Incest is defined as sexual acts between people with genetic familial ties. Fairly vague, wouldn't you agree? Legally, this normally extends so far as close familial ties: cousin-fucking is legal in a bunch of states, I think. With this in mind, I will first present the counter-arguments and then debunk them (hopefully). The counter-arguments will be italicised, the rebuttals not.
It's disgusting.
Yes, I agree. I shudder at the thought of masturbating my brother, or sleeping with my mother. I also feel abject disgust at the thought of getting my genitals pierced, as I do at the thought of sitting through a Puccini. "It's disgusting" is a social construct inherent within all human beings. We are programmed, through evolution and socialisation, to be physically repulsed at the thought of sleeping with our parents or siblings. That isn't to say that it's right, however, because this kind of emotion could quite easily be associated with the fight or flight hypothesis. Base instincts are derived from situations often entirely disassociated from modern-day society, and are thus erroneously applied to said situations. Unless there is substantive reasoning which I am unaware of which conclusively demonstrates that there is something inherently disgusting or wrong with family-fucking then this is simply not an argument. This is a faulty deduction from reasoned logic to irrational emotion: understandable, but not a valid argument.
It isn't normal/it's taboo.
I wholeheartedly agree, don't get me wrong. But, we differ in that I don't see something abnormal as necessarily wrong. Wrong and abnormal are not interchangeable, though they are often taken as such. It is a syllogism to derive illegitimacy from abnormality; logical derivative and logical extension aside, it's simply untrue to suggest that because something is different it should be prohibited. It is discordant, for instance, for supporters of same-sex marriage to arbitrarily rule that this is amoral. Tradition, again, is not a justification for stoic attitudes. Especially given that, customarily, incest is not only tolerated but wholly accepted and encouraged,... Ancient Egypt, anyone? What defines normality? Society and nature? Understandably it could be seen as against nature, but then again so could homosexuality and miscegenation; as could stem-cell research and gene manipulation. All of these things are good, are they not? We cannot draw a line between the two where we apply criteria to one but not the other. This is especially untrue because I could walk backwards and be considered abnormal -- but would my actions be considered morally unjust? I think not, unless you're really skewed in the head. Which you're entitled to be.
It's an abuse of trust.
This is good, I like this. This is correct. This is correct in a parent-child and/or significantly age divided sibling case. This is not true for all incest, however, and so cannot be applied to each and every situation. Any exploitative relationship should be legislated against, I do not disagree with that. It's why I back child-protection laws, and the like. Exploitation, however, is not present in each and every scenario. There are estrangements from birth, for example, whereby the siblings are unaware of each other until they fall in love; sometimes never finding out -- are we right in punishing them? Who are we to declare that their love is illegitimate and morally reprehensible? If you are going to present me case which argues that trust abuses are a good reason why incest should be illegal, I am not going to dispute you; there is a line, however, which proves problematic for this. It is an arbitrary notion to claim an 'abuse of trust' because it is entirely subjective. This is difficult, I agree, because who has the right to decide what is acceptable and what isn't? At what age are people considered mature enough whereby their consent is legally binding? It's subjective. In this case, as with all uninvasive legislation, it would be up to the older party to decide the ethics of the situation. Given that these abuses exist already, it seems likely that legislation has proved ineffective. If you were going to abuse your child, you are likely to do so regardless of the legal consequences. There goes the law, then?
It disrupts family dynamics.
Again, I agree -- but does that mean we should federally or nationally legislate against it? Who are we to dictate that incestuous relationships destroy families, or skew them beyond all recognition? I, for one, could never make that claim: I have no idea what it may or may not do. It's also fallacious to prohibit a behaviour based on a possibility of a possibility. It is a demagogic aberration because it means nothing in real-terms. Sorry, but we must rule with our brains, not with our hearts.
It can cause genetic abnormalities.
You speak the truth, fair debater! This is problematic, however, because a whole host of things can lead to genetic variance producing mutated children or whatever. By this extension we should disallow fat people, and black people, from reproducing. There are health risks associated with both groups, for instance, which are more prevalent in them than they are in other ones: does this mean we should prohibit them from producing offspring? Theoretically, no, but I think there is a case to be made - for once morally - that intended incest for procreation is inherently wrong. This is a difficult thing for me, because whilst evidence is certainly indicative of this being true it is by no means conclusive. I also dislike the extension which I have enumerated above: that if we prohibit procreation in incestuous unions because of inherent dangers we are obliged to do so in groups where rare genetic diseases are more common. I do not think we should do that, so this sits uncomfortably with me. I have no solution to this: do you?
Resultant offspring are disadvantaged.
Again, I agree. I do not think this is a justification, however, because the same could be said of children who are a product of mixed-race and/or homosexual unions. It would be difficult, I am sure, if it became common knowledge that your uncle was your brother or something, but that doesn't mean we should prevent it. Hardship is not an excuse for legislating against it. Sorry, I've had to take a pause here because I am involved in an extremely relevant debate with someone here. They (she, I think) is making a good point, but I do not see how it legitimises the disgust. That is all I am seeking here: rationality. I have explained the genetic argument above, and so that is all I have to say in regard to this.
It's the law.
Ah, I see. We come to the crux of your objection. This is the bit that I guarantee is most disquieting with Americans: what right does a federal legislative have to promulgate such invasive laws? Surely a man's home is his castle, and he is free to do as he so pleases in a situation. It should be morally innate, should it not, that an abuse of trust is wrong? Can we physically legislate against that, and should we? I don't think we should: it's like an anti-rape law -- why is it necessary? It's only necessary insofar as it sets out the punishment accorded to violators of it. It comes down to which makes you feel more uncomfortable: legislative over-reaching and constitutional gerrymandering, or familial-fucking. That's for you to decide.
