Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is it immoral to have incest or animal sex?

Rate this topic


JacobGalt

Recommended Posts

I'm not aware of any uniform Objectivist position on abortion or homosexuality that resolves these issues as ethical givens.

Enlighten me...

Why not start with a search on this forum for threads with these topics? The basic argument for abortion is that the woman who's hosting the child comes first. The basic argument for homosexuality is that there's nothing wrong with it. There's a homo thread that is the forum's longest at something like 55 pages.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

I'm suggesting that the resolution of moral evaluations depends on the identification and resolution of known consequences; of intent and outcome; not intent alone.  The likelihood of negative outcomes, where those outcomes are known to exist, cannot be excluded without producing a degraded morality that's mostly good, but sometimes bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not start with a search on this forum for threads with these topics? The basic argument for abortion is that the woman who's hosting the child comes first. The basic argument for homosexuality is that there's nothing wrong with it. There's a homo thread that is the forum's longest at something like 55 pages.

 Was the "homo thread" only populated with advocates, i.e., 55 pages of a uniform Objectivist response?

 

Not trying to be snarky; just suggesting that these issues appear to me to remain contentious even amongst Objectivists in this forum.

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm suggesting that the resolution of moral evaluations depends on the identification and resolution of known consequences; of intent and outcome; not intent alone.  The likelihood of negative outcomes, where those outcomes are known to exist, cannot be excluded without producing a degraded morality that's mostly good, but sometimes bad.

 

Like I said in my previous post. Pregnancy is not a necessary consequence of sex. Sex is not the cause of pregnancy. The unity of sperm and egg is. It is not a likely outcome with the use of contraception, and if it does occur despite the overwhelming odds that it won't, there is Plan B or if necessary, abortion, which are both perfectly moral under Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was the "homo thread" only populated with advocates, i.e., 55 pages of a uniform Objectivist response?

Not trying to be snarky; just suggesting that these issues appear to me to remain contentious even amongst Objectivists in this forum.

The reason I suggested you search for these exhaustively debated topics is because there isn't as much of a consensus as with, say, metaphysics, as implied by those 55 pages. "Old" Objectivists usually thought homosexuality was immoral, whereas new ones the opposite.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm suggesting that the resolution of moral evaluations depends on the identification and resolution of known consequences; of intent and outcome; not intent alone. The likelihood of negative outcomes, where those outcomes are known to exist, cannot be excluded without producing a degraded morality that's mostly good, but sometimes bad.

No one here is going to disagree with you about this. If abortions weren't safely possible, that would change the morality of some sexual relations, as AIDS did for gays in the 80s.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason I suggested you search for these exhaustively debated topics is because there isn't as much of a consensus as with, say, metaphysics, as implied by those 55 pages. "Old" Objectivists usually thought homosexuality was immoral, whereas new ones the opposite.

Point taken, thank you.

For clarity, my position has more to do with consistency validating truth, rather than rehashing arguments for or against abortion or homosexuality.  If incest is morally good, one would think it would attract the kind of following the position life is good does, on the basis that the consequences of actions that advocate life validate the advocacy.  I'm unpersuaded that moral goods can produce mixed results, or that intent alone divorces one from the consequences (however unintended) of ones deliberate actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confused, because I addressed the consequences of sex in causing pregnancy already in my first and subsequent posts, but you keep claiming that someone is trying to persuade you that the consequences of an action are irrelevant (?). Is your argument that contraception and Plan B/abortion are ineffective at preventing or resolving pregnancy? Or that they are immoral under Objectivism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confused, because I addressed the consequences of sex in causing pregnancy already in my first and subsequent posts, but you keep claiming that someone is trying to persuade you that the consequences of an action are irrelevant (?). Is your argument that contraception and Plan B/abortion are ineffective at preventing or resolving pregnancy? Or that they are immoral under Objectivism?

I believe that contraception is effective (perhaps 95% effective*) at preventing pregnancy, and abortion is effective (perhaps 95% to 98% effective**) at preventing child support.  I also agree with Ayn Rand's position that, "An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn)." ~ ARL

 

However in terms of moral certainty, is a 95% success rate (meaning a 5% failure) proper?  One can say with certainty that life is good because there aren't any zombies around to rebut.  Consanguinity does exist however, and accounts for 5% to 50% (depending on the relationship***) of serious disease or malformation being expressed in the progeny of incestuous relationships.  One can agree that "the living take precedence over the not-yet-living", but if 5% of the not-yet-living survive to question the moral certainty of their incestuous parents, are they to respond by trying to eliminate them more effectively??

 

As I stated in my initial post, I believe the morality of incest is more difficult to address, but I remain unpersuaded by the advocacy of a morality that is only good 95% of the time; particularly when inheritance is an issue most Objectivists agree with.

