Philosophy Now Forum

Obvious Leo wrote:

Kayla wrote:is that an argument against tofu consumption

Unfortunately it isn't but tofu consumption remains a filthy habit which should be eradicated at all cost.

if you know what you are doing and if you are cooking pork, you can substitute 2/3 of the pork with tofu without substantially affecting the taste

Sibling marriage was commonplace and widespread throughout a succession of Egyptian dynasties and Egyptian civilisation lasted for millennia.

my understanding is that incest was frowned up in general in egypt, but with the pharaoh - who was a god - the same rules did not apply

Clearly sibling marriage was not "the end of the world as we know it" as far as the Egyptians were concerned. Nowadays there are sound biological reasons why sibling marriage would be undesirable but from a sociological point of view the case is not so clear-cut. Obviously to argue whether such unions are "moral" or "immoral" behaviour are not questions worthy of philosophical enquiry.

the biological case against it seems a bit ad hoc

a woman in her 40s with a history of tay sach's disease having unprotected sex with a man with the same history is far more likely two produce children with a nasty genetic congenital illness than a lot of sibling couples would be. yet in our society, a couple like that would just be counselled - if they bother to ask - not not have kids - no one would see anything wrong with their relationship otherwise.

the genetics cannot be the actual reason sibling sexual relationships are frowned upon

dont see why this would not be a matter for philosophical enquiry

Kayla wrote:dont see why this would not be a matter for philosophical enquiry

In the sense that the issue is science related it therefore automatically becomes a matter for philosophical enquiry.

Kayla wrote:the biological case against it seems a bit ad hoc

"Statistical" would be a better form of language than "ad hoc" but your point is relevant. A one-off sibling procreation does not necessarily lead to harmful effects in progeny, it merely makes it more likely. However if it were to continue through successive generations then this likelihood multiplies exponentially as recessive mutations become imprinted into the genome. For this reason it has traditionally been taboo in tribal hunter-gatherer communities and no doubt this taboo carried forward into the more complex human societies which emerged after the development of agriculture.

Leo, you caught my attention. I avoid soy in general, but could you elaborate on tofu being a bad thing? I've been told its rubbish, but, besides phytohormones, what are the other issues?

Dalek. My objection to tofu is mainly an aesthetic one because in my opinion it tastes like shit. However I also have a cultural objection to it because I'm yet to meet anybody who advocates on its behalf who isn't a wanker.

Okay. I heard it was overly cooked rubbish, with way too many phytoestrogens, barely fit for pigs, no offense meant to pigs.

Kayla wrote:
the genetics cannot be the actual reason sibling sexual relationships are frowned upon

dont see why this would not be a matter for philosophical enquiry

It's interesting philosophically for several reasons.
It's worth examining the reasons given by different sections of the population for the incest taboo.
When anthropology was motivated more by science than cultural knowledge, it was simply assumed that incest taboo was an innate response, a selectively advantageous traits preserved by evolving species. Trouble with that is that individuals in species don't necessarily have good mechanisms for recognising siblings, and incest happens to be very common in nature.
Given this anthropologists tended to challenge this view, and then claimed that the cultures with incest taboos had introduced them to avoid abnormalities. The trouble with this theory is twofold. If you have a taboo against incest then there is no record of abnormalities. So how to cultures "know". Some then return to the 'innate' view, whilst others pressed on with the critique..
The next thing that is noticeable is that any problems following from incest are passing rare to vanishing, and only seem to occur with existing know genetic problems. (We know this from stock breeders who commonly encourage close familial breeding to encourage favoured traits.) So not only is the culture not allowing incest, there is no evidence that incest is harmful.
Most such cultures have a positive attitude to 'exogamy". There are many good reasons to marry outside the direct family, and even better ones to marry in another tribe. Such relationships led to more peaceful relations. So it is likely that a negative attitude to incest, was the result of a positive attitude to exogamy.
Then there is a list of cultures that commonly practice incest, and have done so without problems. You can extract knowledge of these from the list of suppressed histories.

