December 30, 2011
Is Incest Wrong?
Tauriq Moosa in Big Think:
In my time teaching students about making choices, especially moral ones, based on sound reasoning and evidence, we often range into areas many have not thoroughly considered. After all, everything deserves scrutiny if we are to be fairly sure an idea (or belief) is worth pursuing, defending and so on. If this idea is worth our support, it will pass tests of reasonable scrutiny; if it does not, it either means we must strengthen the idea by addressing its failings or discard it altogether. For example, there is no good reason to justify the oppression of gay people or women – though there are plenty of reasons people do. Thus because there are no good arguments to support oppressing gay people, the idea should be discarded and indeed opposed where it arises. In an effort to battle bad ideas, we should scrutinise (or at least be willing to scrutinise) every view, belief and idea we have.
Nothing is sacred in my class (indeed, we’ve debated the merits of sanctity itself). We engage with questions that focus on real-life matters, which tend to evoke knee-jerk reactions of dismissal and/or disgust.
With this in mind, my students asked whether incest or necrophilia is wrong. Since in many countries, both of these are automatically crimes, I think it’s important to consider what arguments there are for considering these as automatically wrong. However, just because something is right or wrong does not mean that the law follows suit. Something can be legal and be wrong by a moral standard, and vice versa. Here we are mainly considering the morality of these two supposedly taboo types of sexual conduct. Are they, by definition, wrong?
Tariq also looks at whether necrophilia is wrong.
Posted by Robin Varghese at 02:53 PM | Permalink
Comments
It's a taboo because genetic diseases are much more likely in children coming from incestuous relationships, quite simple to understand.
"Secondly, people claim that incest creates ‘deformed’ children. This is not entirely true. There is a greater risk of various handicaps, true, due to a closer sharing of genetics. But there is a danger in every form of child creation that the child might be handicapped. There might be a difference in degree of risk in incestuous sex acts but certainly not in kind. "
Uh, oh. "Big Think"? Rather, poor think.
The likelihood of a car accident after downing 12 beers is not different in kind, but in degree, either. But in both cases the degree is what counts.
The pharaos of ancient Egypt practiced incest for religious reasons (can't dilute the divine blood). Their mummified bodies are a testament to the genetic problems that very quickly resulted.
Posted by: Klausi | Dec 30, 2011 6:10:11 PM
I don't think its taboo because of genetic mutations but rather our modern intuition finds it gross. Talk of deformed children is only a rationalization of the immediate sense of disgust.
Posted by: chris | Dec 30, 2011 7:20:20 PM
When experts disagree on the same set of facts, we call in the jury, for good reason.
Generally, consenting adults can do what they want to in their own private bedrooms. See LAWRENCE V. TEXAS 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
Posted by: Dredd | Dec 30, 2011 7:26:29 PM
at least with necrophilia you need not worry about a woman claiming a headache. Best advice, though; don't wait too long to have sex with a dead babe.
Posted by: stroker | Dec 30, 2011 9:31:01 PM
How are deformed children merely a rationalization? They are a genetic fact. In a sense, the original article is another example that commenting on social science with zero understanding of natural science can go very wrong.
Without producing children in this case, I agree that consenting adults should be able yo do what they want.
Posted by: Klausi | Dec 30, 2011 9:44:20 PM
Klausi,
When asked, "why is incest wrong?" people don't reason through the genetic explanation, instead, they'll immediately think its gross and therefore wrong.
Even if the genetic problems were corrected, the majority would find it still gross (wrong) -legal or not.
Posted by: chris | Dec 30, 2011 10:09:35 PM
Yes, I agree.
There are 2 issues: why do most people find it wrong - a feeling of disgust. They don't understand genetics. But, maybe the feelings evolutionarily developed for genetic reasons, to avoid the associated problems?
Issue 2 - should it be outlawed/discouraged? Yes, and the reason is genetics. I don't think Mr. Moosa understood that.
Posted by: Klausi | Dec 30, 2011 11:16:54 PM
If incest is wrong due to genetics, (presupposing the consensual couple want to have children), then parents who smoke, have genetic diseases, are alcoholics, are drug addicts shouldn't have children either as the risk of birthing an unhealthy baby is high.
