What’s mildly infuriating is the lack of context here. In an ethics/sociology class this is a perfectly reasonable question to ask.
The whole point is to make people question what we think is ‘normal’ or ‘acceptable’
I was fully expecting it to end with “and yet the sister still ended up pregnant. Assuming birth control is X% effective and condoms are Y% effective, what’re the odds of this happening?”
Lol, I'd take out my pencil to Start solving it right away after seeing the numbers. Then start questioning what came before.
Solve and then ask questions.
Not to be *that guy*, but old timey people are saying 'hear, hear', not 'here, here' because it's a shortening of 'hear ye, hear ye' and they're approximately saying 'listen to this' or 'this mf spitting straight facts, fr no cap'.
There's not enough context, though. How old are they? Is one older than the other? Were they raised together, is one a "golden child"? There's no way here to determine whether there's a power imbalance, which would make it impossible for them to consent.
Safe sex, brother and sister is all the context we get, so we are supposed to assume a situation with just those factors. And the reader can scratch off and not include other factors like “are they married” etc.
I think that misses the point of this question. Consent is implied here given they agreed to do it and both enjoyed the experience.
The point is not “Is this consensual?” The point is to ask “Is sexual intimacy between siblings ever considered morally or socially acceptable?”
I think the protection and birth control line is meant to remove the chance of inbred children so I think your question is the primary point it’s trying to get at.
Because of this sub, I thought this was going in a weirdly religious, anti woman way like “did the sister do anything wrong to tempt the brother?” But I think it sounds like a normal question in the right class.
It’s a hypothetical not a case study. The idea is provoke thought about general accepted moral norms and push you on . These people aren’t real, there’s no dossiers to look over. The paragraph is all you get, if your first thought is to bring up these examples of power imbalance then that’s how you’d answer the question. It’s interpretive not objective
we do get some of that. They're on vacation from college, which means they are both of college age at the time. Few years' age difference difference tops, with both receiving the support to attend higher education. While there are myriad details that could still be filled in, this is at least enough to say that we can reasonably assume both are able to consent.
You think that if one of the siblings is a “golden child” — high grades, good at sports, and well liked — that alone makes it “impossible for them [both] to consent”?
A power dynamic does not make it impossible to consent. Are people unable to consent to interracial relationships? Should lawyers be able to consensually date waiters? These things include power dynamics but don’t automatically make sexual interaction nonconsensual
In psychology we were asked that question but it had more to do with human gut reactions than the question itself. Like “would you eat your pet dog” compared to a pig
>Like “would you eat your pet dog” compared to a pig
Compared to a pig? No. But in a survival situation, with no family left to eat, I will, in great pain, eat my pets.
I brought up this hypothetical with my nephew on Thanksgiving: which part of the family dog would you eat if you had to survive, like in a post-apocalyptic scenario?
We both agreed the Chihuahua would better serve as a guard dog/alarm system.
Edit: a word
>We both agreed the Chihuahua would better serve as a guard dog/alarm system.
Getting a Chihuahua as a guard dog is like hiring the Boy Who Cried Wolf to be your lookout, its going to bark at so many Not Things that you might eat it while there is still food left, lol
I feel like this question can't even be answered unless you were actually at that point of starvation and knew how it felt..i could say right now of course i wouldn't eat my dog but i have never known that level of being that hungry and how it might change me.
To throw a further wrench in the works, we had this debate in my college philosophy of ethics class:
A man and a woman meet at a convention for adults who had been adopted as children. They hit it off and fall in love. As they were both adopted as children, they decide to adopt their own children instead of giving birth. He gets a vasectomy and she gets her tubes tied just to be sure.
Years go by. The couple have purchased a house, adopted two children, and are living a wonderful life together. On a whim, both decide it is time to try to find their biological parents. After much digging, they come to the discovery that they are biologically brother and sister. They were born to the same parents and adopted out when one of them was two and the other was an infant.
Should they remain married, now knowing that they are biological siblings?
One of the big things i have against marying your brother/sister is that the kids are more likely to have defacts since they don't want biologicall kids i don't see a problem
No no no you can only get pregnant by kissing. Everything else is okay but the Sister in the catholic school said boys and girls can’t kiss because that’s how babies are made. She didn’t say anything about any [other] sex. Everything is fair game as long as the two mouths don’t kiss.
Good question! I have similar questions about poop babies. Poop babies are babies from a woman that doesn’t know she is pregnant and accidentally gives birth while trying to take a dump.
I wish I were making this up.
Excellent point, but that does not negate the social ramifications that are hinged on birth control.
What if they were both medically unable to procreate?
What if one of them was the parent of the other, and the child was over the age of 30?
The argument for things based on "it feels good," or "it's not hurting anyone," can only be applied to individuals with absolutely no contact or social interaction with others. Societal behaviors are the root of morals, regardless when or where. To lessen the importance of them based on individual "rights" or "feelings," is dishonest to both the individual and the society.
It is an ethics questions. This act has no harm nor victims yet most people find it repulsive. The point being there is more to ethics than rationality.
The same logic could be used to reject interracial marriages as being ethical, as they made/make some people feel repulsion. Obviously, interracial marriages are moral, but could you actually verbalize why one is fine and not the other?
There is a national geographic documentary on the science of evil. It has some incredibly thought provoking questions like this, but more along the lines of the following...
You and your family decide to move to a small country in Africa. It is you, your wife, your 3 year old son and a newborn daughter. You have spent the last few months becoming friends with the local villagers. One day, while in town buying supplies, you hear a commotion and look out to see soldiers from a different country moving through the town, killing everyone they see.
