Is it immoral to have incest or animal sex?

[Lasse K. Lien]

Where the people know they are related, I think it would have to be a case by case basis. In general, I think consenting adults who hold the highest value for each other could be moral. A man wanting to bang his 14-year-old daughter, maybe not so moral.

- Would this be one of the cases of consenting adults we could consider an exception?

"Here is the heartwarming story of 72-year-old Pearl Carter, her lover and grandson Phil Bailey, and the $54,000 surrogate mother they have impregnated. Sorry, did I say heartwarming? I meant, oh my god get it out of my head."

Indiana grandmother having baby with her grandson

[intellectualammo]

On the topic of incest, two of my plays deal with it, in case anyone is interested.  Both are based on the Greek myths, but told in my own way.  

 

Byblis and Caunus

 

Myrrha and Cinyras

 

I think incest should be legal.  The government should stay out of it, as long as it's consensual.  The legality of incest varies between states and countries. As does age of consent laws and age-exemption laws.

 

Morally, I think it's contextual on whether or not it's right or wrong.  

Edited September 24, 2013 by intellectualammo

[StrictlyLogical]

Finally someone who mentioned "context".  The question "is X or Y immoral" is ill-posed if X and Y are not in and of themselves absolutely determinative of the answer.  It is like asking "Is eating something red healthy or unhealthy?".  Redness "as such" is not what is healthy or unhealthy, nor is the redness of a thing absolutely indicative of "unheathyness".

 

In the OP I think X and Y are rare, not something I would do (by choice), can be caused by or connected with psychological issues, but in and of themselves simply cannot be judged absolutely as moral or immoral.  "Context" plays its ever important role.

 

I suspect WHAT makes X and Y immoral in many contexts are a combination of factors.

Edited September 24, 2013 by StrictlyLogical

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Bestiality is necessarily immoral because it's a metaphysical negation of the mind; just like racism and homophobia.

Incest could only be moral between consenting adults who are truly in love with each other (not likely); all else is a negation of ones own worth, just like sleeping with someone simply because one can (or bestiality) and thusly immoral.

[JASKN]

Bestiality is necessarily immoral because it's a metaphysical negation of the mind; just like racism and homophobia.

Incest could only be moral between consenting adults who are truly in love with each other (not likely); all else is a negation of ones own worth, just like sleeping with someone simply because one can (or bestiality) and thusly immoral.

This is a whole lot of posit and a whole lot of not it.

Let's not argue the animal thing because, even though your logical leap to "negating the mind" isn't shown, I can't really imagine a scenario where it would be a good thing to do so.

So, why is incest without love a "negation of one's worth," and why is the implied sex without love the same thing as "sleeping with someone simply because one can"?

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Love is a response to values; not the source of such values (whatever they may be). A man who knows his own worth will only be attracted to worthwhile [to him] people.

Others sometimes pursue sex, not as an expression of such value, but as a desperate attempt to somehow acquire it.

Refer to danconia's speech on sex in atlas shrugged. Then picture every middle aged woman whos terrified of solitude and every teenage boy whos mortified by virginity; this is what i mean by "loveless sex" and "sex simply because one can".

Now either sex is prompted by such value or by a lack thereof, the latter being deeply immoral.

So if we assume that for someone to fall in love with a relative is relatively rare, the general immorality of incest (in most cases) follows.

---

The same also applies to bestiality, to boot.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

I honestly don't know what to say about the grandmother and her descendant, except that i wonder which values they hold most dearly.

A fascinating examination of their philosophical premises, by way of autopsy, is in order.

[intellectualammo]

I thought this was interesting to listen to, on Philosophy in Action, 15minutes on incest:

 

http://www.philosophyinaction.com/archive/2013-03-03-Q4.html

 

I don't think consensual incest is inherently immoral, and it should not be outlawed.  Though the relationship should be legal, not all are moral, just like other relationships.  For example:  Are you wanting to screw your sister or daughter because they have nice figures, or is it because you are in love with them, not just in lust with them, etc.

Edited September 25, 2013 by intellectualammo

[Harrison Danneskjold]

You're right; incest between consenting adults should be legal. Even incestuous marriage.

