Why Incest Should be Legal

[ecoli]

I really doupt making incest illegal had any effect.

 

well yeah... not too many people are going to make incest rights their big election issue. But I think the underlying principles is important. Especially when you are using science to support the legislation of morality.

 

This is essentially what banning incest is, but it applies to other things including abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, which are main stream issues.

[mooeypoo]

It shows what happens when the government doesn't have the power to enforce its own laws.

 

though, remind me, in that book, are there any state powers left?

Actually, it shows what happens to an overly-capitalistic countries.. there is no "government" anymore, really...

 

And.. uhm.. States? what states? There are "Acquired Countries". Check out the map

 

And speaking of books on this subject, I think Idiocracy (2006) makes a good point about incest - but I think it's a point about the EDUCATION and not the actual law. Good movie.

 

~moo

 

This is essentially what banning incest is, but it applies to other things including abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, which are main stream issues.

 

It's also the major problem with it. The fact our society connects incest with gay marriage, abortion and stem cell research (I'm not talking about *you* specifically, ecoli, just saying this seems to be a common thread in society especially of the laymen -- education plays a part here again) is worrying.

 

The bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, is that if we *educate* well, we won't need our government to interfere with stuff that it has no right to interfere with. "Victimless crimes" is a problematic definition, but it's quite true - it's victimless, and relies on a subjective set of morals, so the government shouldn't interfere in it.

 

I think we sometimes expect our law system to compensate our lack of ability to actually do good with our education system. Look at Europe: Abortion is absolutely legal, and yet there are far far less abortions going on than in the United States. Stem Cells are legal in some states in Europe and also - the percentages of abortion is not bigger.

Gay marriage doesn't make more gays or more 'activist' gays either. It's all about education. The government should maintain order and the constitutional rights of all *humans*. Anything beyond that is imperialism, and could be viewed as the goal of a subjective faction.

 

Funny.. I just read/studied about the Federalist Paper #10 and #51. He's talking about factions and their dangers.. I think those type of laws (Gay marriage, Stem Cell research, etc) are a perfect example for a *FACTION* law.

 

~moo

[CDarwin]

The bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, is that if we *educate* well, we won't need our government to interfere with stuff that it has no right to interfere with. "Victimless crimes" is a problematic definition, but it's quite true - it's victimless, and relies on a subjective set of morals, so the government shouldn't interfere in it.[/Quote]

 

I would like to ask what set of morals isn't subjective. As far as taboos go, incest is really pretty universal. It's actually called the "universal taboo" in anthropology.

 

But, I do see your point. Government should on the whole probably keep out of the bedrooms of concenting adults. If some guy and his 20 year old daughter want to have sex, then I suppose that's none of the government's business (although I'm still not totally convicined on that count, since there's a lot of coercion in a relationship like that, even after the daugher is an "adult").

 

In summary, I suppose: I'm really not sure what I believe on this one. On the one hand, individuals should probably have dominion over thier own sexual lives. But on the other, societies have the right to impose restrictions on individual behavior that they feel to be destructive or disruptive to social cohesion, and this particular restriction (on parent/child and sibling/sibling incest) is one that societies seem to feel the need to impose nearly universally. Restrictions on incest are more widespread and consistently applied that restrictions on murder. Does that count for anything? I'm not sure.

[D H]

It most certainly legislating morality. I don't think it's healthy for a government to do that.

 

Legislating morality is one of government's most important jobs. Most laws are legislated morality. Legislation bans certain behaviors such as murder. Why is murder illegal? Because "Thou shalt not kill". Nearly every nation/state has some kind of rule against homicide: globally legislated morality.

 

The 18^th ammendment (nationwide ban on alcohol in the US in the 1920s) is widely touted as an example of why we shouldn't legislate morality. The difference between banning murder and banning alcohol is the degree of acceptance of the legislated morality. Rather than saying the government should not legislate morality, it is more better to say that government should not legislate dubious morality.

[mooeypoo]

Legislating morality is one of government's most important jobs. Most laws are legislated morality. Legislation bans certain behaviors such as murder. Why is murder illegal? Because "Thou shalt not kill". Nearly every nation/state has some kind of rule against homicide: globally legislated morality.

I'm not sure it is.. I think preserving ORDER is the job of the law. Murder is illegal because it isn't in favor of order; for that matter, murder in the name of the state *is* legal (death penalty) so the law itself has nothing to do with morality, or else the death penalty would be 'illegal' as well.

 

The problem is that morality is subjective. Always. Government should bother itself with preserving order and keeping people safe: so actions that *are NOT* 'victimless' - like rape and murder - should be illegal to preserve the safety of people.

 

Actions that are considered immoral but are not actively hurting anyone should be the concern of social debate, taboo and education. If you allow the government to legislate morality in the broader sense, you end up with laws like those that oppose abortion (because some people find that immoral) or oppose gay marriage (same) or, for that matter, that oppose incest. I know this is a bit of a 'slippery slope' argument, but there is a problem to NOT go there in terms of morality: where do you stop? Who is this "grand legislator" (like Rousseau built him) that makes sure the general will of the people is preserved vs. the subjective morality of certain factions?

