Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Yeah... the thread has nothing to do with Islam or any religion. Pointless post. Whataboutery.
    Clearly it does, it is addressed to atheists and as such is geared towards people without faith. People might not be focusing on the original question but that's only because it wasn't thought through. The post with the consanguinuity map is interesting because it shows a proxy for incestuous relationships across almost all islamic states. So the nature of the question, in which the morality of atheists is called into question, as if atheists having a unifying code of morality. The premise of the question is flawed and I think it's entirely reasonable to debate the question's vaildity.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by donutellme)
    Yes. Two consenting adults? Not harming anyone? I really don't see why someone can't support this if they support homosexuality.
    Not harming anyone? Incest would destroy the dynamic of a family completely , particularly in the scenario Op has laid out.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by geolowiser)
    If referring to relevance to being an atheist or not, the lack of faith in a deity does not drive one or result in incest, unsure why OP made that leap.

    If referring to it being morally acceptable (and ignoring the ill-thought out connection to atheism), incest has major social stigma attached, and the violation of that boundary whether consensual or not can lead to severe psychological issues and social rejection. I don't think it is an outraegeous assumption to think that anyone who engages in sexual activity with their own sons/daughters has mental health issues. Psychological scarring and social exclusion aside, morals are largely defined by your country and not religion for most countries in the world. Even in religious states, having worked and lived in both of these countries I feel comfortable stating that I think that Saudi Arabia is an incredibley immoral place in some situations, whereas Abu Dhabi seems to be much better yet is still an Islamic state.

    Demographics, tribal and cultural traditions, as well as religion come in to play, but I think it is quite short-sighted to question to morals of atheists based on their lack of faith, when many morally abhorent views exist within institutionalised religions - even though those parts of the religion are frequently ignored.

    Whilst I have no desire to get into a debate about morals in religion (my tea will get cold and I don't have the energy to put the thought into it), I don't think that religion should be used as a marker. Different generations within the same family and faith can have wildly different moral stances and benchmarks for what is morally acceptable (votes for women, gay marriage, can I throw stones at a stray dog etc).
    But wasn't this the case with LGBT back in the 20th century? (bold part)
    (Original post by geolowiser)
    Clearly it does, it is addressed to atheists and as such is geared towards people without faith. People might not be focusing on the original question but that's only because it wasn't thought through. The post with the consanguinuity map is interesting because it shows a proxy for incestuous relationships across almost all islamic states. So the nature of the question, in which the morality of atheists is called into question, as if atheists having a unifying code of morality. The premise of the question is flawed and I think it's entirely reasonable to debate the question's vaildity.
    Hmmm fair enough. Though I think the development of the two sides need to be taken into considerations (secular countries are more developed). So correlation between one does not equal causation.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    Is a 25 year old son, who fully consents to engage in sexual activity with his 55 year old father, according to your idea of morality, acceptable?
    What has this got to do with atheism?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tawheed)
    Is a 25 year old son, who fully consents to engage in sexual activity with his 55 year old father, according to your idea of morality, acceptable?
    This sort of happend with Woody Allen. He had sex with his adopted daughter (Soon-Yi). I think, judging by what happened to the family it was morally wrong.

    Should it be a "crime"? I expect it should.

    Then we come to the thorny issue of cousins. The Catholic Church is dead against this (100%) but are atheists - I think they are? I think it does cause genetic harm at the very least so it is immoral , like a smoking mother is immoral. Both marrying (or having sex with) cousins and smoking while having babies and toddlers is a moral crime.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    But wasn't this the case with LGBT back in the 20th century? (bold part)
    Hmmm fair enough. Though I think the development of the two sides need to be taken into considerations (secular countries are more developed). So correlation between one does not equal causation.
    Good point about LGBT, although the breach of trust and violation of a safe relationship doesn't come into it with the vast majority of LGBT relationships; unless one considers a child's parent identifying as transexual, in which case similar harm could be done to the child, however this isn't something that they are directly involved in so it's to a lesser extent.

    There has to be a line drawn somewhere, a society cannot (or rather, should not) deny the feelings of a large community such as LGBT people, however there has to be a limit. Incest can lead to severe genetic issues and deformity whilst there are no negative physical health effects of having LGBT parents. I don't mean to belittle the psychological harm experienced by some children with LGBT parent(s), but the damage from an incestuous relationship can be so severe that it will take decades if not centuries of campaigning before it stops becoming such a major social stigma and I don't think people would ever stand up for incest in the same way that people did LGBT rights as it's a completely self-serving thing when it involved offspring. Children involved in incestuous relationships almost always have "stockholme syndrome" (I forget the proper term), the same can't always be said for siblings, but the point still stands, it's self-serving and not constructive to society.

