Incest is morally permissible...
...if homosexual activity is. This argument does not work in reverse, nor do I endorse either activity. My argument is very simple: If some homosexual activity is morally permissible, then the some forms of incest are permissible. Any argument that establishs homosexuality activity as legitimate will also establish incest as legitimate. Any argument that denies legitimacy to incest will also deny it homosexual activity.
I have heard it said that the government ought to stay out of the way of what happens between two consenting adults. If applied to homosexual activity, this means that the government should not punish it. If applied to incest, this argument means the same. So if two adults who happen to be siblings are in a consenting sexual relationship, the law could not forbid this without interfering in the behaviour of consenting adults. So either this is a bad argument for homosexual activity or it is a good one for incestuous activity.
I have also heard it said that the government ought to allow people as much freedom as possible to pursue their individual ideas of the good life. A part of a homosexual's idea of the good life is homosexual activity. A part of some other people's idea of a good life is incest. If it is possible to allow a homosexual to pursue their idea of a good life, then there is no good reason to forbid someone who practices incest from pursuing their idea of the good life.
At this point two objections come to mind. One is the biological argument, and the other one is emotional 'argument'. The biological argument points out that the children of close relatives have genetic problems. This suggests that that one should not have children with a close relative. But unless having children is connected with a moral sexuality, then it does not show that incestuous sex is wrong. If homosexual behaviour is permisslble, then there is no such link. Therefore, this argument shows nothing. The emotional argument is in even worse shape. I find both behaviours very disgusting, but that is not a real argument. Besides, if it was, then it could also be used against homosexual activity.
All of this is a bit quick, but I strongly doubt that anyone could find a good argument against this. Any such argument would need to both permit homosexual activity and deny incestuous activity without being ad hoc. Of course, I doubt that any homosexual activist openly supports incest! But the logic of their own arguments requires that they do.
I have heard it said that the government ought to stay out of the way of what happens between two consenting adults. If applied to homosexual activity, this means that the government should not punish it. If applied to incest, this argument means the same. So if two adults who happen to be siblings are in a consenting sexual relationship, the law could not forbid this without interfering in the behaviour of consenting adults. So either this is a bad argument for homosexual activity or it is a good one for incestuous activity.
I have also heard it said that the government ought to allow people as much freedom as possible to pursue their individual ideas of the good life. A part of a homosexual's idea of the good life is homosexual activity. A part of some other people's idea of a good life is incest. If it is possible to allow a homosexual to pursue their idea of a good life, then there is no good reason to forbid someone who practices incest from pursuing their idea of the good life.
At this point two objections come to mind. One is the biological argument, and the other one is emotional 'argument'. The biological argument points out that the children of close relatives have genetic problems. This suggests that that one should not have children with a close relative. But unless having children is connected with a moral sexuality, then it does not show that incestuous sex is wrong. If homosexual behaviour is permisslble, then there is no such link. Therefore, this argument shows nothing. The emotional argument is in even worse shape. I find both behaviours very disgusting, but that is not a real argument. Besides, if it was, then it could also be used against homosexual activity.
All of this is a bit quick, but I strongly doubt that anyone could find a good argument against this. Any such argument would need to both permit homosexual activity and deny incestuous activity without being ad hoc. Of course, I doubt that any homosexual activist openly supports incest! But the logic of their own arguments requires that they do.
posted by Matthew at 2:24 PM
2 Comments:
Morally permissible is relative. Legally permissable would need social parameters based on moral perspectives. You are right, if two concenting adults want to engage in relations, that is what the law should protect. Objectively, there is no reason why two consenting adults, even in the same family couldn't have relations. Individual cultures would have to define how socially acceptable that would be.
It was illegal for women to vote at one point. There is no reason why they couldn't or shouldn't other than the percieved (or real) lack of education they recieved as a basis for such a biased perspective.
Perhaps the issue of incestuous relationships will move in a similar direction. There is the biological component of potential offspring that can factor in. Perhaps it would be an easier thing for incestuous homosexual relationships to achieve social status sooner than heterosexual, incestuous relationships. Even though I quiver a little bit while typing this, I see no objective reason why this couldn't be a chosable lifestyle.
"I have heard it said that the government ought to stay out of the way of what happens between two consenting adults."
Conversely though, if you assert the right of governments to be involved in what two consenting adults do, the way to re-criminalizing interracial relationships is wide open.
Post a Comment
<< Home