sardia wrote:Xenomortis wrote:SlyReaper wrote:Because ethics are vague and ambiguous by nature. It often comes down to "it's wrong because I feel in my gut that it's wrong".
Ethics are not something that you can be terribly objective about.
As for incest:
There are biological reasons for wanting to discourage it; it really is a "bad thing" from a genetics point of view.
But I'm uncomfortable with the idea of using that line of thinking as a reason for the state preventing relationships/unions.
I'm not sure what I think on the issue, but I don't think it should be punished with jail sentences.
Does that mean incest is ok for the elderly and infertile? Or two people of the same sex or wear protection? What if on top of all that, they kept it a secret on the level of, among 6 billion people, x percent of them committed incest.
Shall we dispense with the Two Headed Monster idea.
In genetics there are double recessives.
There is some Math involved.
I listened to a set of lectures.
The brother/sister thing came up.
Who do we Notice?
The Two Headed Monster.
We do not notice the close, highly functional family.
They are background noise.
That thing seems to have a nice normal bell shaped curve.
Those people are a minority under ideal conditions for Them.
You don't notice.
The perfect child.
The one that got the Other Alleles.
The Good Alleles.
Sweetness made flesh.
It has been known in human herstory that some Royals were more than encouraged to Marry Family and produce a human that lives.
I like to think some of those marriages were not all skin crawly ordeals. Stories say many were as content as people have a right to be.