Incest Deterrence & Morality is Objectivity

[Veritas Aequitas]

Incest Deterrence or Inbreeding Avoidance an inherent biological functions which is also one of the many moral element.
The incest deterrence systems is a normative in all humans and justifiable via the sciences, it is scientifically objective [FSERC]; when inputted into a moral FSERC, it an objective moral fact, thus supporting the state, moral is objective.

Morality vs Ethics
What is Morality [Pure] are moral elements [principles] evolved and inherent within human nature.
Ethics is 'Applied' i.e. how we apply [optimally] the inherent moral principles to fit into the varying conditions and circumstances of the individual[s] and humanity.

Lorikeet: Moral behaviours are necessary, and are not fabricated by men, nor socially engineered.
They evolve - they are naturally selected because they offer an advantage or prevent a disadvantage.
For example, the immorality of incest is not based no human tastes but on the fact that incestual reproduction increases the probability of birth defects.

I agree with the above. I have regularly used incest [inbreeding avoidance] as an example of moral objectivity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding_avoidance
At present, inbreeding avoidance is a scientific fact within Evolutionary Biology.
Inbreeding avoidance [incest deterrence] is a inhibitor [potential, functioning system] and as evolved is inherent in all humans; it is encoded in the DNA and represented by an algorithm supported by its physical neural correlates in the brain and body.
This will eventually [very possible] be confirmed by neuroscience as a neuroscientific fact via the science-neuroscience-FSERC.

True, many humans had and will commit incest at present, but that is due to brain damage or a weakness of the physical incest inhibitor-system. However, whilst damaged or weak, that does not obviate the existence of the actual physical objective incest inhibitor system in the brain.

Thus, I have argued the above incest inhibitor system is physical, it is objective in the scientific sense and since it is a moral element, therefore when inputted within the moral FSERC, it is moral objectivity.

Note my take on 'what is objectivity' - nothing to do with god and theism.

What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416
There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
1. FSERC mind interdependent sense
2. Mind-independent sense.

Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286
The scientific FSERC will confirm the existence of the inherent incest avoidance function and inhibitor as scientific fact and re scientific objectivity

What is Moral Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30707
When the above scientific fact of incest avoidance is inputted into the morality-proper FSERC, then it is a moral fact, thus morality is objective [as qualified].

As such, the inbreeding avoidance system is an inherent moral principle, i.e. "no human ought to commit incest" in alignment with what is physically inherent in all humans, DNA and neural algorithm wise. This moral principle [as a Pure] is not enforceable but merely a guide.

Tribes, groups of humans can then set their respective ethical rules [maxims] in accordance to the inherent universal moral principle.
Some may have ethical rules that forbid incest completely or forbid directly related close relatives, while for some first cousins marriage are allowable.
These are conditional rules but they do not diminish the inherent moral principle within all humans.

Because the moral principle is categorical [an impossible ideal], all must strive to align with it optimally while making attempts to change the conditions to eliminate incest as much as possible.

At this point, I am not claiming Morality is Objective but rather morality is objective [as qualified to incest avoidance] and argued above.
Morality cannot be taken -in-general as objective but must always be with reference to a set of objective moral elements which are justified to be conditioned to the moral-FSERC.

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV
I have argued [elsewhere] why the following moral elements are objective;
1. Oughtnot_ness to kill humans
2. Oughtnot_ness to torture and kill babies for pleasure
viewtopic.php?t=42185
3. Infanticide
viewtopic.php?p=707584#p707584
4. Abortion
5. Slavery
6. Rape

I don't have all the links off-hand

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: KIV

[Age]

Notes: KIV
I have argued [elsewhere] why the following moral elements are objective;
1. Oughtnot_ness to kill humans
2. Oughtnot_ness to torture and kill babies for pleasure
viewtopic.php?t=42185
3. Infanticide
viewtopic.php?p=707584#p707584
4. Abortion
5. Slavery
6. Rape

I don't have all the links off-hand

you keep forgetting that just about anyone can argue just about anything, but, and as you keep proving True, what one 'argues' can have no bearing on what is actually True and Right.

What you say you have 'argued' are just about always nothing that is actually sound and valid, and therefore was really not even worth expressing here.