--

*http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-Unintended-Pregnancy-US.html

**http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/first_trimester.html

***http://www.healthcentral.com/encyclopedia/408/219.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

I never said anything about reproduction, or marriage. See the thread I posted for more details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I stated in my initial post, I believe the morality of incest is more difficult to address, but I remain unpersuaded by the advocacy of a morality that is only good 95% of the time; particularly when inheritance is an issue most Objectivists agree with.

 

Let's say there is a non-related couple who love each other and plan to get married. They take a genetics test and find out that there is a good chance (let's say 20 percent) that any child they have together will have some sort of serious genetic defect. Is your position that it's immoral for them to get married and have sex? Would it be immoral for them to try to have a child? What if they decided not to have children, and used some type of birth control?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's say there is a non-related couple who love each other and plan to get married. They take a genetics test and find out that there is a good chance (let's say 20 percent) that any child they have together will have some sort of serious genetic defect. Is your position that it's immoral for them to get married and have sex? Would it be immoral for them to try to have a child? What if they decided not to have children, and used some type of birth control?

Thank you for a very good question.

 

In this case, my argument against incest based on a small, but real chance of producing a child with a serious disease or malformation, should lead me to assert that all similar cases would be immoral as well, but I cannot.  There appears to me a kind of assumed risk involved (about 5%) that cannot be avoided or condemned.  Depending on the relationship, that risk can increase (to 50%), but again there would be similar non-incestuous relationships facing even greater odds.  It's not plausible to me that any couple would choose to have sex for the purpose of producing a child with a serious defect, so the question falls to if there is a rational assumption of risk that is morally acceptable, and if so, then incestuous couples cannot be excluded.

 

An immoral act necessarily involves injury (something bad) to oneself, or to another.  If the risk of injury to a potential other (embryo), that may be miscarried under the best circumstances, was immoral, the act of sex would be immoral in any case... and I don't want to go there.  I may come back to this later, but for now I'll fall back to the issue of coercion as being the only element relevant to the moral evaluation of ones interactions with others.

--

edit:  In terms of a moral right to life, there can't be an absolute good because there's no existent for absolute life.  Self-determination appears to me the only absolute good to be had for volitional mortals; and coercion bad, but sometimes necessary.  My prior comments referring to moral goods producing mixed results appears a likely result, and may ethically validate an assumption of risk to oneself or others, but I remain unsatisfied with this conclusion.  Any thoughts would be appreciated...

--

"I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." ~ Robert A. Heinlein

Edited by Devil's Advocate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intellectual ammo:

Bestiality should be legal because, exactly as you pointed out, animals have no rights. It's absolutely immoral.

Look at it this way. Is it moral to deliberately mutilate or lobotomize yourself?

What if you only fantasize about such, with no intention of acting on it? What does that say about your psyche?

Bestiality is immoral, not because of the act itself, but by extension of its philosophical prerequisites. It violates nobodys rights (unless someone else owns the animal) but it is objectively wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Devils advocate: there is a standard oist take on both abortion and homosexuality; both should be legal.

Fetuses have no rights because, like animals, they have no minds. While this may be debatable in the final trimester, when they actually begin to react to stimuli and kick of their own volition, before that point they have the same legal standing as any woman's fingernails or hair.

Abortion is also completely moral if done early in the pregnancy for rationally selfish reasons.

Homosexuality (including marriage) must also be legal because, obviously, it violates no rights.

Now ayn rand called it highly immoral because she didn't think it could actually be a response to ones most cherished values (ie love). Most objectivists today, myself included, think otherwise.

But her argument against homosexuality seems amazingly apt towards incest (which is where I come in).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that contraception is effective (perhaps 95% effective*) at preventing pregnancy, and abortion is effective (perhaps 95% to 98% effective**) at preventing child support.  I also agree with Ayn Rand's position that, "An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn)." ~ ARL

 

However in terms of moral certainty, is a 95% success rate (meaning a 5% failure) proper?  One can say with certainty that life is good because there aren't any zombies around to rebut.  Consanguinity does exist however, and accounts for 5% to 50% (depending on the relationship***) of serious disease or malformation being expressed in the progeny of incestuous relationships.  One can agree that "the living take precedence over the not-yet-living", but if 5% of the not-yet-living survive to question the moral certainty of their incestuous parents, are they to respond by trying to eliminate them more effectively??

 

As I stated in my initial post, I believe the morality of incest is more difficult to address, but I remain unpersuaded by the advocacy of a morality that is only good 95% of the time; particularly when inheritance is an issue most Objectivists agree with.