Look, guys, this is what it boils down to: you are legislating a punishment. That's despot territory. Even people who are prone to syllogism ("it's disgusting because I say it is") acknowledge that they think the people need psychiatric assessment and assistance. I disagree, however, I would make the case that if this were true, why are we for sending them to prison? Answer me that, and you might have me convinced.
Also, a big thank you to someone I know for their brilliant argument that you could argue that informed consent is impossible in parent/child relationships because of the dynamic inherent within it.
---------------------------------
As a real-world example of how I would argue this case, here is a transcript of my conversation with another person on Skynews. Credit to her, because whilst I don't agree she does raise some reasoned and interesting points. Better than the cretinous "OMGDATSSIK" that populates the rest of the site.
Me: "I repeat my earlier point: /what/ is so inherently unpleasant and/or morally wrong about this decision? Biologically they have acted both within ethical guidelines, and legal terms; societally all they have done is deviate from the norms. Saying the child might suffer because of their relationship is problematic for two reasons: it's a fallacy to prevent something happening because of possible outcomes, and a child of an 'incestuous' union(still incorrect usage within the article) will suffer no more bullying than a child born from homosexual union; or even a miscegenation. Are we saying we shouldn't allow this either?
Morality is a societal construct, and there are no absolutes insofar as this is concerned. To blithely dispute their claims to legitimacy based on grounds of irrational dislike of the outcome is ignorant and pointless. Until someone can offer a substantive reasoning for why this is so 'discusting' then I suggest they stop talking about it."
Her: "You ask what is so wrong with this as there is no biological child? Perhaps you are looking at this situation the wrong way round. If this article was concerning a grandfather and his relationship with his grandaughter I imagine that your opinions would change slightly. What needs to be considered is that the grandson was suffering from a major loss when his mother died and he went looking for family straight after this loss. Grief can do a lot of things to people and the grandmother should have provided support to her grandson first and foremost. To start a sexual relationship with her grandson 2 weeks after meeting him is not helpful to him or herself (who is more than likely grieving for her daughter too). Sex is often used as a way of showing emotion and this couple should not be ridiculed but should be supported with therapy and help as it is not a healthy or normal relationship. The grandson was in a vulnerable position and there is the potential for future emotional damage."
Me: "'Jenny-09': I agree with what you are saying insofar as an abuse of trust may or may not negate the position I have put forward. That's an arbitrary division, however. We are not so different in our opinions, I think, because I am not saying I agree with or condone this behaviour. All I am trying to do is see what objective rationale there is for saying this is inherently disgusting. Subjectively, it makes me feel icky - but so do a lot of things.
I think it is wrong to legislate against incest, and I think the demagogic argument that it's uncomfortable isn't valid -- but I agree that there should be support on offer. I disagree, however, that the therapy should be offered because it is not 'normal' or 'healthy'. Both of those are based on tradition and social construct, and as such I see neither as reason for support. The support should be present because of the fallout of their decision, but I do not think that should prevent it from taking place."
I think it is wrong to legislate against incest, and I think the demagogic argument that it's uncomfortable isn't valid -- but I agree that there should be support on offer. I disagree, however, that the therapy should be offered because it is not 'normal' or 'healthy'. Both of those are based on tradition and social construct, and as such I see neither as reason for support. The support should be present because of the fallout of their decision, but I do not think that should prevent it from taking place."
Her: "All of our lives are controlled by what society sees as right and normal. Laws are made based on societies moral judgments. Murder is illigal as we as a society have decided that it isn't moral. We cannot get away from this fact. I understand your point about criminalising incest but these laws are designed to protect the vulnerable, young children and those that cannot protect themselves would be at risk if incest was not seen in a negative light - how would people seek help otherwise. and more importantly how would they recieve help? However I do believe that putting some people in prison does not help anybody and to turn them into criminals causes more damage than the incest itself."
Me: "I understand where you are coming from, but surely you are confusing moral absolutes with legislative prerogative? I am for decriminalising incest because it has not been proven to raise rates, and it removes the unwarranted taboo associated with it.
It is agreed by most academics that the moral position is unaffected by the law: if you're going to do it, you're going to do it. If you are against imprisonment then it is hypocritical to maintain the legitimacy of the law. This law, among many, only enumerates the punishment: it serves no other purpose.
As for seeking help, well, I do not think decriminalising incest either condones it, or prevents someone from seeking help in an abusive relationship. The abuse of trust is the only argument I see as valid against this, as it raises questions of whether there can ever be informed consent in parent/child relationships. As a blanket rule, however, I think it does more harm than good."
It is agreed by most academics that the moral position is unaffected by the law: if you're going to do it, you're going to do it. If you are against imprisonment then it is hypocritical to maintain the legitimacy of the law. This law, among many, only enumerates the punishment: it serves no other purpose.
As for seeking help, well, I do not think decriminalising incest either condones it, or prevents someone from seeking help in an abusive relationship. The abuse of trust is the only argument I see as valid against this, as it raises questions of whether there can ever be informed consent in parent/child relationships. As a blanket rule, however, I think it does more harm than good."
------------------------------
That is what I think. Does anyone have any thoughts?
No comments:
Post a Comment