Posted by: Wilton Said... | Dec 30, 2011 11:35:00 PM
@Klausi
You said: "Issue 2 - should it be outlawed/discouraged? Yes, and the reason is genetics. I don't think Mr. Moosa understood that."
I discussed this with a few physicians before writing and consulted some genetics books before. Any mistakes or shortcomings are therefore on my part. My apologies if I slacked off on the hard science. If you could say where I've gone wrong on the science, that would be appreciated.
However, you've only asserted that genetics must be a reason but you haven't said exactly why. There's a chance of two "unrelated" people producing children with deformities based on genetics.
If you are saying we should prevent two consenting adults from having sex because they have a higher chance of producing a child with debilities based on genetics, then surely every adult ought to be screened before engaging in sexual relations? The fact is it doesn't just happen with incestuous relations but non-incestuous ones, too (perhaps my science is wrong here?). If we then ONLY target incestuous couples with this law, based only on genetics as you keep asserting, we are promoting a double-standard, since the reasoning applies equally to NON-related adults.
I am not against this, I am merely outlining where consistency takes us.
I appreciate this comment: "Uh, oh. "Big Think"? Rather, poor think.
The likelihood of a car accident after downing 12 beers is not different in kind, but in degree, either. But in both cases the degree is what counts."
Well, not the "poor think" part - since that's an unnecessary insult - but the part about the 12 beers.
Posted by: TM | Dec 31, 2011 5:16:02 AM
Let's just say that, in general, H Sapiens prefers exogamy, and that this preference is often (usually?) expressed as a feeling of disgust for incest. Like all traits, there is likely to be some variation.
Posted by: Mike Cope | Dec 31, 2011 9:08:11 AM
Hi TM,
Really sorry for my polemics :)
I think your argument goes wrong where it disregards a strong gradual effect, since it is not a principal difference. That's what the 12-beer-driving example is supposed to demonstrate. Car accidents also happen to sober people. Why then outlaw drunk driving?
To brush aside genetic diseases resulting from incest so nonchalantly did not strike me as a position informed by human genetics.
In principle, avoiding procreation of 2 non-related adults who carry the same genetic disease recessively makes sense. However, such cases are much rarer than with closely related parents. It's impracticable to screen every couple for 1000s of rare genetic diseases. And really has only been possible for a few decades. Simply not having kids with your brother or sister is a much easier rule for avoiding birth defects. Hence there is a ban on incest in many cultures. Only strong other factors, like keeping power in the family, or religious reasons, can override that.
My point is that there are other factors than sexual personal choice of consenting adults (which I am 100% for) here, medical/genetic factors.
Posted by: Klausi | Dec 31, 2011 9:42:55 AM
Tauriq, I actually agree with you 100% on this one. However, as Chris has pointed out, there is a fair bit of tension with your previously stated views on reproduction. You said, quote:
"Every time I pass a parent knowing they have created a child, I see nothing but double-standards, prejudice, and immorality." (3QD 2009)
But now you are saying:
(2) "we don’t condemn or restrict people with a verified increased risk of producing disabled children"
...but you do condemn these people, indeed, you have gone on record as saying that no act of procreation is justified in today's world.
The problem is this: we think that most reproduction is justifiable. Our principles include (2), which you use to bolster your argument. But you don't believe (2), which means that using (2) in support for your argument is at best highly disingenuous, at worst intellectually evasive.
If you are changing your mind about reproduction, I would like to see a public retraction.
Posted by: Nick Smyth | Dec 31, 2011 10:42:05 AM
Another thing about the genetic defects --why is this morally relevant?
Why does giving birth to genetically defective children have moral weight? What is morally repulsive about handicapped kids from incestuous families?
In an incestuous relationship, is it the handicapped children themselves that are immoral, by their very nature? Or is it that actual birth process, of bring more handicapped into the world, the immoral part?
Is the moral impulse away from incest-produced handicapped kids a utilitarian one? We just simply don't want more handicapped kids in our society? Or do we think that handicapped are inherently less happy than normal ones --so we don't increase overall unhappiness in the world?
Or is it something more abstract....that, there is something self-contradictory about a world where all attracted siblings give birth to defective kids?
