Morals, Law and the Yuck Factor

Is it yucky or is it not yucky for consenting adult siblings to have an incestuous relationship?

(Please answer aloud.)

Is it immoral or moral for consenting adult siblings to have an incestuous relationship?

(Please answer aloud.)

Should if be a crime or not for consenting adults siblings to have an incestuous relationship?

(Please answer aloud.)

The venerable Peter Singer wrestled with this question recently because Germany is in the process of trying to figure out the last question.

I have question one pinned down: Yes. It is yucky. And I do think it should be yucky to all sane people. If you disagree with me, that is fine. It's what I think and feel.

Question two is tougher. It brings in lots of questions, including sanity and insanity and how these mental states relate to moral choices... I could give that a whole article, but that is not what I am up to here.

Question three, is difficult, too. Unless, of course, I answer from my gut. If I answer from my gut, I will be compelled to try to stop such yucky behavior. Should a harmless spider die because I think it is disgusting? Is homosexuality as much of a crime-able offense as incest just because I am heterosexual and am strongly averse to the idea of being with a man the same as I am averse to the idea of sex with a sibling?


But those are the steps: yuckiness factor, moral ranking and legal decision. What is the standard for legal bans on things?

Social morality isn't what it once was in that, once, there was a framework based on ubiquitously accepted ideals (which, truth be told, were driven by religious principles); it is now a bit of a rickety edifice with people driven by myriad factors of motivation pulling out nails and rearranging beams...

So, here's the thing: Do we pass laws about things that are immoral? If so, by whose standards?

Is it good that we are not so rigid, now, or it is bad because it makes for disorder?

Of course, the most compelling consideration is if incest causes "deformed" children, as I always heard growing up. This article is a good discussion of that. So, the best argument for making incest illegal "is that there is an astonishingly high chance that your offspring will be born with a serious birth defect."

From an argumentative, logical standpoint, one would want to stop this from happening. but what if one sibling is sterile? What if birth control is used? What if, what if, what if...

Obviously, there are complications with the logical side of things. Does that mean morality is more important than logic in keeping society -- literally, in this respect -- healthy? What this all amounts to is that those with immovable opinions are fool swho don't see shifting mirrors of nature, reason and morality sliding around behind their daily lives. 

All I can say is this: In some cases, nature is shows us what is "right." In others, it does not. In some cases, morality and law should be linked. In others they should not. In some cases, reason will show us the way, in others, it does not. What are we left with then? Back to "belief" and "morality." 

What this all amounts to is that those with immovable opinions are fool who don't see the shifting mirrors of nature, reason and morality sliding around behind their daily lives.