hyper

- So we have a duty to bring about uniquely bad lives?

(I'm leaving this thread now :grimace:)

because the only case in which this life exists is if the act is done. — Hyper

So, 3.5 billion or so people of the opposite gender vanished overnight? That's a thinker. I suppose life must carry on, sure. Even if trapped on a desert island with no reasonable chance of rescue or similar would make one ponder the same: Would it be worth it? Even if a newspaper somehow washed up ashore notifying you of an all-out world war with major cities being destroyed leading you to reasonably believe you might possibly be the last cradle of humanity, it still leaves much to consider.

. What a strawman. Bearing any children would be better than bearing no children, or would you be in support of eugenics for the disabled?

Also, if they do end up having a baby and that baby is deformed, then is that still a reason not to have it? — Hyper

It's a good reason to prevent conceiving it in the first place. Many lives are much worse than no life - ask the people who apply for assisted suicide. Knowingly risking the welfare of another person in order to satisfy your lust is morally wrong.

If the informed, uninfluenced consenting adults decide to embark on an incestuous relationship, they should begin by the one who least desires offspring being sterilized. That way, if the relationship ends, the one who desires children may still have them with a different partner. No, not his other sister!

because the only case in which this life exists is if the act is done. — Hyper

Good reason for the act not to be done. The sexual satisfaction of two people who have agency and a choice of other partners who might satisfy them weighed against a lifetime of suffering for one innocent victim with no choices at all is a net loss. A big one!

I don't condemn the act between freely and maturely consenting adults; I do condemn disregard for the consequences to others.

It's willful engagement in behavior that is likely to produce an unsafe condition of elevated likelihood for birth defects. — Outlander

You have to be really careful using principles like that, because as written they provide support for eugenics. IE, people who have heritable conditions having a child together is just definitionally "wilful engagement in behaviour that is likely to produce an unsafe condition of elevated likelihood for birth defects". If having a child is wrong on that basis, you've got a conclusive argument for people with genetic diseases having kids committing an evil act. Moreover, your reason doesn't touch people shagging who're both sterilised.

The irritating thing with taboo subjects like this is articulating why they're wrong without modus tollens impacting all of your other moral principles. As @Hyper noted, this is just lazy reasoning and dogpiling.

↪Leontiskos. What a strawman. Bearing any children would be better than bearing no children, or would you be in support of eugenics for the disabled? — Hyper

A better reason for claiming that incest should not be considered as permissible is that the conditions for consent to it don't make that much sense, the hypothetical scenario in the OP is not representative of the scenarios where incest occurs. It's a bit like saying that murder is permissible since there are conditions in which killing is permissible.

If hypothetically you had two sterile 60 year olds who were separated at birth, fell in love, married and shagged...what's wrong there? But simultaneously that's not what people are imagining when talking about incest.

A better reason for claiming that incest should not be considered as permissible is that the conditions for consent to it don't make that much sense, the hypothetical scenario in the OP is not representative of the scenarios where incest occurs. It's a bit like saying that murder is permissible since there are conditions in which killing is permissible. — fdrake

This presupposes beforehand that there is something wrong with it. We don't worry about "conditions for consent" when it comes to neutral acts.

You have to be really careful using principles like that, because as written they provide support for eugenics. — fdrake

The prohibition on incest is a form of eugenics, and that's okay.

The argument here that better logicians have made includes a condition, namely the condition that no procreation is possible (e.g. a couple that is infallibly known to be sterile).

The prohibition on incest is a form of eugenics. — Leontiskos

Alright, which forms are eugenics are good and which are bad?

Alright, which forms are eugenics are good and which are bad? — fdrake

I would apply the principle that it is never immoral to abstain from copulation in view of the extreme hardship that would result on the part of the person conceived. Rare diseases and the deformities that can result from incest certainly fall under this umbrella.

Generally, I've found that secular moral systems will permit it (are there exceptions to this?), religious ones will not. If we wish to avoid the issue of producing unfit offspring, we could always just make the hypothetical about gay incest. In any case, we still allow people with inheritable conditions to reproduce even if it gives their offspring a higher chance of getting the condition. Or the brother-sister pair could just wear condoms.

Moreover, your reason doesn't touch people shagging who're both sterilised. — fdrake

Of course it doesn't. They're not producing conditions that are likely to make an innocent suffer.

