I'm not an expert on genetics by any means, but I do understand your daughter sharing 25% of your wife's brother's genetic stock. However, there is obviously still the need for reproduction to stop the line from dying out (in your example, your wife and the other brother's son). I'm not sure I'm getting my point across, or maybe I'm just not understanding your answer. Perhaps "moral" is the wrong term to use here, in which case I apologize. For clarity's sake, I'm proposing the following argument:
Premise: We, as animals, are merely a protective shell in an attempt at our genes' continued survival.
Conclusion: We are responsible to protect, and continue the existence of our genes, throughout another generation via reproduction. It is not necessarily the end of the genetic line, if an individual fails their responsibility, although it is effectively a "wasted effort".
You (and others) have made it clear that the conclusion is disagreeable (at least from a moral standpoint). I'm curious if the premise is disagreed with as well, or simply the conclusion I've come to, based upon that premise.
Premise: We, as animals, are merely a protective shell in an attempt at our genes' continued survival.
Conclusion: We are responsible to protect, and continue the existence of our genes, throughout another generation via reproduction. It is not necessarily the end of the genetic line, if an individual fails their responsibility, although it is effectively a "wasted effort".
You (and others) have made it clear that the conclusion is disagreeable (at least from a moral standpoint). I'm curious if the premise is disagreed with as well, or simply the conclusion I've come to, based upon that premise.