--

*http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-Unintended-Pregnancy-US.html

**http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/first_trimester.html

***http://www.healthcentral.com/encyclopedia/408/219.html

That 5% risk wouldn't apply to the situation that contraception didn't work, Plan B didn't work, and abortion didn't work. It would be much less than that.

 

I'm not really understanding the principle here. Is it immoral for humans to engage in any activity when there is even the slightest risk that something bad might happen? Is it immoral, therefore, for a healthy 25 year old adult (no health problems) to go on a roller coaster because there is a risk that he may get injured or the ride might malfunction and he could die? What about sports? What about flying on airplanes? It seems like you are setting up man to never engage in almost any activity, because there is a risk that something may go wrong.

 

My principle is that so long as man makes himself aware of the potential risks, rationally decides that the action is worth the risk (i.e. in his rational self interest), and takes the necessary/possible precautions to prevent the negative consequence(s), it is moral. 

Edited by thenelli01
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My principle is that so long as man makes himself aware of the potential risks, rationally decides that the action is worth the risk (i.e. in his rational self interest), and takes the necessary/possible precautions to prevent the negative consequence(s), it is moral. 

I think I'm mostly in agreement with you at this point - see my last post #62

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moreover, the possibility of procreation can't be the basis of whether a relationship is right or wrong.

Unless you're ready to command that all sex must be done for the sake of the species, or that no sex may ever produce offspring, that's a premise you can't apply with any sort of consistency.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Incest & Beastiality as a topic took over two years on the forum before anyone began to apply Objectivist epistemology to the issues involved. To all those posters who opened with their personal disgust over the topic, why were you moved to post? To those who opened with firm statements of their conclusion, please check if you offered any support to the position.

 

Root value: human life.  Resulting goal personal longevity. Secondary goal species survival. Supporting goal for both of the former, personal freedom. (Objectivist framework)

 

Issue Beastiality: Pro[if so inclined]; sensory gratification and/or temporary release from evolutionarily induced behavioural pressure.

                           Con; Health risk, most if not all sexually transmitted diseases humans are subject to, have their origins in other species. This risk is statistically significant and inhibits both major objectivist moral goals. Physical risk; depending on the species and your knowledge of their mating habits, you may be injured. Risk level may depend on what species you are turned on by, but there have been fatal examples. Social risk; it is a rather common and long standing societal tabu, for the health risk reasons, and discovery of such behaviour almost always has negative social impact, usually bad enough to limit your success in other endeavors and perhaps even your freedom. 

Conclusion; Looks like the rational Objectivist would avoid it for moral and practical reasons.

 

Issue Incest: Pro; Propinquity, common view of the world, familiarity, in short all the advantages espoused by racists for same race mating, applies.

                     Con; Genetics and social stigma. Yes that is it. However don't underestimate either one. Worst case social impact has been multiple murders, and mother nature has a long history of favoring diversity in every gene pool. The list of diseases and disorders related to inbreeding is formidable IN ALL species. 

Conclusion; Again, the rational Objectivist would avoid it for moral and practical reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incest & Beastiality as a topic took over two years on the forum before anyone began to apply Objectivist epistemology to the issues involved. To all those posters who opened with their personal disgust over the topic, why were you moved to post? To those who opened with firm statements of their conclusion, please check if you offered any support to the position.

 

Root value: human life.  Resulting goal personal longevity. Secondary goal species survival. Supporting goal for both of the former, personal freedom. (Objectivist framework)

 

Issue Beastiality: Pro[if so inclined]; sensory gratification and/or temporary release from evolutionarily induced behavioural pressure.

                           Con; Health risk, most if not all sexually transmitted diseases humans are subject to, have their origins in other species. This risk is statistically significant and inhibits both major objectivist moral goals. Physical risk; depending on the species and your knowledge of their mating habits, you may be injured. Risk level may depend on what species you are turned on by, but there have been fatal examples. Social risk; it is a rather common and long standing societal tabu, for the health risk reasons, and discovery of such behaviour almost always has negative social impact, usually bad enough to limit your success in other endeavors and perhaps even your freedom. 

Conclusion; Looks like the rational Objectivist would avoid it for moral and practical reasons.

 

Issue Incest: Pro; Propinquity, common view of the world, familiarity, in short all the advantages espoused by racists for same race mating, applies.

                     Con; Genetics and social stigma. Yes that is it. However don't underestimate either one. Worst case social impact has been multiple murders, and mother nature has a long history of favoring diversity in every gene pool. The list of diseases and disorders related to inbreeding is formidable IN ALL species. 

Conclusion; Again, the rational Objectivist would avoid it for moral and practical reasons.

 

1.  Do you distinguish between "moral" and "practical" reasons?  What is the difference between the two according to Objectivism?

 

2.  Does Objectivism hold "species survival" as a goal in and of itself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...