Even you claim that you have argued the above things as being moral objectives is so False that it is actually laughable that you believe you have.

Just about all of those things are, literally, relative only. One only has to look at the first one and all of the wars going on and how some still believe killing human beings who have sentenced to know that that one is strictly relative only.

As for the you can be proved Wrong just as easily, simply, and quickly.

[Harbal]

Incest Deterrence or Inbreeding Avoidance an inherent biological functions which is also one of the many moral element.
The incest deterrence systems is a normative in all humans and justifiable via the sciences, it is scientifically objective [FSERC]; when inputted into a moral FSERC, it an objective moral fact, thus supporting the state, moral is objective.

If, and to what extent, we have an instinctive aversion to incestuous activity, its biological function is obvious, but the fact that we just happen to classify it under "morality" is neither here nor there. The biological functions that drive our behaviour might be objectively factual, but which of our behaviours we choose to categorise as moral is a subjective choice.

[Lorikeet]

Morality evolved to regulate all individual behaviours, including sexual.

But reproduction is how life overcomes mortality, and so it is central to survival and reproductive strategies, as these require cooperation even among species that are solitary.

Moral behaviours evolved to facilitate these cooperative strategies - heterosexual reproduction necessitates periodic/seasonal or continuous cooperation.
Behaviours that reduce the probability of cooperation are naturally selected out of a species.
This is continuous because unfit mutations always arise.
Biologically fitness is measured by the quantity and quality of offspring produced by physical and mental/psychological traits.

Moral and ethical rules emerge to increase individual and group fitness.
We can include the ethical rules against abortion, and rape, or any evolved moral impulse and culturally determined ethical amendments.

[Harbal]

Morality evolved to regulate all individual behaviours, including sexual.

Our behavioural tendencies evolved because they fulfilled particular biological and social functions, and while you could say the concept of morality developed along side that evolution, I don't think it is useful to say it evolved. Our naturally selected patterns of behaviour are functional, not moral, they serve a purpose. Morality is purely a human concept that we use to account for and describe certain aspects of our behaviour, and the types of behaviour that we apply it to is completely arbitrary.

[Lorikeet]

Morality refers to behaviours that facilitate certain strategies.
Men call them 'moral' because they offer an advantage that is ingrained in social species.

I'm not saying these behaviours ae moral, I'm saying humans call these behaviours moral, ensuring their continuance.
They are "good" only because they benefit the individual and the group.

Men encode these behaviours - men name them.
So, 'morality' is the name given to behaviours that benefit the group, imposing restrictions on individual actions.
These behaviours were naturally selected.
Men categorized and named them and then proceeded to enhance them with amendments that would make civilization possible.

[Harbal]

Morality refers to behaviours that facilitate certain strategies.
Men call them 'moral' because they offer an advantage that is ingrained in social species.

I'm not saying these behaviours ae moral, I'm saying humans call these behaviours moral, ensuring their continuance.
They are "good" only because they benefit the individual and the group.

Men encode these behaviours - men name them.
So, 'morality' is the name given to behaviours that benefit the group, imposing restrictions on individual actions.
These behaviours were naturally selected.
Men categorized and named them and then proceeded to enhance them with amendments that would make civilization possible.

I think we are roughly saying the same thing, or at least we seem to be, if I understand you correctly.

[Lorikeet]

How could we not if we are both men of integrity that seek the objective truth, uninfected by personal desires and fears?

We share the same world. What men do not share is the same quality of mind, the same courage, the same integrity, and the same objectives.
If we share the same objective then, all other factors being relatively equal, we can only share the same perspective.

The cosmos is fluctuating but not at a rate that would make life and consciousness impossible. It is our objective - my, personal, standard for evaluating all.
It cares not about our subjective needs and desires.
Subjectivity cares and this caring is what leads it astray.

[Lorikeet]

Emotions are an integral part of morality, e.g., love, as well as sympathy - projection of self in another's circumstances.
These require sophisticated nervous systems.
Yet, moral behaviour requires nothing but the natural selection to develop, e.g., ants, bees, termites.

More awareness necessitates more sophisticated methods of controlling behaviours.
Emotions are automated reactions to stimuli, requiring no rational processing.

