I have a homosexual question and incest question?

[Angrboda]

Jonathan Haidt probed some related questions in his experiments.

• Julie and Mark are brother and sister. They are traveling together in France on summer vacation from college. One night they are staying alone in a cabin near the beach. They decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. At the very least, it would be a new experience for each of them. Julie was already taking birth control pills, but Mark uses a condom too, just to be safe. They both enjoy making love, but they decide never to do it again. They keep that night as a special secret, which makes them feel even closer to each other. What do you think about that? Was it ok for them to make love?

If you're like most people, your response is "absolutely not," but you'll find it more difficult than you think to come up with a justification. "Genetic defects from inbreeding." Yes, but they were using two forms of birth control. (And in the vanishingly small chance of pregnancy, Julie can get an abortion.) "It will mess them up emotionally." On the contrary, they enjoyed the act and it brought them closer together. "It's illegal." Not in France. "It's disgusting." For you, maybe, but not for them (obviously). Do you really want to say that private acts are morally wrong just because a lot of people find those acts disgusting? And so on.

The scenario of course is designed to ward off the most common moral objections to incest, and in doing so demonstrate that much of moral reasoning is a post-hoc affair — a way of justifying judgments that you've already reached though an emotional gut response to a situation. Although we like to think of ourselves as arriving at our moral judgments after painstaking rational deliberation, or at least some kind of deliberation anyhow, Haidt's model — the "social intuititionist model" — sees the process as just the reverse. We judge and then we reason. Reason is the press secretary of the emotions, as Haidt is fond of saying, the ex post facto spin doctor of beliefs we've arrived at through a largely intuitive process.

What’s the matter with a little brother/sister action?

See also, Haidt's paper: The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment

[Dystopia]

Imagine if every contry accepted homosexuality, and i'm not against it though because most of our values are based on greece democracy (With a little reactionary religion like christianity in the mix).

Now thats all good.

But...

What if brother and sister loves each other so much that they want to get married and live the rest of their life with each other, imagine incest parade where they are proud to be together.
Of course there will be a law where they cant create babies with each other otherwise it will be genetically bad, so they will adopt.

Now if that was set. If there would have been a vote poll for "Yes" or "No" for incest marriage.

What would you have answered?

I accept homosexuality and same sex marriage

Incest? I would never bang my sister and I don't support incest, it goes against my family values. But if siblings or father/daughter son/mother want to be in a relationship, so be it, it's a shame it still gets you jail time in some countries. As for incest and marriage, I think any cousin, second degree cousin and so on should be able to get married, I don't have any objection to those relationships, my girlfriend's grandparents are third degree cousins. As for first degree family relationships, the problem is procreation, as far as I know, there is a higher chance that there will be complications and it's impossible to legally ban these people from having children, how would we enforce it? And punishment? would we punish people for getting pregnant? I don't know. As for marriage, I don't understand why siblings would want to marry, but since it's their call, they can get married, just don't ask the church to do it. The problem is if this type of marriage incentives people to have kids, but I guess since siblings can live together in a relationship it's the same... It's like gays, why ban gay marriage and allow gay people to live together? It's just a legal recognition, nothing more

[Jenny A]

Jonathan Haidt probed some related questions in his experiments.

• Julie and Mark are brother and sister. They are traveling together in France on summer vacation from college. One night they are staying alone in a cabin near the beach. They decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. At the very least, it would be a new experience for each of them. Julie was already taking birth control pills, but Mark uses a condom too, just to be safe. They both enjoy making love, but they decide never to do it again. They keep that night as a special secret, which makes them feel even closer to each other. What do you think about that? Was it ok for them to make love?

If you're like most people, your response is "absolutely not," but you'll find it more difficult than you think to come up with a justification. "Genetic defects from inbreeding." Yes, but they were using two forms of birth control. (And in the vanishingly small chance of pregnancy, Julie can get an abortion.) "It will mess them up emotionally." On the contrary, they enjoyed the act and it brought them closer together. "It's illegal." Not in France. "It's disgusting." For you, maybe, but not for them (obviously). Do you really want to say that private acts are morally wrong just because a lot of people find those acts disgusting? And so on.

The scenario of course is designed to ward off the most common moral objections to incest, and in doing so demonstrate that much of moral reasoning is a post-hoc affair — a way of justifying judgments that you've already reached though an emotional gut response to a situation. Although we like to think of ourselves as arriving at our moral judgments after painstaking rational deliberation, or at least some kind of deliberation anyhow, Haidt's model — the "social intuititionist model" — sees the process as just the reverse. We judge and then we reason. Reason is the press secretary of the emotions, as Haidt is fond of saying, the ex post facto spin doctor of beliefs we've arrived at through a largely intuitive process.

What’s the matter with a little brother/sister action?

See also, Haidt's paper: The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment

At some level most of our moral decisions are like this. They are based on emotions. They we look for reasons whether rational or religious.

[Angrboda]

At some level most of our moral decisions are like this. They are based on emotions. They we look for reasons whether rational or religious.