 

 

If we have a tolerant society, our country/state laws should preserve safety and freedom. That's *IT*, technically. Morality is not supposed to be an issue of the governmet because it's not supposed to BE democratic. It's subjective.

 

And unless your (not you you, broader 'you') morality is HURTING people, or taking away their FREEDOM, you're allowed -- and, truthfully, should be encouraged -- to have your own set of morality.

 

We should make sure that our education system raises generations that know how to THINK about things in a way that their moral standards are logical. But even within the logical/rational community there are different morals. The best example is Vegans and Vegeterians vs. Meat-Eaters.. *personally* I don't see the morality behind Veganism in the way that we are biologically, socially and technologically built, but someone else can device a VERY rational explanation for his set of morals.

 

As long as it doesn't hurt *my* freedom (or anyone else's) or my safety, it is NO BUSINESS for the government to decide upon.

 

The 18^th ammendment (nationwide ban on alcohol in the US in the 1920s) is widely touted as an example of why we shouldn't legislate morality.

Yup, I agree. But your next section --

The difference between banning murder and banning alcohol is the degree of acceptance of the legislated morality. Rather than saying the government should not legislate morality, it is more better to say that government should not legislate dubious morality.

-- I disagree with, for the reasons above. The reason murder is different than alcohol is that murder is against the citizen's SAFETY and FREEDOM. Alcohol isn't.

 

The best example with YOUR example, btw, is the fact that today you don't have a ban against alcohol in law, but you DO have a ban against misusing alcohol (DUI/DWI, etc). Why is that? Because drinking alcohol is your freedom; your right -- as long as you don't *hurt* or *risk* anyone else's safety.

 

I think that's a perfect example for what I'm trying to say.. hope I made myself clearer through the ramblings though

 

 

~moo

 

btw-- I think my political science teacher would be extremely proud of me. I managed to put Rousseau, tidbits of Mill and a large part of Hobbes in my own theory. I demand an A from the forum

[ParanoiA]

Legislating morality is one of government's most important jobs. Most laws are legislated morality. Legislation bans certain behaviors such as murder. Why is murder illegal? Because "Thou shalt not kill". Nearly every nation/state has some kind of rule against homicide: globally legislated morality.

 

While it does wind up being a morality statement, it shouldn't be the goal of government to do so. This makes the government the legitimizer. Suddenly, if it's legal, it must be ok. This also causes the government and law to become the playing field for social engineering rather than directing it to the natural free market of persuasion.

 

I'm with mooeypoo on this one, I think it's more about order. In america's case, I believe it is about order in an advanced free society. The best way to govern such a tentative, flexible society is as objectively as reasonably possible - as opposed to majority rule morality codes.

 

Too bad you're right about us...

[ecoli]

Actually, it shows what happens to an overly-capitalistic countries.. there is no "government" anymore, really...

Well, what I got from it, was that when the government no longer has the ability to protect it's citizens, society fails.

 

I'm in favor of free markets, but certain things like the police should remain in the hands of state governments.

In Jennifer Government, not only is the government severely diminished, it is also completely centralized. Corporations are also centralized and monopolized.

 

It's also the major problem with it. The fact our society connects incest with gay marriage, abortion and stem cell research (I'm not talking about *you* specifically, ecoli, just saying this seems to be a common thread in society especially of the laymen -- education plays a part here again) is worrying.

No, I'm saying the argument against it is based on genetics. There comes the association, when we start to legislate what people can and can't do for the "good of society." In my opinion, the federal government has long ago ceased to represent American society.

I could see anti-incest laws on the local or even state level... I just don't see this power as granted to the federal government by the constitution.

 

Do you not see the precedent this would set, if the federal gov't was allowed to use genetics as a reason to control people's actions?

 

The bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, is that if we *educate* well, we won't need our government to interfere with stuff that it has no right to interfere with. "Victimless crimes" is a problematic definition, but it's quite true - it's victimless, and relies on a subjective set of morals, so the government shouldn't interfere in it.

But who's in charge of the educational system? It's the same government that we don't want to interfere! We see this with legislation all the time about what can and can't be taught in schools. There is not easy answer to this.

Look at Europe: Abortion is absolutely legal, and yet there are far far less abortions going on than in the United States. Stem Cells are legal in some states in Europe and also - the percentages of abortion is not bigger.

Gay marriage doesn't make more gays or more 'activist' gays either. It's all about education. The government should maintain order and the constitutional rights of all *humans*. Anything beyond that is imperialism, and could be viewed as the goal of a subjective faction.

I agree with you on this one, but at the same time... if we don't want government interfering, then we can't cry about people having different values than us, and their right to express them.

 

It probably does come down to education... though I wouldn't recomend more government interference in education. I'd prefer to see more private and charter schools.

[mooeypoo]

Well, what I got from it, was that when the government no longer has the ability to protect it's citizens, society fails.