"Fear" is one such reaction....and 'love' is how it is overcome.
So, love is necessary to overcome an organisms' primal fight/flight mechanisms.
Love is a bonding mechanism, using hormones to link individuals in as shared sense of identity.
Without it social behaviours and heterosexual reproduction would be impossible.
This is why it is central to our human psychology. It is a matter of life or death.
It is deified because it is so central to our species psychology as it has evolved - naturally selected - over hundreds of thousands of years.

love is pleasing and empowering because it expands our sense of self - facilitating cooperative strategies - it integrates self within a whole, and it relieves us of our existential angst.
Through others we feel invulnerable and immortal, because we identify with an abstraction of a whole within which we feel included.

This need for inclusion is at the root of "herd psychology" and why it is so central in postmodern Wokism.

[Alexiev]

Incest Deterrence or Inbreeding Avoidance an inherent biological functions which is also one of the many moral element.
The incest deterrence systems is a normative in all humans and justifiable via the sciences, it is scientifically objective [FSERC]; when inputted into a moral FSERC, it an objective moral fact, thus supporting the state, moral is objective.

Morality vs Ethics
What is Morality [Pure] are moral elements [principles] evolved and inherent within human nature.
Ethics is 'Applied' i.e. how we apply [optimally] the inherent moral principles to fit into the varying conditions and circumstances of the individual[s] and humanity.

Lorikeet: Moral behaviours are necessary, and are not fabricated by men, nor socially engineered.
They evolve - they are naturally selected because they offer an advantage or prevent a disadvantage.
For example, the immorality of incest is not based no human tastes but on the fact that incestual reproduction increases the probability of birth defects.

I agree with the above. I have regularly used incest [inbreeding avoidance] as an example of moral objectivity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding_avoidance
At present, inbreeding avoidance is a scientific fact within Evolutionary Biology.
Inbreeding avoidance [incest deterrence] is a inhibitor [potential, functioning system] and as evolved is inherent in all humans; it is encoded in the DNA and represented by an algorithm supported by its physical neural correlates in the brain and body.
This will eventually [very possible] be confirmed by neuroscience as a neuroscientific fact via the science-neuroscience-FSERC.

True, many humans had and will commit incest at present, but that is due to brain damage or a weakness of the physical incest inhibitor-system. However, whilst damaged or weak, that does not obviate the existence of the actual physical objective incest inhibitor system in the brain.

Thus, I have argued the above incest inhibitor system is physical, it is objective in the scientific sense and since it is a moral element, therefore when inputted within the moral FSERC, it is moral objectivity.

Note my take on 'what is objectivity' - nothing to do with god and theism.

What is Philosophical Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31416
There are Two Senses of 'Objectivity'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
1. FSERC mind interdependent sense
2. Mind-independent sense.

Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286
The scientific FSERC will confirm the existence of the inherent incest avoidance function and inhibitor as scientific fact and re scientific objectivity

What is Moral Objectivity?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30707
When the above scientific fact of incest avoidance is inputted into the morality-proper FSERC, then it is a moral fact, thus morality is objective [as qualified].

As such, the inbreeding avoidance system is an inherent moral principle, i.e. "no human ought to commit incest" in alignment with what is physically inherent in all humans, DNA and neural algorithm wise. This moral principle [as a Pure] is not enforceable but merely a guide.

Tribes, groups of humans can then set their respective ethical rules [maxims] in accordance to the inherent universal moral principle.
Some may have ethical rules that forbid incest completely or forbid directly related close relatives, while for some first cousins marriage are allowable.
These are conditional rules but they do not diminish the inherent moral principle within all humans.

Because the moral principle is categorical [an impossible ideal], all must strive to align with it optimally while making attempts to change the conditions to eliminate incest as much as possible.

At this point, I am not claiming Morality is Objective but rather morality is objective [as qualified to incest avoidance] and argued above.
Morality cannot be taken -in-general as objective but must always be with reference to a set of objective moral elements which are justified to be conditioned to the moral-FSERC.

Discuss??
Views??

Actually, the notion that incest avoidance results from the biological risks of inbreeding is dubious. First of all, the risks of inbreeding are relatively slight, especially in primitive cultures in which the infant mortality rate is 50% any way.