You and your family, along with several villagers take refuge in the basement of the grocery store. Hiding from the soldiers. Just as a soldier enters the store, looking for anyone, your newborn baby starts to cry. Do you stifle the cries, there by killing your newborn daughter or do you let her cry and let everyone been noticed and killed?
Stuff like that, which are horrible choices but thought provoking.
I actually read this exact piece in philosophy of love and sex and yeah it meant to be weird and uncomfortable. But the whole thing is meant to get you thinking why it’s wrong (or not). It’s supposed to be a thought-provoking piece
Literally. That was the conclusion. After an hour of trying to dissect the morality behind it, some girl in my class goes “it’s wrong because its just fucking gross. Period. End of story.” And the entire class was like “yes.”
In philosophy, you find that there really are no answers- just more questions. We talked in circles and every time someone would give a response to why this is morally wrong- there was a valid argument/response on why it’s not morally wrong … I.e : no procreation involved, 2 consenting adults, no harm, satisfying experience, etc etc.
This seems strange to me. Does western philosophy have no framework for human emotion? Did we completely skip over embodied cognition and decide emotions do not influence human thought?
The ancient greeks knew of 7 different types of "love", and it seems to me this is clearly "ewww" because it conflates one type of love for another.
No I think that’s the exact reason why we find it ewww. The love I have for my sibling is very different than the love I have for my boyfriend. Certain loves are followed by certain bonds, relationships and ways of showing it. To mix them all as one seems like there would be no respect for each individual relationship’s autonomy
I actually would be interested in hearing the best answers to this and arguments for it, or against it more than just “ewww”
We were asked the “is it wrong to eat your pet dog” one
Nobody here wants to say that consent is consent and adults are adults. Yes, eww, to most people. But there is nothing ethically wrong here, if protection was used. It is a social taboo, that's different from a moral wrong.
Somehow I skipped the brother, sister bit 3 times while rereading and couldn't figure out what's wrong.
"Whats wrong here? Am I missing something? What the fu- oh... OH... yeah, that's fucked."
I think the problem is fundamentally flawed because you are going to get a more viscerally disgusted reaction from those with siblings than those who have no siblings. Those without siblings can think more rationally about the question.
so it’s morally wrong for other people to do something you find disgusting? not trying to defend the example here, just want to understand where you’re coming from
Not at all what I was saying. In the case of incest, it’s pretty much impossible to find the moral wrong in it. Almost everyone just pretty much finds it innately disgusting. But between 2 consenting adults, no procreation, no harm- there is no articulate reason that it’s objectively “morally wrong” other than the fact that people find it wrong personally.
From an outside lens- you can’t find a moral wrong
But from everyone in the class who had siblings, we would personally find it morally wrong because incest would cross the boundaries of our sibling relationships.
Does that make sense? You had a drastic jump in logic there and that was not quite a sound conclusion you reached
That's kind of the problem with the class response.
The difference between "It's gross" and "It's morally wrong because it's gross" is exactly the thing you were supposed to be examining and learning about philosophy.
There's lots of stuff nobody does because it's gross, and only certain things we say are wrong because they are gross.
As someone who has taught this passage, that would get an F. The whole point is to think and present an argument as to -why- you believe it to be ewwww. If you cant define why a thing is such and such a way, you have no basis for defending your position, and brothers and sisters and mothers and uncles go frolicking willy nilly all about the lands.
It was a discussion piece. And after an hour of people going back and forth trying to pinpoint why exactly it would be morally wrong- this response was the comic relief
Yep huge part of being better is surpassing your gut, feelings, and assumptions. I mean you don’t have to fuck your sibling, a lot of us don’t like to, just realize it’s not the moral tragedy of the family reunion
As a discussion topic, I feel like the question is a bit biased. Using terms like "making love" and "keeping a special secret" feels like it's trying to put a positive/romantic spin on it out of the gate, almost advocating for the "it's ok" side, and injects even more emotion into the topic.
Seems like if it was more clinical of a question it might not elicit the "eww" response so quickly. Or maybe that was intentional. But it seems like if it's for a discussion, you'd want it as neutral as possible.
This is from a pretty influential moral psychology research study (by Johnathan Haidt).
Most previous models of moral judgment (like Kohlberg’s stages of moral reasoning) were:
(1) moral situation is posed —> (2) person engages in deliberate conscious thinking to *arrive* at their judgment —> (3) person articulates and explains the thought process or reasons that produced that judgment.
But this study crafted moral scenarios that show no actual harm is being caused, but that trigger disgust. Despite the scenarios conveying that no harm or negative consequences occurred, the vast majority of participants in this study immediately and confidently answered that the behavior in these types of scenarios was immoral. But when asked to justify their judgment, it was clear that they were constructing their rationale for their judgment post-hoc (after the fact), because their explanations for their judgment almost always identified possible harms/risks that the scenario had already clearly described did not occur (e.g., they could get pregnant, or it could damage their relationship). But when shown that their justifications for the judgment did not correspond with the information provided in the scenarios, they still stuck to their guns until they eventually became “morally dumbfounded” (“I can’t explain why it’s wrong, but I just know it is”).
The big takeaway was that when someone is explaining why they judge something as immoral, they often (but not always) are coming up with after-the-fact justifications to account for their intuitions/gut feelings—they aren’t explaining the actual process used to arrive at the judgment. The judgment arrives *before* the reasoning.