What is the bridge between the existence of these handicapped kids, and the judgement that we shouldn't have more of them?
Posted by: chris | Dec 31, 2011 11:36:35 AM
Aside from the possibility of birth defects, I also have a sense that incest is something that should be avoided because of the Westermarck effect, which suggests that humans (and other animals) are to a significant degree biologically wired to be weirded out by the idea of sex with anyone we were raised with. So even if two relatives raised together think it may be a good idea at the time, there's a very good chance they aren't accurately predicting what the psychological fallout will be, because they may not realize what sort of unconscious stuff they'll be triggering. Thinking in these terms, I actually don't have the same sort of problem with the idea of close relatives who did not know each other in childhood (because of adoption, say) having sex, as long as there are good precautions against a pregnancy. Apparently it's fairly common for close biological relatives who didn't grow up together to develop an attraction if they reunite as adults.
Posted by: Jesse M. | Dec 31, 2011 11:52:24 AM
(incidentally, that second link in my previous post also has a lot of good info on the evidence for the Westermarck effect about 2/3 of the way through the article, starting in the paragraph that begins "But how persuasive is this Oedipal theory nowadays?")
Posted by: Jesse M. | Dec 31, 2011 11:56:33 AM
The genetic aspects of incest are relative to selection. Anyone who practices animal breeding is aware of this.If it works, it's called line breeding,if it doesn't it's called in breeding.
Posted by: eric | Dec 31, 2011 8:36:38 PM
Re. incest and dysgenic reproduction, it seems like we should all be fine with gay incest, and with incest with protection/birth control in general. of course, most people don't think like spock, so it's a pretty theoretical point.
Posted by: prasad | Dec 31, 2011 11:56:16 PM
How does one define incest? It's culturally relative. In the US or Europe, marrying your first cousin is considered incestuous while in South Asian Muslim society, first-cousin marriages are preferred. People who are raised in Pakistani or Indian Muslim culture even if they have known each other as children don't find it weird to marry their cousins. Marrying your brother or sister however is taboo in pretty much every culture.
Posted by: Kabir | Jan 1, 2012 12:32:17 AM
I'm qualified to speak on this not because of a background in genetics or moral philosophy, but because the culture that produced me was plagued with first cousin marriages. Although I am not the product of such a marriage, I have seen enough to know why people who either anticipate or do not rule out children should find some other way to live and prosper. Birth control doesn't always work, you know, and pregnancy should be seen as at least a remote consequence of sex. If you like Hapsburg chins, high-volume barbed wire collectors, IQs of either over 160 or under 105, Roderick Usher variants, suicides, homicides, and generalized yowling discontent -- please marry your first cousin. You'll be on the fast track to cobbling up those things in the next generation.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jan 1, 2012 1:57:32 AM
The Sun devoted no fewer than ten articles to this story...
Someone choosing to have sex with her brother might very well deny that she did so. But that aside, according to the sister she was drunk, homeless, asking to borrow money from her brother, and she does not recall consenting. She asked him to stop, he did, but they ended up having sex again. By contrast, the brother was sober and admits consenting ("we were both consenting adults"). So this rather looks like rape to me. It also seems more likely that one person would overcome the Westermarck effect than two.
TM, I'm surprised you chose this example rather than the more common incidents of siblings raised apart. But then, I think there's greater disgust when the siblings were known to have been raised together, perhaps because it suggests that if they are not inhibited from this sexual act, they might not be inhibited from sexual violence or other antisocial behaviour. There's the suggestion of dangerous pathology. And it taints the whole family, as suspicion is cast on their upbringing. By contrast, the siblings raised apart scenario is somehow more forgivable, as it doesn't suggest any kind of pathology.
Posted by: Sagredo | Jan 1, 2012 3:19:30 AM
Moose is right. If we are going to be consistent in our laws and our social approvals, we can't have laws and bullying against consensual sexual relationships between close adult relatives.
Posted by: Keith | Jan 1, 2012 11:26:08 AM
The issue of birth is the main one. The birth defects and genetic diseases which you find in children from incestuous parents are normally more severe than from non-incestuous parents because it is much more likely to have very rare genetic mutations becoming visable.
