liberalchick:
Apples and oranges. One is a sexual gratification causing injury to a living animal. The other is killing an animal for survival. One is rape the other is humans being part of a food chain. Ethical vegetarians/vegans might argue killing animals is inhumane but at least most people do it for survival.

fieryy:


Offsprings with close relatives increases the risk of genetic and birth defects by significant amount in just one family. That's the reason why it's illegal in most countries.

The problem of kids being disabled might bkt be a moral problem, but you having a relationship with someone knowing the risks and implications that come with it, is a moral one.

But yes not every sexual relationship leads to pregnancy BUT every sexual relationship CAN lead to one.

AgentOfAllah:


I doubt every sexual relationship can lead to pregnancy. Homosexual relationships can't!

fieryy:


Offsprings with close relatives increases the risk of genetic and birth defects by significant amount in just one family. That's the reason why it's illegal in most countries.

The problem of kids being disabled might bkt be a moral problem, but you having a relationship with someone knowing the risks and implications that come with it, is a moral one.

But yes not every sexual relationship leads to pregnancy BUT every sexual relationship CAN lead to one.

Olorunnim:
It's not moral to have such child when you know the implications of your actions but people still do

AgentOfAllah:


On what basis do you claim that most meat eaters eat it for survival? Yes, people 'eat' for survival, but there is a panoply of cheaply and readily available food options most people could survive on other than animal meat.

johnydon22:
True

If the implication is a moral one.

This is how something works for a philosophical problem.

If you posit a claim
You establish the logical train of thought behind it.



This is the implication:
Your argument is built around the morality of a Union that is likely to create a defective child

Primary premise: Being in a union that will produce a defective child is immoral

Secondary premise: This Daughter and father have a Union where they have taken measures that make pregnancy impossible - Is it still immoral?

Secondary premise 2: This two unrelated couple are AS genotype, is their sexual relationship therefore immoral?

You see? Your premise didn't really fault the act of incest, it faults the consequence hence when you eliminate this consequence, can you still say it is immoral? When this consequence is observed in a non-incestous relationship, is it still immoral?

BuhBye:
Power Dynamics. A parent falling in love with their child and essentially grooming them from an early age to see the parent as a lover.

CoolUsername:
Depends.

Cousin-on-cousin relationships have a very low chance of causing deformities as long as it doesn't repeat itself over successive generations. So while it may be disgusting depending on how close the families are. I don't think it is morally wrong. A lot cultures don't even consider this incest.

Sibling-on-sibling incest has a very high chance of causing genetic deformities. Close relatives produce pheromones to kill sexual attraction from family members. Meaning that the stigma is pretty much hardwired into our biology. My verdict is that it is high-risk, irresponsible, and deviant behaviour and therefore, morally wrong. A complete no-no

Parent-child incest is extremely immoral. It has all the negatives of the other types of incest plus the added factor of a major power imbalance, where a patent can from an impressionable child for sex.

tartar9:
Well,if you think homosexuality isnt wrong and support gay rights then incest or bestiality shouldn't be wrong either.Live and let live,isnt it

johnydon22:


I have two problems with this, say questions.

Your verdict condemns the act based on possible consequence it promises.

Now take these instances;

1. Is it then morally wrong for an AS genotype individual to have sex someone of likewise genotype?

johnydon22:

2. In the absence of possibility of pregnancy, is incest then right?

johnydon22:

And if this child wasn't groomed in this sense? Simply developed a form of sexual attraction for the parent in question like every normal person having lustful feelings. Would it be wrong still?

fieryy:
Oh my gosh, seriously?
Do you want your kids to be disabled?!

MrPresident1:


Incest may allow recessive deleterious traits to express themselves.

Why place a burden on anyone? On the person in whom the trait is expressed and on the people who will be forced to take care of the person?

This is morally wrong.

CoolUsername:


Yes! It will irresponsible and immoral to engage in a long term sexual relationship with another sickle cell carrier with full knowledge of your status without taking extra precautions to prevent pregnancy.

No, because of the power imbalances inherent in family dynamics between parents and children and also between siblings.

Because there are literally billions of other potential mates for a given individual, to break the preventative evolutionary mechanisms to engage in such risky behaviour constitutes immoral behaviour. Also, because it is frowned upon in most cultures.

Is that even possible to determine?

If an 18 year old suddenly decides to start screwing their parent that idea probably didn't pop into their head at 18 and it would be impossible to determine exactly when and how it popped up.

Now let's remember that these feelings themselves, while disgusting to me, aren't inherently immoral but rather, acting upon them cause all the issues.

tjmc:



Homosexuality is practiced by consenting adults

Incest is morally and anyway you see it WRONG.

Why would you have a carnal knowledge of someone who is not mentally, physically and emotionally mature or ready for se.

If you see nothing wrong with incest, then bring your daughter below 16 so guys who are older(24-40yrs) would have carnal knowledge of her

johnydon22:
I didn't say long term relationship, I said "Have sex"

johnydon22:

You are arguing now that sex can't be consensual between two individuals with apparent social disparity?

johnydon22:

Something been frowned upon in many cultures doesn't necessarily make it wrong, surely?

Or are you arguing that it does?

johnydon22:

Whether you can determine it isn't the problem, moreover you can't determine I'm not being blackmailed to date my girlfriend right now.

johnydon22:

By the way, whether it can be determined isn't the question here, the question first assumes a child developed a form of sexual attraction for a parent (which by the way is possible) and now asks you if given your premise, this would still be immoral?

johnydon22:
You are arguing now that sex can't be consensual between two individuals with apparent social disparity?

Evangkatsoulis:


So what is the probably that a child got from incest will develop a 'deletertious' trait? Or what is the probability that the siblings have the same defective recessive gene?

CoolUsername:

A one-off sexual encounter with necessary precautions is almost totally risk-free. So that wont be a problem.

Not in general society. But when in any insulated system such as the workplace (dating the boss), school (dating the teacher), or a family it becomes a problem.

Basically. If it's frowned upon in most places then it's generally considered immoral. Whether the justification is logical or not the fact remains.

I think it is immoral to raise a child for sex. It's simple cause and effect, what are the odds that you raise a child and the child grows up to be into you and you so happen to be into the them? It sounds like grooming no matter how I look at it.

In this case, I'll just believe the child is a victim of pedophilic grooming if the adult reciprocates.

AgentOfAllah:

I was wondering the same. So a boss cannot develop consensual relation with their subordinates and a rich person can only be in a relationship with someone in their social class. The immoral crap we get away with in society, eh!?

johnydon22:
So, let's see how this moral question can be effectively treated.

Is incest morally wrong?

If Yes.

Why is it morally wrong?

If, No.

Why?

MrPresident1:

A higher probability than if the child is not from Incest.

Evangkatsoulis:

lol how much higher? Show some math bro.

LordReed:
The basis of my morality is well being, for myself and then for the rest of humanity. So I will look at the issue from that stand point. The act itself is sexual relations between members of a nuclear family, what harm does sexual relations cause? Aside from spread of disease there is no specific harm that this causes. If on the other hand these incestuous sexual relationships are geared toward producing offspring then a lot of harm is being perpetuated, to the offspring primarily and potentially to the larger society. In other words incestuous sexual relationships are not morally wrong but offspring of incestuous sexual relationships are a moral blight.

MrPresident1:


You people should be thinking before you talk. So if your daughter fancies you and you fancy her, as long as relations with her will not produce offspring, you will go ahead
with her?

Anyway, you have answered your own question, your morality is firstly to yourself alone wether offensive or not to society.