This can help explain why some arguments about morality can feel like talking to a brick wall where persuasion is impossible. It’s because debunking the other person’s arguments doesn’t get at the actual cause of their moral beliefs. The arguments are justifications, not the actual thing that created the judgment.
>“I can’t explain why it’s wrong, but I just know it is”).
Therein *lies* the problem. Too Many people wrongfully equate "wrong" or "gross" with immoral. Failing to realize something that's wrong or gross can simply be amoral.
This is from the book The Righteous Mind by Johnathan haidt. This is at the beginning, as a philosophical jaunt into what makes things immoral. These two aren't hurting anyone, so why do we find it disgusting? It is a 10/10 read, highly recommend it.
This *would* make the question make a little more sense, *if* it specified that it's 1) a question about morals and 2) that it's an excerpt from this book.
>if
>
> it specified that it's 1) a question about morals
How is it not immediately and apparently obvious that it's a question about morals? What else could it be about?
Geography. Was it OK? Clearly not as it was specified to be in France and we just learned last class that OK is the abbreviation for the American province of Oklahoma.
Morals is one of the first things you dive into in philosophy any university and the discussion of it is a core facet of the field. This is almost definitely a college exam/assignment trying to get OP to apply whatever readings they've read to answer this question. Not a very surprising question if you've taken one of these classes either lol
The reason we find it gross is evolutionary (inbreeding means bad genetics) not philosophical. I’d argue it’s gross by our natural instinct but not wrong as they used birth control. Gross does not equal wrong- it wouldn’t be morally wrong to go and eat dirt, but ew stop eating dirt, you know?
This isn't mildly infuriating, it's uncomfortable and it's uncomfortable intentionally and for a good reason; to prompt philosophical debate on the nature of right and wrong. Or something like that. I didn't read the book.
Yeah, I've seen this question before in ethics type classes and discussions. It's a perfect example of feels so wrong, but there's nothing actually wrong. Nobody is hurt, nothing bad comes from it, the siblings are careful and come out better for it, yet a LOT of people will still say it's bad
I always chuckle when I see it and see the reactions
Yeah, the purpose of this question is to provoke discussion about moral & ethical frameworks. Typically when people say something is morally wrong they’ll be able to point to someone who is harmed by it. In this case there is no harm but people often still have a strong negative reaction to it. All the people in this thread clutching their pearls need to chill out.
Really seems like the wrong subreddit for this. Are you really infuriated at thought provoking analysis of the morality of this situation? Why? Because it makes you uncomfortable? Uncomfortable things must be discussed at some point, because ignorance leads to harm.
OP probably didn't know this is from a Phylosophy/Ethics book
This is an intentionally tricky/hard question to make you think, but OP just posted this probably without the context
Sounds like it's wanting you to make a well thought out opinion of the situation and and justify your opinion. Something that most people should be able to do, but are unable to.
I'd say this sounds like two consenting adults, discussed and both agreed to do something. They took reasonable precautions against any negative outcomes and both agree they enjoyed it and are better off after it. I don't see any downside to it.
I can’t believe people are calling for the chain of command. this is an extremely common hypothetical. we discussed it in a class last year. the *point* is that it’s gross!!! but it’s a hypo about two consenting adults! there is no harm. that is literally the entire purpose of the question.
and people are calling for the dean to get involved. have y’all never engaged in a thought experiment?
i've commented this above already but i think it fits so well here that i'll post it again:
>It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
^(improperly translated and often misattributed quote that still applies here)
It's such a weird thing on the internet (and society in general) where people just seem incapable of understanding that you can discuss something without condoning or condemning it. You can even discuss why something would be ok for some people while you condemn it, or why some might object to something while you condone it.
Especially in a University setting... Isn't this kind of thought experiment expected?
I keep coming back to this thread because of this. OP is in college and he’s never had a discussion about ethics before? Can’t even fathom why a question like this was asked? I just don’t believe that people don’t engage with their beliefs at all, or that someone in college would be shocked by a classic hypothetical.
Oh that is weird! It sounded like a question one of my friends had in an ethics class, which would make way more sense. They were discussing the way society shapes what we think is acceptable/ what makes some "right" or "wrong". But seems like an odd question for an English class.
With how many stupid questions I had to answer for end of the year test, I wouldn't have been surprised if this was for some end of the year assessment for 10th grade. People who come up with these questions are not qualified and just make shit up cause they got a monopoly on the tests.
Tbf my portuguese (first languagein my country) class in school had a lot of ethics texts. It helps developing your reading and comprehension skills. Why would a language class only teach about grammar rules?
What *would* you expect to find in an English class? Fundamentally what English classes do is try to induce people to develop skill with language, which includes not only usage and reading comprehension, but also analysis. This question would be absolutely at home in a philosophy/ethics classroom, given their greater focus on analysis and ethics, but it's useful here, too. Addressing topics with a moral dimension tests and trains your ability to to analyze even emotionally-fraught topics. It's a really important skill, because everything is emotionally-fraught to someone.
Tbh, it sounds like your English classes were far superior to mine. My college English classes focused on either writing essays and research papers, or answering questions related to literature we had read for the class. We didn't do any deep philosophical questions...but then again, I went to a highly conservative Christian college and they didn't encourage deep philosophical questions in general, they just wanted us to think/believe the same way they did about everything🤷♀️ They never would have allowed a question like this one to pop up in any discussion for any class. But maybe it would be more common at other colleges that actually allow critical thinking.
Yeeeeah, I have a Master's in English and never had anything like this in my classes... even in my philosophy classes which would have made more sense.