IE, people who have heritable conditions having a child together is just definitionally "wilful engagement in behaviour that is likely to produce an unsafe condition of elevated likelihood for birth defects". If having a child is wrong on that basis, you've got a conclusive argument for people with genetic diseases having kids committing an evil act — fdrake

I wouldn't go so far as evil. They are committing a selfish, irresponsible act with willful disregard for the risk they're imposing for a non-consenting third person - and the community. The analogous fatalaty charge would be 'reckless endangerment'.

A better reason for claiming that incest should not be considered as permissible is that the conditions for consent to it don't make that much sense, the hypothetical scenario in the OP is not representative of the scenarios where incest occurs. — fdrake

However, there are cases of adult siblings pairing up. Unless one partner has some significant undue influence over the other, that's consensual. The run-of-the mill child-molesting parent is not under consideration here.

If hypothetically you had two sterile 60 year olds who were separated at birth, fell in love, married and shagged...what's wrong there? — fdrake

If they were 60, nobody would notice or care. They're more likely to be in their teens or early 20's, and not necessarily with a history of separation. Still no moral problem, so long as they take effective measures against procreation.

I would apply the principle that it is never immoral to abstain from copulation in view of the extreme hardship that would result on the part of the person conceived. Rare diseases and the deformities that can result from incest certainly fall under this umbrella. — Leontiskos

"Never being immoral" isn't the same thing as "being required not to". It's never immoral to eat ice cream, but you are not required not to. Separate ideas.

Would you go further to say that people who would have rare diseases and deformities are committing a moral evil if they have kids?

"Never being immoral" isn't the same thing as "being required not to". — fdrake

We are talking about when eugenics is permissible. Never immoral = never impermissible.

Never being immoral" isn't the same thing as "being required not to". It's never immoral to eat ice cream, but you are not required not to. Separate ideas. — fdrake

So are: Is it immoral? and Should it be illegal?

So are: Is it immoral? and Should it be illegal? — Vera Mont

Think those are separate too. There are plenty of moral things which are illegal (responsible consumption of harmless drugs), and plenty of legal things which are immoral (taking advantage of someone's kindness).

I'm afraid I don't understand. Are you saying eugenics is never immoral?

Think those are separate too. — fdrake

That's what I said, yes.

I'm afraid I don't understand. Are you saying eugenics is never immoral? — fdrake

I am saying that any form of eugenics which falls under the principle set out is not immoral/impermissible. To give you an example of this, when a couple with a genetic disease that will cause extreme hardship to their (future) progeny decides not to procreate, they are engaged in a permissible form of eugenics.

Cue schopenhauer1 in 3, 2, 1...

Okay yes. And why does that make incest impermissible when there's no chance of procreation? Say with our 60 year old sterile separated at birth story?

I think something worth mentioning, is that incest is not per se immoral because of the incredible odds of causing severe harm to a potential, conceived child (therefrom)—as incest does not necessitate a relationship where the parties involved can get pregnant (e.g., gay men, infertile women, etc.)—but, rather, it is because, generally speaking, it is not in the Telos of a human to marry and have sexual relations with their own kin.

My duties to, and roles towards, my, e.g., sisters are plausibly such that I should not be having sexual relations with them; when taken from the Aristotelian position.

And why does that make incest impermissible when there's no chance of procreation? — fdrake

I never said it was. I was answering your question about eugenics.

At the very least I would say that is impermissible on account of societal example and norms, but I'm not looking to have that conversation. It would at least require a more nuanced thread.

At the very least I would say that is impermissible on account of societal example and norms, but I'm not looking to have that conversation. It would at least require a more nuanced thread. — Leontiskos

That's what I said, yes. — Vera Mont

"Legal != immoral != socially acceptable" looks like a whole other thread.

Despite the devolution of this thread into eugenics and the relative merit of not having children, the fact is that the main "wrong" of incest is when it involves unequal power dynamics, not birth defects.

Yep.

Aye. Which the OP implicitly stipulates as irrelevant (in its case).

Also would it be possible for most of us to shelve the deeply ingrained proscription against incest such that we could do it without emotional and psychological harm to both?

If not I guess that would still not make it morally wrong, given mutual consent and lack of coercion, but rather inadvisable. That said an argument could be made that it is morally wrong on account of the effect on family and friends if they knew about it. Of course it could be kept secret.

So we have a duty to bring about uniquely bad lives? — Leontiskos

I think his point is that if the only option is incest, you might. I disagree, and think you'd be obliged not to. But htere we go..

I think two sterilized adults should be able to do whatever they want.