Obvious Leo wrote:"Statistical" would be a better form of language than "ad hoc" but your point is relevant

no i did mean ad hoc

what happens is someone who has not thought the matter through is asked, why are sibling marriages wrong?

and they are like "retard babies!"

but they did not believe that sibling marriage is wrong because of retard babies to start with. They pulled out the 'retard babies' cause they just need something - anything - resembling a reason

that this is not thought through is evidenced by the fact that sibling marraige is not the only or even the most likely way to get retard babies, yet it is singled out for condemnation

Kayla wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:"Statistical" would be a better form of language than "ad hoc" but your point is relevant

no i did mean ad hoc

what happens is someone who has not thought the matter through is asked, why are sibling marriages wrong?

and they are like "retard babies!"

but they did not believe that sibling marriage is wrong because of retard babies to start with. They pulled out the 'retard babies' cause they just need something - anything - resembling a reason

that this is not thought through is evidenced by the fact that sibling marraige is not the only or even the most likely way to get retard babies, yet it is singled out for condemnation

Why why is there an incest taboo?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Kayla wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:"Statistical" would be a better form of language than "ad hoc" but your point is relevant

no i did mean ad hoc

what happens is someone who has not thought the matter through is asked, why are sibling marriages wrong?

and they are like "retard babies!"

but they did not believe that sibling marriage is wrong because of retard babies to start with. They pulled out the 'retard babies' cause they just need something - anything - resembling a reason

that this is not thought through is evidenced by the fact that sibling marraige is not the only or even the most likely way to get retard babies, yet it is singled out for condemnation

Why why is there an incest taboo?

There certainly has not always been such a taboo. In many cultures it was practiced, but I believe mostly among royalty.

Melchior wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Kayla wrote:
no i did mean ad hoc

what happens is someone who has not thought the matter through is asked, why are sibling marriages wrong?

and they are like "retard babies!"

but they did not believe that sibling marriage is wrong because of retard babies to start with. They pulled out the 'retard babies' cause they just need something - anything - resembling a reason

that this is not thought through is evidenced by the fact that sibling marraige is not the only or even the most likely way to get retard babies, yet it is singled out for condemnation

Why why is there an incest taboo?

There certainly has not always been such a taboo. In many cultures it was practiced, but I believe mostly among royalty.

We've covered that already. It still does not answer why there is a taboo.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Melchior wrote:
We've covered that already. It still does not answer why there is a taboo.

Dunno

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest_taboo

Melchior wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Melchior wrote:
We've covered that already. It still does not answer why there is a taboo.

Dunno

I do: evolution. (Societies evolve, too, ya know.)

Interestingly, there is genetic sexual attraction involved in between close relations who did not grow up together, whilst, for example, children who are raised together, yet unrelated, tend to seek adult relationships outside the group eg. On a kibbutz.

Dalek Prime wrote:Interestingly, there is genetic sexual attraction involved in between close relations who did not grow up together, whilst, for example, children who are raised together, yet unrelated, tend to seek adult relationships outside the group eg. On a kibbutz.

It is interesting.

When someone says something as asinine as "the only known motive for sexual behaviour in vertebrate biology is sexual gratification," you can rest assured any discussion about homosexuality in humans has degenerated into random thoughts being promulgated as deep insight. Whenever I see someone argue that homosexual behavior should be accepted as normal in human society because animals do it, I seriously have question their sanity. Should I be afraid that they might eat my kids? After all, it is not uncommon in the animal kingdom.

(Remember all the hoopla with the book And Tango Makes Three? That didn't turn out very well for the proponents of homosexuality -- which is why the ending went relatively unreported.)

Dalek Prime wrote:Interestingly, there is genetic sexual attraction involved in between close relations who did not grow up together, whilst, for example, children who are raised together, yet unrelated, tend to seek adult relationships outside the group eg. On a kibbutz.

This tends to be true.