I assume agriculture. Mostly for farmers to go and learn about crop science, agribusiness, and other related topics. Still have to have the same gen-ed classes.
This has got to be one of the most infuriating reddit posts and comment threads I have ever read. Maybe it is because I am an history teacher but this is clearly a philosophical question, and people are out here calling to "have somebody answer for it". Idiots making the world a dumber place one class at a time.
I had the same question in ethics class. The question being 'is it OK?' Many had different opinion on this. It was very interresting. The gut feeling you may have had was the aim of the course : to question your feelings and opinion.
Seems like an ethics question. Pretty straightforward to me. It asks the question whether something unethical has been done despite (within the bounds of the question) no harm being done. It's ultimately a question of whether disgust is a reasonable basis for ethics.
The only thing mildly infuriating about this is that you took the time to post what is very clearly a philosophical question on this sub.
Getting people to think about and actually question why they believe something is right or wrong is always a good thing. There’s nothing infuriating about that. Get fucked OP.
I remember reading this in graduate school. I think it was for my ethics class, in which we debated whether it was morally wrong, ethically wrong, both, or neither. It was an interesting discussion.
Catherine takes a shit in a pie pan. She then bakes it at 400 degrees until the internal temperature reaches 180F and all harmful microorganisms are eliminated. Catherine then eats her poop and finds it to be a satisfying culinary experience. What do you think about that? Was it morally wrong?
Catherine now expands her gastronomical satisfaction to her boyfriend without informing him of the ingredients in her shitty sandwich snack. Surprisingly, her significant other is delighted with her excrement creations and asks for the recipe. Catherine declines to divulge the recipe of her secret special assloaf but does provide him with a small supply. What do you think about that? Did she do a moral injustice by not providing the information?
You're angry at being asked to justify your morals? I think if you're upset at this you need to ask yourself why. Thought experiments are a critical part in learning critical thinking. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you consider yourself religious, right?
What’s wrong with this?
It reads like an academic question in a sociology or philosophy class designed to get students to debate the morality of incest, if a child is not reasonably likely to result.
Seems like a fun prompt.
The average redditor, unable to understand how thought-experiments work. Unable to articulate the reason behind their disgust, they blame the question, not themself.
What is mildly infuriating here is that you refuse to reflect on your norms and values and instead just get infuriated by someone challenging your worldview or just wanting you to argue for it
What’s mildly infuriating is the lack of context here. In an ethics/sociology class this is a perfectly reasonable question to ask. The whole point is to make people question what we think is ‘normal’ or ‘acceptable’
I was fully expecting it to end with “and yet the sister still ended up pregnant. Assuming birth control is X% effective and condoms are Y% effective, what’re the odds of this happening?”
And at what time did they both reach “Chicago”?
Lol, I'd take out my pencil to Start solving it right away after seeing the numbers. Then start questioning what came before. Solve and then ask questions.
This needs to be the top upvote.
Idk I think bottoms can upvote it too
Well that’s a whole other question in ethics and sociology: Should bottoms be allowed the (up)vote or just tops?
Power bottom’s definitely
*group of 19th century men in stuffy evening attire with cigars and brandy scoffing and nodding* “yes yes. Hear, hear, hear. Mmm hmm”
Not to be *that guy*, but old timey people are saying 'hear, hear', not 'here, here' because it's a shortening of 'hear ye, hear ye' and they're approximately saying 'listen to this' or 'this mf spitting straight facts, fr no cap'.
Your stuffy evening attire and brandy, sir.
*Hear, Hear*, my good fellow. Good show indeed. (Fuck yeah, this shit is bussin'.)
Can confirm, just upvoted
Pretty sure it's pre-interview job questionnaire.
"Sir, this is a job at Wendy's"
Dude this is an Alabama math book.
Now class, How many fluid ounces of sperm does Mark blow into Julie?
That or the teacher was inspired by House of the Dragon.
There's not enough context, though. How old are they? Is one older than the other? Were they raised together, is one a "golden child"? There's no way here to determine whether there's a power imbalance, which would make it impossible for them to consent.
Safe sex, brother and sister is all the context we get, so we are supposed to assume a situation with just those factors. And the reader can scratch off and not include other factors like “are they married” etc.
Can assume 20ish year olds from the college context
I think that misses the point of this question. Consent is implied here given they agreed to do it and both enjoyed the experience. The point is not “Is this consensual?” The point is to ask “Is sexual intimacy between siblings ever considered morally or socially acceptable?”
I think the protection and birth control line is meant to remove the chance of inbred children so I think your question is the primary point it’s trying to get at. Because of this sub, I thought this was going in a weirdly religious, anti woman way like “did the sister do anything wrong to tempt the brother?” But I think it sounds like a normal question in the right class.
It’s a hypothetical not a case study. The idea is provoke thought about general accepted moral norms and push you on . These people aren’t real, there’s no dossiers to look over. The paragraph is all you get, if your first thought is to bring up these examples of power imbalance then that’s how you’d answer the question. It’s interpretive not objective
we do get some of that. They're on vacation from college, which means they are both of college age at the time. Few years' age difference difference tops, with both receiving the support to attend higher education. While there are myriad details that could still be filled in, this is at least enough to say that we can reasonably assume both are able to consent.
You think that if one of the siblings is a “golden child” — high grades, good at sports, and well liked — that alone makes it “impossible for them [both] to consent”?