More important, a common marriage rule in many simple cultures is that one must marry one's cross cousin, but cannot marry one's parallel cousin. Cross cousins are fathers' sisters' children or mothers' brothers' children. Parallel cousins are mothers' sister's or fathers' brothers' children.

Obviously, the genetic relationship with each type of "cousin" (many societies have different words for cross and parallel) is equally close. The difference is that the parallel cousins will be in the same clan as the potential mate; the cross cousins will not. So it appears that political and economic factors (exogamy) are far more important than genetic ones. Marriage outside one's group cements economic and political relations between groups.

These are well known facts from anthropology.

[Sculptor]

Incest Deterrence or Inbreeding Avoidance an inherent biological functions which is also one of the many moral element.
Discuss??
Views??

I once knew a mill owner whose children has born an incestuous child together. Their wood mill was some 10 miles from the nearest small town and his family had very few opportunities to meet members of the opposite sex, and being very close the children had a child together. ALl members of the family were ery healthy and intelligent people. A cut above the rest and were hinest and stright in their business dealings. Thought they experienced some bigotry, the child was bonny and healthy and smart.

This is more common that we know, since the prejudice means that such children are kept secret. The bond is most commonly between father and daughter, and can be abusive in nature. But genetic problems do not occur.

It is not because of the incest that problems occur but the simple fact that were a recessive gene is in place this inevitably leads to the expression fo the trait phenotypically. And is more likely in close relatives.

It has long been a mistake that customs regarding incest and close marriage had something to do with genetic abnormality.
For most of human history it was not even know that both the male and the female contributed to the chlld. ANd certainly the details of genetic inheritance are very modern indeed.
Ancient Greeks believed that the male seed into the fertile ground of the womb, and that the women ONLY plays host to that seed as it grows into a child.
Most archaeologists and anthroplogists insist that the for the vast majority of human evolution the opposite was true, and that there was not thought to be any relationship between the act of sex and the birth of childrem, or at least then that the child was wholly the result of the female contribution.
In fact "incest" is a socially constructed fiction and has little relationship to genetic problems, in the short term. IN fact as long as "incest" is not continually repeated or in the presence of specific abnormalities it presents no problems whatso ever.
It is common to ubiquity in nature and the beasts of the filed routines practice "incest" with no harm whatever.

So in reality there is almost zero practical reason to avoid close familial marriages and the laws as they are are not related to that, since when they were formulated inbreeding problems were rare to nonexistent.
So why dod such customes exists? You may well ask,? Well for sure since there are never any examples to go on, since such cultures never closely marry, Anthroplogy has the answer.
The proscrition against close marriage is for the purpose if extending the power of the family be means of EXOGAMY.
Exogamy is a practical means of extending networks and faily ties across large areas of the culture.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Morality refers to behaviours that facilitate certain strategies.
Men call them 'moral' because they offer an advantage that is ingrained in social species.

I'm not saying these behaviours ae moral, I'm saying humans call these behaviours moral, ensuring their continuance.
They are "good" only because they benefit the individual and the group.

Men encode these behaviours - men name them.
So, 'morality' is the name given to behaviours that benefit the group, imposing restrictions on individual actions.
These behaviours were naturally selected.

I agree to the above.

I had define morality as the management of the reduction of acts, thoughts and ideology that is evil to enable its related good.

Men categorized and named them and then proceeded to enhance them with amendments that would make civilization possible.

This is critical such that we need to identify an exhaustive list of what is deemed 'evil' in varying degrees.

The Concept of Evil
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concept-evil/

Since World War II, moral, political, and legal philosophers have become increasingly interested in the concept of evil.
This interest has been partly motivated by ascriptions of ‘evil’ by laymen, social scientists, journalists, and politicians as they try to understand and respond to various atrocities and horrors, such as genocides, terrorist attacks, mass murders, and tortures and killing sprees by psychopathic serial killers.
It seems that we cannot capture the moral significance of these actions and their perpetrators by calling them ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’ or even ‘very very wrong’ or ‘very very bad.’
We need the concept of evil.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Incest Deterrence or Inbreeding Avoidance an inherent biological functions which is also one of the many moral element.
Discuss??
Views??