It's not just humans that have incest taboos. Lots of other mammal species, especially primates also have an incest taboo because it is better for the species if there isn't inbreeding.
Posted by: Kay | Jan 1, 2012 11:26:25 AM
My son is disabled and attends a special school where about a third of the pupils are Muslims. Here in Israel the rate of birth defects among Muslims is double that found amongst secular Jews, because Arab Muslims commonly marry their cousins. This usually occurs by arrangement, in order to preserve property and power homogineity within the clan (or Hamoullah).
There are quite a few Arab villages where 80% of the population have the same surname.
There is nothing theoretical or abstract about the mental and/or physical handicaps resulting from incestuous marriages. I see the pain in their eyes. (And no, I didn't marry a relative, my son's problem is probably unrelated to genetics).
My point is that consequences of incestuous intercouse are very real. Furthermore, even before any babies are born, intercourse between siblings occurs almost invariably as abuse forced by older children on younger children, in families that are highly dysfunctional by any standard.
Posted by: aguy109 | Jan 1, 2012 5:27:39 PM
I am really surprised about the extent to which we human beings can rationalize things we find disgusting but really have no rational reasons for!
To all those who are arguing against incest based on the high likelihood of genetic diseases of potential progeny, what if the willing incestuous couple has no intention of procreating and in fact does everything to prevent it? How much sex do people have with an eye on having children? And to complicate matters further, what if they decide that if the woman gets accidentally pregnant, they will abort?
Posted by: SV | Jan 1, 2012 8:37:16 PM
So many answers. So many people missing the obvious. Even Tauriq Moosa, the author of the original bit, appears to have missed it.
Incest is =morally= wrong due to the harm done the family.
The most likely time for incest to occur is probably in adolescence, between children likely of different ages. We can probably take care of the morality involved here by simply noting that parents have an obligation and duty to care for the best welfare of their children. The parents of siblings discovered to be engaging in sex will almost certainly be horrified at the discovery. In correcting/eliminating the behavior, it's safe to say that the children will also likely be traumatized.
But consider the case of adolescent cousins who are found to be engaging in sex. The problems in this case will be extended not to one set of parents, but to two, one member of each set of parents being brother(s) and/or sister(s). The matter of who "forced" whom would likely be first and foremost, and without regard to whether any force was involved at all, much less whether the cousins liked it.
And we can take this on to adulthood. Brothers and sisters have sex. Brothers and sisters are "found out." How do Mom and Dad feel about this? How do other brothers/sisters feel? And once found out, how do the pair having sex feel about themselves? It is not unreasonable to imagine suicide of one (or more?) parties involved - the brother? The sister? What about the father, who is so deeply hurt at the wrong done his daughter? Or might the father go so far as to kill the son for his actions that are so clearly "against God?"
It doesn't have to be all that dramatic, of course. What if brother and sister profess undying love for one another, and though unable to legally marry, embark on cohabitation. Now, it's possible that Mom and Dad will say "Good for you two!" and life will be just dandy. Not a likely outcome, however. More likely would be something along the lines of "disown-ment." At the very least, some intensely hostile feelings, conversations, actions. What will Christmas dinners be like without them? Perhaps more interesting - what will Christmas dinners be like =with= them? Grandma and Grandpa, aunts and uncles, brothers and sisters, nieces and nephews, and even (God forbid?) the children of the brother and sister?
Surely no... Surely the children will be disowned, disavowed, disinherited, if not disemboweled. And so we turn to yet another area in which dilemmas might occur: the brother and sister grow tired of one another and break up. Perhaps the sister/daughter will want to move back in with Mom and Dad? Or the brother. Will that be possible? What would life in the family after that be like? Did the brother beat the sister? Was the sister caught cheating on the brother with every dern one of her cousins?
These are the reasons why incest is =morally= wrong, and pretty much automatically so. It just doesn't much matter if they liked it, or were drunk, etc (though those in the original essay making "drunk" excuses and blaming each other does suggest how they really feel about the matter).
An additional note, concerning Muslims who marry first cousins: be careful not to mix apples and oranges here... Theirs is a different culture. If such marriages work in their cultures, then it's pretty likely that such wouldn't be defined as incest under their laws, in their countries. Muslims in Israel or elsewhere =may= have the problem of their cultural practices being deemed illegal in their new host country, but that's a different matter. Or is it?