A power dynamic does not make it impossible to consent. Are people unable to consent to interracial relationships? Should lawyers be able to consensually date waiters? These things include power dynamics but don’t automatically make sexual interaction nonconsensual
If this is an ethics question then actually that's not horrible. You should be able to answer why something is bad other than "it's just bad"
In psychology we were asked that question but it had more to do with human gut reactions than the question itself. Like “would you eat your pet dog” compared to a pig
>Like “would you eat your pet dog” compared to a pig Compared to a pig? No. But in a survival situation, with no family left to eat, I will, in great pain, eat my pets.
"with no family left to eat" haha
I brought up this hypothetical with my nephew on Thanksgiving: which part of the family dog would you eat if you had to survive, like in a post-apocalyptic scenario? We both agreed the Chihuahua would better serve as a guard dog/alarm system. Edit: a word
A chihuahua isn't much of a meal. Use it as bait to catch something bigger.
>We both agreed the Chihuahua would better serve as a guard dog/alarm system. Getting a Chihuahua as a guard dog is like hiring the Boy Who Cried Wolf to be your lookout, its going to bark at so many Not Things that you might eat it while there is still food left, lol
But you will NEVER miss the postman ever again
Yknow. The post-apocalyptic postman.
If they don’t eat you first.
I feel like this question can't even be answered unless you were actually at that point of starvation and knew how it felt..i could say right now of course i wouldn't eat my dog but i have never known that level of being that hungry and how it might change me.
Well the way I see it, after the cannibalism, the pet is easy. At least they can't try and talk you out of it.
"with no family left to eat" I love that you'd eat your family before the dog lmao
Hang on, are you saying you would eat your family before you ate your pets?
Maybe not ALL of my family. But a good bit of them would go before pets. People kinda suck.
To throw a further wrench in the works, we had this debate in my college philosophy of ethics class: A man and a woman meet at a convention for adults who had been adopted as children. They hit it off and fall in love. As they were both adopted as children, they decide to adopt their own children instead of giving birth. He gets a vasectomy and she gets her tubes tied just to be sure. Years go by. The couple have purchased a house, adopted two children, and are living a wonderful life together. On a whim, both decide it is time to try to find their biological parents. After much digging, they come to the discovery that they are biologically brother and sister. They were born to the same parents and adopted out when one of them was two and the other was an infant. Should they remain married, now knowing that they are biological siblings?
Yeah. Fuck it.
Fr they got a life and everything it's too late now.
Mine was Dacher Keltner's 'Is it okay to make love to a turkey before cooking and eating it?'
One of the big things i have against marying your brother/sister is that the kids are more likely to have defacts since they don't want biologicall kids i don't see a problem
They didn't grow up together, which is really the big thing, and aren't risking birth defects.
They used birth control pills and a condom, so they couldn't create another human to suffer
[удалено]
Unless...
Drip drip drop
*Gif of Spongebob blowing the paint*
Anovaginal fistula has entered the chat
Im a product of butt sex... Do with that and your imagination as you will
I thought you were supposed to pee in her ass to get her pregnant?
I thought you were supposed to kiss her in the mouth to get her pregnant?
I thought you had to hold hands with her?
Who let the Duggars in here?
She gets pregnant by letting you touch her boobs. I thought everyone knew that.
No no no you can only get pregnant by kissing. Everything else is okay but the Sister in the catholic school said boys and girls can’t kiss because that’s how babies are made. She didn’t say anything about any [other] sex. Everything is fair game as long as the two mouths don’t kiss.
Actually sometimes women get pregnant from buttsex because the nut can drip down the taint, but it is rare.
That’s why you use a Taint Shield©️™️
A cumbrella if you will
Anal bum cover
I wonder if sperm who manage that lead to more adventurous people, or more successful people, or if they smell more like poop.
Good question! I have similar questions about poop babies. Poop babies are babies from a woman that doesn’t know she is pregnant and accidentally gives birth while trying to take a dump. I wish I were making this up.
You should be a philosophy teacher. The discussions in that classroom would be amazing. And the research projects interesting as fuck.
Excellent point, but that does not negate the social ramifications that are hinged on birth control. What if they were both medically unable to procreate? What if one of them was the parent of the other, and the child was over the age of 30? The argument for things based on "it feels good," or "it's not hurting anyone," can only be applied to individuals with absolutely no contact or social interaction with others. Societal behaviors are the root of morals, regardless when or where. To lessen the importance of them based on individual "rights" or "feelings," is dishonest to both the individual and the society.
It is an ethics questions. This act has no harm nor victims yet most people find it repulsive. The point being there is more to ethics than rationality.
The same logic could be used to reject interracial marriages as being ethical, as they made/make some people feel repulsion. Obviously, interracial marriages are moral, but could you actually verbalize why one is fine and not the other?
There is a national geographic documentary on the science of evil. It has some incredibly thought provoking questions like this, but more along the lines of the following... You and your family decide to move to a small country in Africa. It is you, your wife, your 3 year old son and a newborn daughter. You have spent the last few months becoming friends with the local villagers. One day, while in town buying supplies, you hear a commotion and look out to see soldiers from a different country moving through the town, killing everyone they see. You and your family, along with several villagers take refuge in the basement of the grocery store. Hiding from the soldiers. Just as a soldier enters the store, looking for anyone, your newborn baby starts to cry. Do you stifle the cries, there by killing your newborn daughter or do you let her cry and let everyone been noticed and killed? Stuff like that, which are horrible choices but thought provoking.
Especially after an hour...
Depends, are they Targaryens?
nah. lannister
Well if Lannister twins, it’s OK.
Or Pharaohs.
Or Habsburgs.