Some may even be moral. But i doubt such cases are even remotely common.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

It isn't inherently wrong either; its immorality stems from its relation to multiple other factors.

[JASKN]

Now either sex is prompted by such value or by a lack thereof, the latter being deeply immoral.

Here we are again trying to figure out why it's either love or nothing at all. What about people who have sex neither out of desperation, nor with people they are very in love with? What about those who sleep with others who are just decent people and very attractive? What about well-adjusted adults who wish to have multiple or many sexual partners? Are they "deeply immoral" also? If so, why? If not, why not?

[Dormin111]

Here we are again trying to figure out why it's either love or nothing at all. What about people who have sex neither out of desperation, nor with people they are very in love with? What about those who sleep with others who are just decent people and very attractive? What about well-adjusted adults who wish to have multiple or many sexual partners? Are they "deeply immoral" also? If so, why? If not, why not?

 

 

I completely agree, see this thread: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=25153

 

I have yet to see anyone make the fundamental argument as to why sex must necessarily be a grand act that expresses one's highest values. I consider Rand's views to be sadly regressive and emblematic of outdated socially conservative attitudes. 

[Leonid]

It would seem to be that it is against man's nature to have intercourse with animals, but is it immoral? And what about with a family member?

With animals-it's not immoral, just disgusting. It's like to ask is it immoral to eat vomit? As for family members-no, it's not immoral. But a person who sleeps with his mother obviously has deep psychological problems.

[StrictlyLogical]

With animals-it's not immoral, just disgusting. It's like to ask is it immoral to eat vomit? As for family members-no, it's not immoral. But a person who sleeps with his mother obviously has deep psychological problems.

 

I agree.

 

Immorality could stem from knowing and ignoring health concerns surrounding the act with a particular "animal" (or bit of vomit) but that specific health risk is independent of the act itself generally.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

For starters, there's nothing wrong with promiscuity as such. So long as each partner is selected morally and with everyone else's consent [you're honest about what you intend] it's just as moral as monogamous love.

As for sleeping with people on the basis of their appearance, alone, that would be an expression of a lingering mind-body dichotomy.

If you wouldn't agree to have sex with someone you've never seen before then you shouldn't with someone you haven't spoken to before.

[intellectualammo]

In regards to beastiality, the legality of it, it should be legal, animals don't have rights.   I know it's around the web now, like at Zootube365, but why girls want doggie dick or horse cock, I don't know.  

What do people love about their pets anyways?  I'm not a pet lover.  "Oh, Fido, the way you barked and scared off that guy, really just does it for me.  Here let me fellate you"  Can anyone think of how it could be moral from an Objectivitist perspective?  But, regardless, it should be legal.   

[Spiral Architect]

I completely agree, see this thread: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=25153

 

I have yet to see anyone make the fundamental argument as to why sex must necessarily be a grand act that expresses one's highest values. I consider Rand's views to be sadly regressive and emblematic of outdated socially conservative attitudes. 

 

I honestly don’t get how you can take her view of sex, something which she vividly demonstrates in her novels, and consign it to the dust bin of the traditional/conservative “Wait until marriage, it is a necessary biological function that is designed to propagate the race so hide the human body” view point.

[Devil's Advocate]

It would seem to be that it is against man's nature to have intercourse with animals, but is it immoral? And what about with a family member?

The immorality of any action depends on injury, for the same reason criminality does; no harm, no foul.

 

With regard to animals, I consider it way too convenient for righted sapiens to do as it pleases them with other living creatures.  Leveraging a right in a way that exploits loopholes, such that the ability to aggress is justified unilaterally, undermines the ethical foundation that a right to life depends on.  I think the issue of coercion is appropriate to consider, even for necessary actions like acquiring food; hunger ought to be balanced with compassion.  I doubt a rationally sincere case can be made for abuse... at least I have yet to see one...

 

With regard to family members, and outside the issue of coercion, the morality of sex is more difficult to address.  Can an Objectivist support the actions of consenting adults and limit those actions to unrelated adults?  Is one only allowed to contract with members of another family??  I believe there are some significant genetic effects to consider, and those may be sufficient to warrant identifying the act as immoral on the basis of creating the likelihood of injury to ones progeny... but then is a rationally selfish Objectivist really concerned about the rights of those yet to be delivered?