I once knew a mill owner whose children has born an incestuous child together. Their wood mill was some 10 miles from the nearest small town and his family had very few opportunities to meet members of the opposite sex, and being very close the children had a child together. ALl members of the family were ery healthy and intelligent people. A cut above the rest and were hinest and stright in their business dealings. Thought they experienced some bigotry, the child was bonny and healthy and smart.

This is more common that we know, since the prejudice means that such children are kept secret. The bond is most commonly between father and daughter, and can be abusive in nature. But genetic problems do not occur.

It is not because of the incest that problems occur but the simple fact that were a recessive gene is in place this inevitably leads to the expression fo the trait phenotypically. And is more likely in close relatives.

It has long been a mistake that customs regarding incest and close marriage had something to do with genetic abnormality.
For most of human history it was not even know that both the male and the female contributed to the chlld. ANd certainly the details of genetic inheritance are very modern indeed.
Ancient Greeks believed that the male seed into the fertile ground of the womb, and that the women ONLY plays host to that seed as it grows into a child.
Most archaeologists and anthroplogists insist that the for the vast majority of human evolution the opposite was true, and that there was not thought to be any relationship between the act of sex and the birth of childrem, or at least then that the child was wholly the result of the female contribution.
In fact "incest" is a socially constructed fiction and has little relationship to genetic problems, in the short term. IN fact as long as "incest" is not continually repeated or in the presence of specific abnormalities it presents no problems whatso ever.
It is common to ubiquity in nature and the beasts of the filed routines practice "incest" with no harm whatever.

So in reality there is almost zero practical reason to avoid close familial marriages and the laws as they are are not related to that, since when they were formulated inbreeding problems were rare to nonexistent.
So why dod such customes exists? You may well ask,? Well for sure since there are never any examples to go on, since such cultures never closely marry, Anthroplogy has the answer.
The proscrition against close marriage is for the purpose if extending the power of the family be means of EXOGAMY.
Exogamy is a practical means of extending networks and faily ties across large areas of the culture.

As stated, the inbreeding avoidance instinct is an evolutionary default, i.e. evolved over time.
Nature is such that whatever the basic evolved algorithm, there is no provision for exception in itself. Take for example, inbreeding in certain higher animals where the males are kicked out of the group upon reaching adulthood. There are no exceptions in such cases.

In small groups of humans there is a very likelyhood for incest and in a way for the better to increase the population. It is not for certain that incest is 100% detrimental but if continued for a long time, then it can be detrimental to the group and the human species. But once the population [humans and higher animals] got larger the incest breeding avoidance get more evolved and will deter incestuous relationships with a more active inhibiting system.

The inhibition is part of another system from the higher executive brain. Together with other relevant systems they form the Moral and Ethics System.

You gave an example of an isolated family. In such a situation, incest is likely to happen as what had happened during the primitive times of the human species.
This is because the sexual drive is in general much stronger that the incest inhibitors, so incest is very likely to happen.

What is most is evil is where there in institutionalized incest, i.e. first cousin marriages in certain societies and religion, within royal families to control power, etc.

The point here is, even though when incest happens [sometimes necessary and for the better] the fact is there is a moral system within all humans that is driven by an algorithm that is supported by physical neural correlates in the brain. Biologically this is scientific and objective scientifically.
When this scientific fact is inputted in to the moral and ethical system [FSERC] it is an objective moral fact. So, Morality is Objective.

It is armed with an objective moral fact that 'Morality is Objective' as supported by scientific facts that we can enable moral progress.

With the above objective moral fact humanity can then have a basis to prevent the negatives of incest.
As such, all those living in small groups should be educated on the dangers of incest.
I believe the present royal families are well aware, thus they do not marry their first cousins.
All first cousins marriage should be banned.

What is most important with morality and ethics [independent of politics] is human will have to strive to develop and make the objective moral/ethics inhibitors stronger in all humans, so that they will be spontaneous [no need for threats and coercion by laws] in avoiding incest.

This is the point why 'Morality is Objective' is so critical which will enable moral progress.

On the other hand, with moral relativists like you, you have to tolerate incest if it is part of a culture or institution. It is the same with moral skeptics and moral nihilists who are indifferent to morality.