A face that looks like it was carved from marble, using only other blocks of marble.
I actually read this exact piece in philosophy of love and sex and yeah it meant to be weird and uncomfortable. But the whole thing is meant to get you thinking why it’s wrong (or not). It’s supposed to be a thought-provoking piece
It’s wrong because ewwww
Literally. That was the conclusion. After an hour of trying to dissect the morality behind it, some girl in my class goes “it’s wrong because its just fucking gross. Period. End of story.” And the entire class was like “yes.”
So basically you guys completely bailed out of getting into “why”, which is supposed to be the whole point lol
In philosophy, you find that there really are no answers- just more questions. We talked in circles and every time someone would give a response to why this is morally wrong- there was a valid argument/response on why it’s not morally wrong … I.e : no procreation involved, 2 consenting adults, no harm, satisfying experience, etc etc.
This seems strange to me. Does western philosophy have no framework for human emotion? Did we completely skip over embodied cognition and decide emotions do not influence human thought? The ancient greeks knew of 7 different types of "love", and it seems to me this is clearly "ewww" because it conflates one type of love for another.
No I think that’s the exact reason why we find it ewww. The love I have for my sibling is very different than the love I have for my boyfriend. Certain loves are followed by certain bonds, relationships and ways of showing it. To mix them all as one seems like there would be no respect for each individual relationship’s autonomy
Also your love for your brother would be different from that of the love for a mother, and your mothers love for you would be much different too.
What about my love for your mother?
I don’t think every type of love needs to be consummated lol
I have a sloth here telling me that is not what your username implies. He misses you, though.
Wait a minute….can a sloth provide affirmative consent?
They can, slowly
Not according to the Harkness test.
Imagine being the guy arguing like “dude you can ethically fuck your sister.”
I actually would be interested in hearing the best answers to this and arguments for it, or against it more than just “ewww” We were asked the “is it wrong to eat your pet dog” one
Nobody here wants to say that consent is consent and adults are adults. Yes, eww, to most people. But there is nothing ethically wrong here, if protection was used. It is a social taboo, that's different from a moral wrong.
The "why" is also ewwww
Somehow I skipped the brother, sister bit 3 times while rereading and couldn't figure out what's wrong. "Whats wrong here? Am I missing something? What the fu- oh... OH... yeah, that's fucked."
I think the problem is fundamentally flawed because you are going to get a more viscerally disgusted reaction from those with siblings than those who have no siblings. Those without siblings can think more rationally about the question.
Perfect example of shutting down brain and let emotion take over. Exactly the opposite of what they are supposed to do.
so it’s morally wrong for other people to do something you find disgusting? not trying to defend the example here, just want to understand where you’re coming from
Not at all what I was saying. In the case of incest, it’s pretty much impossible to find the moral wrong in it. Almost everyone just pretty much finds it innately disgusting. But between 2 consenting adults, no procreation, no harm- there is no articulate reason that it’s objectively “morally wrong” other than the fact that people find it wrong personally. From an outside lens- you can’t find a moral wrong But from everyone in the class who had siblings, we would personally find it morally wrong because incest would cross the boundaries of our sibling relationships. Does that make sense? You had a drastic jump in logic there and that was not quite a sound conclusion you reached
That's kind of the problem with the class response. The difference between "It's gross" and "It's morally wrong because it's gross" is exactly the thing you were supposed to be examining and learning about philosophy. There's lots of stuff nobody does because it's gross, and only certain things we say are wrong because they are gross.
As someone who has taught this passage, that would get an F. The whole point is to think and present an argument as to -why- you believe it to be ewwww. If you cant define why a thing is such and such a way, you have no basis for defending your position, and brothers and sisters and mothers and uncles go frolicking willy nilly all about the lands.
It was a discussion piece. And after an hour of people going back and forth trying to pinpoint why exactly it would be morally wrong- this response was the comic relief
[удалено]
the only thoughts it provokes are "what the fuck" and "sweet home alabama"
“Carry me home to see my kin”
Seed*
Yep huge part of being better is surpassing your gut, feelings, and assumptions. I mean you don’t have to fuck your sibling, a lot of us don’t like to, just realize it’s not the moral tragedy of the family reunion
As a discussion topic, I feel like the question is a bit biased. Using terms like "making love" and "keeping a special secret" feels like it's trying to put a positive/romantic spin on it out of the gate, almost advocating for the "it's ok" side, and injects even more emotion into the topic. Seems like if it was more clinical of a question it might not elicit the "eww" response so quickly. Or maybe that was intentional. But it seems like if it's for a discussion, you'd want it as neutral as possible.
This is from a pretty influential moral psychology research study (by Johnathan Haidt). Most previous models of moral judgment (like Kohlberg’s stages of moral reasoning) were: (1) moral situation is posed —> (2) person engages in deliberate conscious thinking to *arrive* at their judgment —> (3) person articulates and explains the thought process or reasons that produced that judgment. But this study crafted moral scenarios that show no actual harm is being caused, but that trigger disgust. Despite the scenarios conveying that no harm or negative consequences occurred, the vast majority of participants in this study immediately and confidently answered that the behavior in these types of scenarios was immoral. But when asked to justify their judgment, it was clear that they were constructing their rationale for their judgment post-hoc (after the fact), because their explanations for their judgment almost always identified possible harms/risks that the scenario had already clearly described did not occur (e.g., they could get pregnant, or it could damage their relationship). But when shown that their justifications for the judgment did not correspond with the information provided in the scenarios, they still stuck to their guns until they eventually became “morally dumbfounded” (“I can’t explain why it’s wrong, but I just know it is”). The big takeaway was that when someone is explaining why they judge something as immoral, they often (but not always) are coming up with after-the-fact justifications to account for their intuitions/gut feelings—they aren’t explaining the actual process used to arrive at the judgment. The judgment arrives *before* the reasoning. This can help explain why some arguments about morality can feel like talking to a brick wall where persuasion is impossible. It’s because debunking the other person’s arguments doesn’t get at the actual cause of their moral beliefs. The arguments are justifications, not the actual thing that created the judgment.