    As for your second point I definitely agree, and to be clear I didn't mean to imply causation due to religion. Simply that countries with higher poverty rates/strong reliance on support from family (common in developing countries) are statistically more likely to engage in incestuous relationships, at the same time they are more likely to embrace institutionalised religion as a support mechanism as the religous community can do so much good for people/places. The two happen to be related to the same thing, but are not related to eachother.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSR Mustafa)
    Not harming anyone? Incest would destroy the dynamic of a family completely , particularly in the scenario Op has laid out.
    That has no effect on anyone though? It doesn't harm anyone either. That's their choice.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by geolowiser)
    Good point about LGBT, although the breach of trust and violation of a safe relationship doesn't come into it with the vast majority of LGBT relationships; unless one considers a child's parent identifying as transexual, in which case similar harm could be done to the child, however this isn't something that they are directly involved in so it's to a lesser extent.

    There has to be a line drawn somewhere, a society cannot (or rather, should not) deny the feelings of a large community such as LGBT people, however there has to be a limit. Incest can lead to severe genetic issues and deformity whilst there are no negative physical health effects of having LGBT parents. I don't mean to belittle the psychological harm experienced by some children with LGBT parent(s), but the damage from an incestuous relationship can be so severe that it will take decades if not centuries of campaigning before it stops becoming such a major social stigma and I don't think people would ever stand up for incest in the same way that people did LGBT rights as it's a completely self-serving thing when it involved offspring. Children involved in incestuous relationships almost always have "stockholme syndrome" (I forget the proper term), the same can't always be said for siblings, but the point still stands, it's self-serving and not constructive to society.
    I agree with your point about increased chance of genetic disorders but I think the OP wanted to leave that out by specifically stating such scenario where children are not involved. Hence, I neither would see it as self-serving or non-constructive; homosexual incestuous relationship still have the option of adopting.

    The breach of trust is a good point. Though the scenario can be adapted to something such as brother-brother etc. One where there is little dependence of each other.

    So far, what it seems like to me is, the only thing holding this back is the lack numbers of incestuous individuals and how to tackle the complexity of making restrictions on specific genders being allowed to commit to this, in order to prevent births of deformed children.

    (Original post by geolowiser)
    As for your second point I definitely agree, and to be clear I didn't mean to imply causation due to religion. Simply that countries with higher poverty rates/strong reliance on support from family (common in developing countries) are statistically more likely to engage in incestuous relationships, at the same time they are more likely to embrace institutionalised religion as a support mechanism as the religous community can do so much good for people/places. The two happen to be related to the same thing, but are not related to eachother.
    Agreed.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Yea it is morally "acceptable". They're not harming anyone, not even themselves.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    I agree with your point about increased chance of genetic disorders but I think the OP wanted to leave that out by specifically stating such scenario where children are not involved. Hence, I neither would see it as self-serving or non-constructive; homosexual incestuous relationship still have the option of adopting.

    The breach of trust is a good point. Though the scenario can be adapted to something such as brother-brother etc. One where there is little dependence of each other.

    So far, what it seems like to me is, the only thing holding this back is the lack numbers of incestuous individuals and how to tackle the complexity of making restrictions on specific genders being allowed to commit to this, in order to prevent births of deformed children.



    Agreed.
    Yeah fair, when children aren't involved and it's between a 25yr old and 55 yr old it's very different. Although what someone would have to go through to start something like that as an adult must be so severe, and as such the father would be taking advantage of his vulnerable son. The (somewhat vulgar) phrase "a shoulder to cry on becomes a **** to ride on" comes into play here, although if it was the son instigating I can't see a moral issue tbh, not that I agree with it because I think it is inherrently wrong, but for no specific reason.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by geolowiser)
    Yeah fair, when children aren't involved and it's between a 25yr old and 55 yr old it's very different. Although what someone would have to go through to start something like that as an adult must be so severe, and as such the father would be taking advantage of his vulnerable son. The (somewhat vulgar) phrase "a shoulder to cry on becomes a **** to ride on" comes into play here, although if it was the son instigating I can't see a moral issue tbh, not that I agree with it because I think it is inherrently wrong, but for no specific reason.
    Wtf?! :rofl: That's a bit too deep but I get what you mean.

    I think the reason why you think it's wrong is mainly social norms and one could argue human instinct.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    Wtf?! :rofl: That's a bit too deep but I get what you mean.

    I think the reason why you think it's wrong is mainly social norms and one could argue human instinct.
    Yep, the main reason I think this particular situation is wrong is because of the impact it would have on the father and son both inside and outside of their own relationship (whatever that might be), stemming from a deviation from social norms and the classic relationship between father and son in their eyes.