 

There's enough injury to animals, and risk of injury to family members, to warrant identifying both actions immoral, IMHO.

[thenelli01]

 I believe there are some significant genetic effects to consider, and those may be sufficient to warrant identifying the act as immoral on the basis of creating the likelihood of injury to ones progeny... but then is a rationally selfish Objectivist really concerned about the rights of those yet to be delivered?

 

...risk of injury to family members, to warrant identifying both actions immoral, IMHO.

 

This topic is about the morality of incest, not the morality of relatives having children.

[Devil's Advocate]

This topic is about the morality of incest, not the morality of relatives having children.

 

Incest is a sexual action, and pregnancy is one consequence of that action.  Is it appropriate to investigate the morality of any action without considering the consequences of that action??

[Devil's Advocate]

If it brings pleasure and isn't irrational, it's moral.

"I am profoundly opposed to the philosophy of hedonism. Hedonism is the doctrine which holds that the good is whatever gives you pleasure and, therefore, pleasure is the standard of morality. Objectivism holds that the good must be defined by a rational standard of value, that pleasure is not a first cause, but only a consequence, that only the pleasure which proceeds from a rational value judgment can be regarded as moral, that pleasure, as such, is not a guide to action nor a standard of morality." ~ 1964 Playboy Interview With Ayn Rand

Actions that are proper to Man are moral, and not all those actions are pleasurable, e.g., having surgery is rational and painful, yet moral nonetheless.

[thenelli01]

Incest is a sexual action, and pregnancy is one consequence of that action.  Is it appropriate to investigate the morality of any action without considering the consequences of that action??

 

The action is the joining of sperm and egg, and the consequence is pregnancy.

 

Your position is that incest is immoral because it can cause risk of injury to offspring. Incest doesn't imply the intent to have children, nor does it imply that it is a necessary consequence. In modern times, we have condoms, birth control, etc. which prevent the cause of pregnancy. If they fail, we have plan b, abortions, etc.

 

Incest also doesn't imply sexual relations between a male and a female. Incest can be between two individuals of the same sex where pregnancy is not possible.

Edited September 26, 2013 by thenelli01

[Eiuol]

  Is it appropriate to investigate the morality of any action without considering the consequences of that action??

Are you suggesting that sex is only moral if one is prepared for the possibility of pregnancy? If not, then you already agree that incest is not inherently immoral, it's just a matter of the usual questions of if sex would be moral. Plus, an incestuous baby is extremely unlikely to be deformed anyway.

[Devil's Advocate]

The action is the joining of sperm and egg, and the consequence is pregnancy.

 

Your position is that incest is immoral because it can cause risk of injury to offspring. Incest doesn't imply the intent to have children, nor does it imply that it is a necessary consequence. In modern times, we have condoms, birth control, etc. which prevent the cause of pregnancy. If they fail, we have plan b, abortions, etc.

 

Incest also doesn't imply sexual relations between a male and a female. Incest can be between two individuals of the same sex where pregnancy is not possible.

 

Nor does pregnancy imply an intent to have children, but it happens.  And relying on abortion to handle mistakes appears to make the ethical evaluation of the former (incest) dependent on the latter (abortion), which essentially rephrases the OP to, is incest immoral if abortion is moral?  As to instances of homosexual incest, I believe the same ethical dependency occurs in the form of, is incest immoral if homosexuality is moral?

 

My position favors the morality of consensual actions between adults, to the degree that the consequences of those actions validate, rather than refute the initial moral premise.  I'm not aware of any uniform Objectivist position on abortion or homosexuality that resolves these issues as ethical givens.

 

Enlighten me...

[JASKN]

Actions that are proper to Man are moral, and not all those actions are pleasurable, e.g., having surgery is rational and painful, yet moral nonetheless.

Notice how she specifies that pleasure as the standard is immoral, not pleasure itself. The person you quoted actually agrees with Rand on this.

Pleasure will always be pleasurable, it just might not be good to seek at times, depending on your life's scenario, all things considered.