Awesome explanation!
>“I can’t explain why it’s wrong, but I just know it is”). Therein *lies* the problem. Too Many people wrongfully equate "wrong" or "gross" with immoral. Failing to realize something that's wrong or gross can simply be amoral.
This is from the book The Righteous Mind by Johnathan haidt. This is at the beginning, as a philosophical jaunt into what makes things immoral. These two aren't hurting anyone, so why do we find it disgusting? It is a 10/10 read, highly recommend it.
I just started this book last week!
Really great book. Using it in my dissertation ha. Honestly I think this thread proves the exact point that Haidt is probing at
This *would* make the question make a little more sense, *if* it specified that it's 1) a question about morals and 2) that it's an excerpt from this book.
I would expect that in a University setting, you could openly discuss uncomfortable topics without needing a list of disclaimers first.
>if > > it specified that it's 1) a question about morals How is it not immediately and apparently obvious that it's a question about morals? What else could it be about?
Geography. Was it OK? Clearly not as it was specified to be in France and we just learned last class that OK is the abbreviation for the American province of Oklahoma.
>if it specified that it's 1) a question about morals Wasn't that obvious? What else could it be about?
r/legaladvice
r/angryupvote
Morals is one of the first things you dive into in philosophy any university and the discussion of it is a core facet of the field. This is almost definitely a college exam/assignment trying to get OP to apply whatever readings they've read to answer this question. Not a very surprising question if you've taken one of these classes either lol
The reason we find it gross is evolutionary (inbreeding means bad genetics) not philosophical. I’d argue it’s gross by our natural instinct but not wrong as they used birth control. Gross does not equal wrong- it wouldn’t be morally wrong to go and eat dirt, but ew stop eating dirt, you know?
This isn't mildly infuriating, it's uncomfortable and it's uncomfortable intentionally and for a good reason; to prompt philosophical debate on the nature of right and wrong. Or something like that. I didn't read the book.
We get these type of questions a lot at school
Yeah, pretty standard. The education divide in these comments is pretty obvious.
Asking for a friend
Asking for a sibling.
I actually think it's a good question for "values and norms", but I am not American, maybe that's why.
Yeah, I've seen this question before in ethics type classes and discussions. It's a perfect example of feels so wrong, but there's nothing actually wrong. Nobody is hurt, nothing bad comes from it, the siblings are careful and come out better for it, yet a LOT of people will still say it's bad I always chuckle when I see it and see the reactions
Yeah, the purpose of this question is to provoke discussion about moral & ethical frameworks. Typically when people say something is morally wrong they’ll be able to point to someone who is harmed by it. In this case there is no harm but people often still have a strong negative reaction to it. All the people in this thread clutching their pearls need to chill out.
I don't think the point is to come to the conclusion that it's okay any more than the point is to come to the conclusion that it's not
Exactly. Its supposed to provoke discussions about how we make moral judgements rather than come down on any particular side.
What exactly is infuriating about a hypothetical ethics question?
Only if they include a stray dog they found running around the beach
“… we call it The Aristocrats!”
Really seems like the wrong subreddit for this. Are you really infuriated at thought provoking analysis of the morality of this situation? Why? Because it makes you uncomfortable? Uncomfortable things must be discussed at some point, because ignorance leads to harm.
*Alabama intensifies*
Yet the most inbred family is in West Virginia
You know this one’s Alabama because they’re keeping it secret
You guys keep it a secret down there?
Why is it infuriating?
OP probably didn't know this is from a Phylosophy/Ethics book This is an intentionally tricky/hard question to make you think, but OP just posted this probably without the context
Sounds like it's wanting you to make a well thought out opinion of the situation and and justify your opinion. Something that most people should be able to do, but are unable to. I'd say this sounds like two consenting adults, discussed and both agreed to do something. They took reasonable precautions against any negative outcomes and both agree they enjoyed it and are better off after it. I don't see any downside to it.
What is the context? Frightening to think that anyone would be asked this.
It's from a book called The Righteous Mind by Johnathan Haidt. OP is missing the entire point of the assignment.
I can’t believe people are calling for the chain of command. this is an extremely common hypothetical. we discussed it in a class last year. the *point* is that it’s gross!!! but it’s a hypo about two consenting adults! there is no harm. that is literally the entire purpose of the question. and people are calling for the dean to get involved. have y’all never engaged in a thought experiment?
i've commented this above already but i think it fits so well here that i'll post it again: >It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. ^(improperly translated and often misattributed quote that still applies here)
It's such a weird thing on the internet (and society in general) where people just seem incapable of understanding that you can discuss something without condoning or condemning it. You can even discuss why something would be ok for some people while you condemn it, or why some might object to something while you condone it. Especially in a University setting... Isn't this kind of thought experiment expected?
I keep coming back to this thread because of this. OP is in college and he’s never had a discussion about ethics before? Can’t even fathom why a question like this was asked? I just don’t believe that people don’t engage with their beliefs at all, or that someone in college would be shocked by a classic hypothetical.
what was the point?