    If I were asked the following 'Would you consider a voluntary consensual sexual or loving relationship between a 25yr old son and his 55 year old father morally acceptable, if the duo grew up and lived in a society where it was commonplace and entirely socially acceptable?', I think my answer would be: as those two cannot procreate, it's is voluntary and consensual, it does no psychological harm to either of the two, and they would not be tarred and feathered in the streets, then other than it making me slightly uncomfortable I can't muster a genuine argument against it based on morality and as such cannot definitively say that I find it morally unacceptable. However as morality is subjective and in my country it is very much frowned upon to say the least, I don't agree that it is morally acceptable, only that I cannot argue it being morally unacceptable in the situation I described about.

    As I said before, morality is subject ot environment for atheists and this question targets too many demographics with wildly ranging moral stances. It would be like comparing views on homosexuality between a faith which allows homosexuality vs a faith which does not, is it morally wrong to oppress a population who do things that don't affect you at all or not? It's subjective to some degree, and the only reason I think homosexual oppression is so morally abhorrent is because I grew up in a relatively secular country which does not currently persecute people for how they feel.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    No it's not acceptable. Firstly to assume all atheists share a unified moral code is to miss the point of the demographic, it's only defining feature is skepticism and a rejection of gods, generally on this basis.
    I would like to point out as a preamble that the atheist reasoning as I grasp it goes beyond the religious gays are eww argument, as the bible evidently isn't too much against incest as per Abraham. There is nothing inherently wrong with incest, it can be observed in nature and evidently is something that occurs without higher human thought.

    It is however contrary to mills conception of harm. Children born of incest have a far higher likelihood of deformities, physical and mental illness, congenital defects and other problems. Therefore the act conveys considerable harm albeit on to a third party and as such is according to my concept of morality impermissible. There is no justification or proportionality to the harm nor is it born of necessity and thus is unwanted. The social harm it does to the people involved is also an important factor

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    People are saying morality is subjective to the individual and completely irrelevant to atheism as a whole. I agree but I think it's a pointless statement to make. The OP asks opinions from individuals of a particular group (maybe not an actual group but you get what I mean).

    You can still answer the question from your own personal moral grounds if you are atheist. Though, I've yet to see a suitable justification to those who say "it's wrong". In this situation, the whole "if two people love each other, why not?" doesn't seem to be compatible.
    Why its objectively wrong is pretty obvious - its science, scientific research on the family. It would cause problems with husbands and wifes, other sons and daughters. To decide to get married and bring up a son or daughter is a life decision, for a whole life. To break your words and thoughts for the sake of loving someone else does cause problems for others and indeed potentially cause other parents to follow with younger children or children of the opposite sex (which would cause genetic problems). It is measurably wrong and thus atheists can correctly morally object to such relationships.

    Atheists who do not object to it have not studied the scientific research correctly . Atheisism is based on science.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    It's acceptable to some and not acceptable to some. Did you mean to ask where our morals come from? You can just ask.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FredOrJohn)
    Atheisism is based on science.
    Well that's a bizarrely dogmatic statement. Tell me, do you have a book I can check to tell me what else I believe and why? Perhaps it includes an index to check as to what I've studied and which conclusions I'm allowed to draw, as you seem to be expertly informed on decisions atheists are allowed to make.

    Perhaps what you meant to say was that you believe atheism is based on science. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but your beliefs are not the same as fact. I state that as a personal philosophy, and realise your opinion may differ. Clearly.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JollyCynic)
    Well that's a bizarrely dogmatic statement. Tell me, do you have a book I can check to tell me what else I believe and why? Perhaps it includes an index to check as to what I've studied and which conclusions I'm allowed to draw, as you seem to be expertly informed on decisions atheists are allowed to make.

    Perhaps what you meant to say was that you believe atheism is based on science. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but your beliefs are not the same as fact. I state that as a personal philosophy, and realise your opinion may differ. Clearly.
    Sure, once Darwinism took hold on western society along side the ability to deconstruct religious books of all types it was possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that organised religion is holed below the water line. Western Atheism/Secularism (which the author of this thread is aiming at) is scientifically based.

    Our morals are still, somewhat Roman Catholic, but we can see that underlying the Roman Catholic moral code is scientific reasons.

    http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Consanguinity
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Thank you for providing me with these religious texts. I shall go out and proselytise this Good News.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JollyCynic)
    Thank you for providing me with these religious texts. I shall go out and proselytise this Good News.
    Textual criticism
    Source criticism
    Form criticism and tradition history
    Redaction criticism
    Canonical criticism
    Rhetorical criticism
    Narrative criticism
    Psychological criticism
    Socio-scientific criticism
    Postmodernist criticism
    Feminist exegensis

    You could go on and on for all religious books (bible, koran, vadas, tripitaka)

    ps - I am an atheist and roman catholic at the same time. Impossible but so are humans.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    IMHO the answer to this shouldnt come from any holy book or from the absence of one. It depends on the individual person's perception of the world and whats right or wrong. Such things have nothing to do with religion.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.