If the legal details at this webpage are correct, then the whole matter of whether first cousins are committing incest may be moot: http://www.cousincouples.com/?page=facts
In sum: genetics, repugnance and "it ain't natural" arguments have nothing to do with it. Incest is =morally= wrong first and foremost, for the harm it can do to the family or families, and for the harm those families may do the pair committing incest. (I haven't even mentioned the possibilities for great problems in the case of sex between parent and child.)
How has this been missed by everyone so far?
Posted by: Ashley | Jan 2, 2012 6:00:47 AM
Elatia, I think you should apologize for your statement "plagued with first cousin marriages" as it is insulting to those cultures where first cousin marriages are practiced and legal. I wonder what your opinion is about cultures where children are born not knowing who their father is, where abortion, AIDS (and I could go on) are rampant.
Posted by: Raza | Jan 3, 2012 1:56:13 PM
Yes, obviously. Next question?
Posted by: reader | Jan 3, 2012 3:52:13 PM
The next question that Mr. Tauriq Moosa, resident intellectual, is working on "Is Cannibalism Wrong"? And why not? Will it not be economically better to harvest your own meat for free, morally better than killing other animals and clinically free from mad cow and other diseases.
Posted by: Raza | Jan 3, 2012 6:09:22 PM
Is consenting adult brother-brother incest more or less morally icky than sister-brother incest?
Posted by: Sagredo | Jan 3, 2012 6:58:38 PM
Raza, don't get loaded for bear too quickly. In the American South, where my family come from, first cousin marriages were quite the thing. You may be sure I speak whereof I know. I understand it's a done thing in cultures I have no relatives in, too. My experience, which is different from your experience, tells me it's a very bad idea that sets property consolidation and clannishness above optimal child health -- the latter being where true family welfare is located. Sorry if my thinking insults you -- the furthest thing from my mind to do. I am not interested to pursue, comparatively, contemporary Western folkways that you shun, so I will decline your invitation to discuss them.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jan 3, 2012 8:36:34 PM
Elatia, I did not want to get into the knitty gritty of what you wrote, hoping you would get my point, but your statement "If you like Hapsburg chins, high-volume barbed wire collectors, IQs of either over 160 or under 105, Roderick Usher variants, suicides, homicides, and generalized yowling discontent -- please marry your first cousin" was insensitive to those who may be in this situation. You can be for or against incest and make your point without being crude. The symptoms and situations you describe can be due to any number of reasons including ones you benignly package as "contemporary Western folkways" which in your opinion are for "optimal child health" (is that your characterization of abortion too?) and "true family welfare".
Posted by: Raza | Jan 3, 2012 9:50:38 PM
Raza, if I am disapproving of an out-group, I should be moderate in my speech, or better still, not disapprove for the record at all. If I am speaking with the voice of experience of an in-group, then I am going to call it like I see it. Remember, I am not speaking of your in-group but of my own. There are Southerners who have precisely my family background who call exogamy "saving the family." As in, "My father, the only surviving son among nine children who died before reaching adulthood, actually saved the family by marrying my mother, a native of North Dakota." Also, nowhere did I suggest that contemporary Western folkways should be singled out for putting children, and their welfare, first. In fact they don't. Now, I have said I'm sorry to rub up against you the wrong way. All I have to say at this point is, Happy New Year.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Jan 3, 2012 10:40:01 PM
Well, the Hapsburg chin sure was due to inbreeding, wasn't it?
Youtube under the keywords "Amish genetic disease" has some interesting material about the genetic consequences of having children with relatives. Muuuch worse than a funny looking chin.
Posted by: Klausi | Jan 4, 2012 12:08:27 AM
You could also google Jewish genetic diseases for the downside of inbreeding. If this occurs in fairly large groups, imagine how much worse it would be in cases of incest. As far as same-sex incest, I'm sure legislation is being prepared somewhere to please the same sex incest community. Lastly, regarding bestiality, consent is required. Neigh means neigh.
Posted by: reader | Jan 4, 2012 9:50:25 AM
Post a comment