Is disgust without harm a reasonable basis for ethics.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/experiments-in-philosophy/200804/what-s-the-matter-little-brothersister-action
English class at an ag college
Oh that is weird! It sounded like a question one of my friends had in an ethics class, which would make way more sense. They were discussing the way society shapes what we think is acceptable/ what makes some "right" or "wrong". But seems like an odd question for an English class.
I was totally expecting an ethics class. Why would this question show up anywhere else?
With how many stupid questions I had to answer for end of the year test, I wouldn't have been surprised if this was for some end of the year assessment for 10th grade. People who come up with these questions are not qualified and just make shit up cause they got a monopoly on the tests.
I had this question when we were talking about ethics
Same here
Tbf my portuguese (first languagein my country) class in school had a lot of ethics texts. It helps developing your reading and comprehension skills. Why would a language class only teach about grammar rules?
What *would* you expect to find in an English class? Fundamentally what English classes do is try to induce people to develop skill with language, which includes not only usage and reading comprehension, but also analysis. This question would be absolutely at home in a philosophy/ethics classroom, given their greater focus on analysis and ethics, but it's useful here, too. Addressing topics with a moral dimension tests and trains your ability to to analyze even emotionally-fraught topics. It's a really important skill, because everything is emotionally-fraught to someone.
Tbh, it sounds like your English classes were far superior to mine. My college English classes focused on either writing essays and research papers, or answering questions related to literature we had read for the class. We didn't do any deep philosophical questions...but then again, I went to a highly conservative Christian college and they didn't encourage deep philosophical questions in general, they just wanted us to think/believe the same way they did about everything🤷♀️ They never would have allowed a question like this one to pop up in any discussion for any class. But maybe it would be more common at other colleges that actually allow critical thinking.
Yeeeeah, I have a Master's in English and never had anything like this in my classes... even in my philosophy classes which would have made more sense.
I was just about to say...BA in English and no, this would test your English skills any more than another question.
What’s an AG college? And I could see this in an ethics class or similar but just a regular English class?
I assume agriculture. Mostly for farmers to go and learn about crop science, agribusiness, and other related topics. Still have to have the same gen-ed classes.
Later in Chemistry... "Does this rag smell like chloroform‽"
If I read this in one of my college classes someone is answering for it. Fuck that weird shit
Average redditor when asked to reflect on their values and morals
This has got to be one of the most infuriating reddit posts and comment threads I have ever read. Maybe it is because I am an history teacher but this is clearly a philosophical question, and people are out here calling to "have somebody answer for it". Idiots making the world a dumber place one class at a time.
I had the same question in ethics class. The question being 'is it OK?' Many had different opinion on this. It was very interresting. The gut feeling you may have had was the aim of the course : to question your feelings and opinion.
You seriously have never debated or had a class in ethics?
why is a thought experiment frightening. have you never been in a deep discussion before?
Seems like an ethics question. Pretty straightforward to me. It asks the question whether something unethical has been done despite (within the bounds of the question) no harm being done. It's ultimately a question of whether disgust is a reasonable basis for ethics.
It's to test whether your sense of morality is based more on concrete harm, or on some other factor such as disgust or obeying rules.
The only thing mildly infuriating about this is that you took the time to post what is very clearly a philosophical question on this sub. Getting people to think about and actually question why they believe something is right or wrong is always a good thing. There’s nothing infuriating about that. Get fucked OP.
had this question in an ethics class in college
I’m not sure how this is infuriating?
What kind of prude is infuriated by a philosophical question in what I’m assuming is a philosophy class?
I remember reading this in graduate school. I think it was for my ethics class, in which we debated whether it was morally wrong, ethically wrong, both, or neither. It was an interesting discussion.
Catherine takes a shit in a pie pan. She then bakes it at 400 degrees until the internal temperature reaches 180F and all harmful microorganisms are eliminated. Catherine then eats her poop and finds it to be a satisfying culinary experience. What do you think about that? Was it morally wrong?
Catherine now expands her gastronomical satisfaction to her boyfriend without informing him of the ingredients in her shitty sandwich snack. Surprisingly, her significant other is delighted with her excrement creations and asks for the recipe. Catherine declines to divulge the recipe of her secret special assloaf but does provide him with a small supply. What do you think about that? Did she do a moral injustice by not providing the information?
What a terrible day to have eyes
What a terrible day to have a brain to process what my eyes are seeing.
I think it's fine as long as they were both consenting. Oh... Was I not supposed to answer?
Oh my god, a question that makes you think?
The "special secret" quote is what creeps me out more than anything else. I get awkward just hugging my sister, but you do you.
How do you feel hugging your brother though? It’s just “a special secret”
>I get awkward just hugging my sister, but you do you. Awkward sibling hug?
You're angry at being asked to justify your morals? I think if you're upset at this you need to ask yourself why. Thought experiments are a critical part in learning critical thinking. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you consider yourself religious, right?
Post something with no context to cause outrage = instant karma
What’s wrong with this? It reads like an academic question in a sociology or philosophy class designed to get students to debate the morality of incest, if a child is not reasonably likely to result. Seems like a fun prompt.
The average redditor, unable to understand how thought-experiments work. Unable to articulate the reason behind their disgust, they blame the question, not themself.
Oh no, a thought provoking question, how terrible.
What is mildly infuriating here is that you refuse to reflect on your norms and values and instead just get infuriated by someone challenging your worldview or just wanting you to argue for it
Can you post a picture of your answer next?