Ah, I bet I got your attention with that header!
Anyway...
Let's say a brother and sister were to have sex. It is completely consensual and they had no regrets afterwards. Assume the sister is unable to become pregnant.
Given those parameters, is incest still wrong? How so?
Before you all start flaming me, know that I do not condone incest. I have never done it nor do I encourage anyone else to do it. I just find this question interesting.
Anyway...
Let's say a brother and sister were to have sex. It is completely consensual and they had no regrets afterwards. Assume the sister is unable to become pregnant.
Given those parameters, is incest still wrong? How so?
Before you all start flaming me, know that I do not condone incest. I have never done it nor do I encourage anyone else to do it. I just find this question interesting.
Well, putting aside my initial revulsion for a moment and trying to look at this objectively I guess I would say the following: I am a meta-ethical moral relativist so I generally endorse the concept that what is "moral" depends completely on the attitudes of the individual, society, or sub-society. In other words, as I have said on numerous threads, "it's just as 'immoral' to preach the Bible at a titty bar as it is to get a lap dance in church" because the given sub-societies involved have different definitions of acceptable behavior. So I suppose my answer would be: "it's immoral because we as a society say it is" and that's pretty much it.