This reminds me of arguments against meat-eating based on empathy. We have empathy for creatures with awareness, and that's a good thing, as it prevents us treating other humans cruelly without remorse. But there's some question as to whether those feelings of empathy should be sanctioned when they are extended beyond the obvious role of protecting fellow humans. So we may want to encourage broad empathy for the positive effect it has on the way humans treat each other, and just accept any possible "over-extension" of that empathy beyond the human sphere by extending rights to animals, even if doing so is something of a moral accident.

Similarly, we want to discourage incest because of its negative effects "in general," and we've evolved feelings which support that goal as a consequence of evolution. Should we attempt to fine-tune the application of those moral intuitions as in the cases given above, or should we opt for uniformity to keep the moral intuition against incest strong and inviolate? Should we accept a few "useless applications" of rules that are generally good, or should we seek to make exceptions to the rule in cases of clear misapplication?

[Jenny A]

At some level most of our moral decisions are like this. They are based on emotions. They we look for reasons whether rational or religious.

This reminds me of arguments against meat-eating based on empathy. We have empathy for creatures with awareness, and that's a good thing, as it prevents us treating other humans cruelly without remorse. But there's some question as to whether those feelings of empathy should be sanctioned when they are extended beyond the obvious role of protecting fellow humans. So we may want to encourage broad empathy for the positive effect it has on the way humans treat each other, and just accept any possible "over-extension" of that empathy beyond the human sphere by extending rights to animals, even if doing so is something of a moral accident.

Similarly, we want to discourage incest because of its negative effects "in general," and we've evolved feelings which support that goal as a consequence of evolution. Should we attempt to fine-tune the application of those moral intuitions as in the cases given above, or should we opt for uniformity to keep the moral intuition against incest strong and inviolate? Should we accept a few "useless applications" of rules that are generally good, or should we seek to make exceptions to the rule in cases of clear misapplication?

Of course we should attempt to fine-tune our moral intuitions. The point is that it's difficult to do in practice because our emotions get there first. Knowing that helps, but it's not a panacea.

[Dystopia]

I have said it before and I will say it again.

I vote yes for legalizing marriage for mentally competent, consenting adults.

If a brother and sister want to get married, then that is none of my business.

---

Also, you only asked 1 question.

I have a question for you, is it true that the US establishes sentences that can go up to 25 years (in some cases even life in jail) for incestuous relationships? If this is true, it sounds stupid.

[Losty]

I have a question for you, is it true that the US establishes sentences that can go up to 25 years (in some cases even life in jail) for incestuous relationships? If this is true, it sounds stupid.

These kind of laws are regulated by each state. There is no federal regulation against incest. So it depends on where you live. I honestly don't know a lot about this as I've never taken much interest in the topic. But here is some copypasta to help you get started on your research.

"In the U.S., incest is regulated by state, not federal law, and every state has one or more laws banning this problematic behavior. And while states sometimes vary in defining the outer boundaries of who is considered “family” and the exact behaviors that are off-limits, the underlying goals or policy considerations remain consistent among states."
"Penalties for an incest conviction vary according to state law, but may include separation of family members (if a child is involved, the child may be placed in foster or other care), or a jail or prison term of several months to many years."
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/i...arges.html

[Baqal]

If there are brother-sister couples that want to marry, I will respect their decision. However, I will be against non-contraceptive sex with an objective to reproduce among these couples, for reasons pointed out by vorlon13. They can have sex with some sort of protection if they want to, I will certainly not be against it.

[Dystopia]

I have a question for you, is it true that the US establishes sentences that can go up to 25 years (in some cases even life in jail) for incestuous relationships? If this is true, it sounds stupid.

These kind of laws are regulated by each state. There is no federal regulation against incest. So it depends on where you live. I honestly don't know a lot about this as I've never taken much interest in the topic. But here is some copypasta to help you get started on your research.

"In the U.S., incest is regulated by state, not federal law, and every state has one or more laws banning this problematic behavior. And while states sometimes vary in defining the outer boundaries of who is considered “family” and the exact behaviors that are off-limits, the underlying goals or policy considerations remain consistent among states."
"Penalties for an incest conviction vary according to state law, but may include separation of family members (if a child is involved, the child may be placed in foster or other care), or a jail or prison term of several months to many years."
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/i...arges.html

Quoting wikipedia:
"5 years imprisonment in Hawaii, Florida
10 years imprisonment in North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Minnesota
14 years imprisonment in California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska and Idaho
15 years imprisonment in Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia and West Virginia
20 years imprisonment in Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, Maine, Pennsylvania, and Vermont
25 years imprisonment in Kansas, Nebraska, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, Wyoming, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana and Kentucky
Life imprisonment in Georgia,[46] Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee.
Three convictions or more of incest also require the offenders to register as "Sex Offenders"[citation needed]

In all states, close blood-relatives that fall under the incest statutes include:

Father
Mother
Grandfather
Grandmother
Brother
Sister
Aunt
Uncle
Niece
Nephew"

At least where I live incest is legal, even children can be registered in both parents' names. But marriage is not allowed, it's classified by the civil code as an impossibility for marrying, the others being minority and a serious mental or psychological issue.

[Losty]

I don't see my state in your list. Now I have to look it up.

---

Hopefully the FBI isn't checking my history.