 

I'm in favor of free markets, but certain things like the police should remain in the hands of state governments.

In Jennifer Government, not only is the government severely diminished, it is also completely centralized. Corporations are also centralized and monopolized.

Yah, Jennifer Government had a corporation for a government, it was just a very poor one (hence their need to "rustle funds" every time they wanted to pursue a crime). It's an extreme criticism of capitalism. The book, btw, was almost called "Capitalizm".

 

No, I'm saying the argument against it is based on genetics.

Which one, though.. see, our society is changing. I can say that, yeah, incest is genetically wrong, but then again - as we grow in terms of genetic manipulation in general, we may have an ability to eliminate these genetic 'problems' in children before they are born (speaking of movies, this is "Gattaca" style ) and then incest is no longer "bad" genetically; it doesn't *matter* genetically..

 

Also, there was an argument that gay marriage is bad genetically because Gays cannot bear children - but then, with so many abandoned starving kids around the world, the adoption options that Gays have may actually be considered more MORAL than getting pregnant by test-tube or something like that.

 

The point is that Genetics is science, and as such it is changing. What is "right" and "wrong" today may not be like that in the future; this is why we need to constantly analyze and think about our situation. This, in my opinion, is a case where the debate is actually more important than the conclusion - the fact we are HAVING a debate, we each get 'better' with our own conclusions of morality, or at the very least we re-examine them, which is always something good.

 

Government is supposed to protect your safety and your freedom against people/factions who have an interest against it. It should *not* have a bearing on morality.

 

There comes the association, when we start to legislate what people can and can't do for the "good of society." In my opinion, the federal government has long ago ceased to represent American society.

I could see anti-incest laws on the local or even state level... I just don't see this power as granted to the federal government by the constitution.

I agree. I don't think states should have a law about it either, even though I agree that incest is not something that should be encouraged at all. Rules are not the way to go, though, imho, is all I'm saying.

Do you not see the precedent this would set, if the federal gov't was allowed to use genetics as a reason to control people's actions?

You're right, and you actually seem to go with MY point here.. we shouldn't let the government control these things; we should let the government make sure we are safe and free enough, (and hopefully educated in *how* to conduct critical thinking) so that *we* can make those individual choices for ourselves.

 

But who's in charge of the educational system? It's the same government that we don't want to interfere! We see this with legislation all the time about what can and can't be taught in schools. There is not easy answer to this.

Of course there isn't.. that's why this debate is so interesting

 

I agree with you on this one, but at the same time... if we don't want government interfering, then we can't cry about people having different values than us, and their right to express them.

Right. I agree. We shouldn't "cry" about that. We should 'fight' against it in the proper channels -- in attempting to CONVINCE people that we're right. And if we manage to create a generation of free-thinkers and critical rational thinkers, we may actually have GREAT and WONDERFUL discussions on our hands by people trying to convince others that they are right.

 

There's no place for a legislation, unless these things are *hurting* people's safety or freedom.

 

It probably does come down to education... though I wouldn't recomend more government interference in education. I'd prefer to see more private and charter schools.

I am not sure, but I would guess you wouldn't recommend more government interference because of the way it is done *today*. I would agree on that, but I don't think that's the only way that it could (or SHOULD) be done. Again wew should look at the north-western European countries, they're actually pretty good examples of very decent basic education for rationality.

 

 

Far from perfect, but VERY good relatively.

 

Also, I didn't mean the government souldn't interfere at all (there's no use for a government if it doesn't interfere.. it exists TO interfere.. laws are 'interfering' with your 'freedoms', right?) I mean that in terms of LGISLATION it shouldn't interfere in such matters. Education does come from the government, and SHOULD be pluralistic. Not in the term of "my opinion of what pluralism is" but rather conserve the constitution -- EQUAL freedom for *all* humans. If you educate your country that equality is important, that rationality is an extremely important value and that morality should be deduced personally as long as it doesn't hurt anyone (yes, have the government enforce THAT, it's its job - to make sure there's freedom), you gain BETTER society.

 

Look at north western europe! the education there is excellent, and see how enlightened they are, relatively, and how science takes a very big part without 'eating' religion away. It is a LOT about the way government is treating issues of freedom of the individuals and NOT meddling with things it 'shouldn't'.

 

Laws are always limiting individual freedom, but I - as a citizen - accept them even when they're "bothering" me (whatever it may be) because I understand they stand for *my* protection against prosecution and to protect my SAFETY.

 

But when laws are made to protect an idiology of a faction, you start questioning their validity. That, in my opinion, is where legislation should stop and education begin. If you educate to rational thinking and critical thinking (again, north western europe is an excelleng example), you gain THINKING citizens who at the very least *know* what they each stand for, why, and how. And they respect the state they live in WHILE remaining free to adhere to whatever set of morality they have.

It's better to have people follow what they believe in (IE, educate them that freedom is GOOD) than enforce it on them forcefully (by law).

 

 

~moo