Incest Deterrence & Morality is Objectivity

[Veritas Aequitas]

And agin. until you address salient points, you are not really presenting what might be called an "argument".
What you are very good at doing is repeating, paraphrasing and regurtitatihg points that have been refusted time and again by myself and other on the forum.
WHy not have a love-in with Walker and Immanuel Can?

You are using the usual 'myself and others on the forum' hand waving escape route.

Please refer to the post I made sometime ago.

where?? which needle?

[Lorikeet]

I've tried, unsuccessfully, to explain both logic and genetics to you. The gene, not the individual, is the unit that is passed on from one generation to the next.

No, shit


And the combination of genes determines an individual's probability for success.
A combination of disadvantageous genetic combinations decreases this probability.
In more adverse environments the slightest advantage/disadvantage determines survival and reproduction.
Reproduction is but another form of survival. An individual's mortality overcome by passing on half its genes.

Childless celibate priests and homosexuals may be more "successful" than parents. A gay man with 12 nephews and nieces has seen more of his genes passed on than a straight man with three children but no nephews and nieces.

This is a different matter, dumb-dumb.
Beta-males and females aid the pack because they share genes with the puppies the breeding pair produces.
So, genes are central.

A group of gay priests will go extinct.
A tribe of transexual cripples will not pass on its genes.
A tribe of necrophiles, or paedophiles, will not survive.
So, necrophilia and paedophilia are immoral to prevent them from destroying a group.

That's irrelevant to the issue, however. My question: if the prevalence of cross-cousin marriage fails to falsify the notion that the genetic disadvantages of incest are the primary reason for incest taboos, what would? If no data could falsify the theory, what credence can we ascribe to it?

Any increase in unfit genetic mutations would be prohibited morally....
In nature incest persists because there, natural selection forces organisms to reproduce as many times as possible.

In-breeding among Jews....look it up.

In addition, why (especially given over population) should anyone assume that genetic "success" is morally admirable?

Your personal issues aside....who, the fuck said it was admirable?
Procreation is a affirmation of life.
Sheltering produces your psychosis.
Self-hate expanded into a universal ethical truth.

Females are genetic/memetic filters.... they filter out individuals they intuitively or have been trained to consider genetically or socially/memetically unfit.
This is part of natural selection becoming social selection:
Genes to Memes.

Selfish gene becomes selfish meme.
Those filtered out of the gene pool will fabricate ethical justification, like you did.

Biologists, dear, use procreation as a marker of fitness.

And if they don't, what happens to the notion that morality is "objective"?

Morality is objective because your subjective excuses do not affect what is considered moral and what is considered immoral.
The cost of immorality need not be imposed by a human court.
Incest has negative long-term effects.
Morality is shared across all cultures and species.....like intergroup violence, or restrictions on promiscuity, or thievery...

Moral behaviours become encoded by man....but we can find them across many social species: cooperation, altruism, tolerance, sympathy, bonding/love.
Other species don't have words for them, but they perform moral acts - they behave morally.
These behaviours can be witnessed across many social species because without them cooperative strategies would not be effective.

Ethical rules are amendments making complex human systems possible:
such as rules against adultery....and these are not arbitrary but necessary for complex systems to arise and to persists.
When they begin to wane the system is in a state of decline. A symptom of systemic decline.

Why are there rules against adultery or abortion....because if they become the rule, the norm, then the system colipases, or its competitive virility declines.....unable to integrate males and females, converting them to investors in tis welfare, and unable to replenish its human resources.
Why?
Because unlike primitive groups, like wolf packs, lion prides, ants, bees, or human tribes, individuals in modern/postmodern human systems do not share the same genes, nor the same memes, so if an individual is not invested in the system, he remains a 'free-radical' and becomes disruptive to its cohesion or he decreases its efficiency and its competitive effectiveness relative to other systems.

So, the decline of ethical standards signifies systemic decline.....
Every empire goes through a period of degeneracy - the last phase in a civilization's cycle.

[Alexiev]

Reproduction is but another form of survival. An individual's mortality overcome by passing on half its genes.

Thanks for informing us, although the sentence is meaningless and illiterate. "Overcome"? Huh?

A group of gay priests will go extinct.
A tribe of transexual cripples will not pass on its genes.
A tribe of necrophiles, or paedophiles, will not survive.
So, necrophilia and paedophilia are immoral to prevent them from destroying a group.

Hmmm. More illiteracy. "Them" might refer to paedophiles, but not paedophilia. In addition, some moral theories (Marxism, for example) advocate revolution.

Females are genetic/memetic filters.... they filter out individuals they intuitively or have been trained to consider genetically or socially/memetically unfit.
This is part of natural selection becoming social selection:
Genes to Memes.

Selfish gene becomes selfish meme.
Those filtered out of the gene pool will fabricate ethical justification, like you did.

Biologists, dear, use procreation as a marker of fitness.

"Filter out"? What are you writing about? It's clear you know little about natural selection or social selection.

Morality is objective because your subjective excuses do not affect what is considered moral and what is considered immoral.
The cost of immorality need not be imposed by a human court.
Incest has negative long-term effects.
Morality is shared across all cultures and species.....like intergroup violence, or restrictions on promiscuity, or thievery...

Moral behaviours become encoded by man....but we can find them across many social species: cooperation, altruism, tolerance, sympathy, bonding/love.
Other species don't have words for them, but they perform moral acts - they behave morally.
These behaviours can be witnessed across many social species because without them cooperative strategies would not be effective.

Ethical rules are amendments making complex human systems possible:
such as rules against adultery....and these are not arbitrary but necessary for complex systems to arise and to persists.
When they begin to wane the system is in a state of decline. A symptom of systemic decline.

Why are there rules against adultery or abortion....because if they become the rule, the norm, then the system colipases, or its competitive virility declines.....unable to integrate males and females, converting them to investors in tis welfare, and unable to replenish its human resources.
Why?
Because unlike primitive groups, like wolf packs, lion prides, ants, bees, or human tribes, individuals in modern/postmodern human systems do not share the same genes, nor the same memes, so if an individual is not invested in the system, he remains a 'free-radical' and becomes disruptive to its cohesion or he decreases its efficiency and its competitive effectiveness relative to other systems.

So, the decline of ethical standards signifies systemic decline.....
Every empire goes through a period of degeneracy - the last phase in a civilization's cycle.

I pray our "competitive virility" won't decline! That would be horrible! Or maybe our competitive femininity will decline. Horrors! If "ethical rules are amendments", what are they amending? If they are "amending" norms that are counter-productive (in a genetic sense), how did these counter- productive behaviors spread (given your silly theory)?

By the way, morality is not "shared across all cultures and species". Some cultures practice polygamy, others monogamy. The ancient Greeks thought trading with non-Greeks was cowardly and contemned it. Some societies enslave other humans, others do not. Sharks, I'd suggest, don't have morals. Neither do mosquitoes.

[Lorikeet]

It doesn't matter what kind of restriction to human promiscuity is practiced.....one is common across all cultures, as are rules against adultery.
As are rules against paraphilia....
When degeneracy becomes common, is normalized, this is an indication of civilizational decline.
Natural selection becomes social selection.

Gens to Memes.

Female sexuality is a genetic and memetic filtering agency.
When restrictions to female and male promiscuity are abolished, a system cannot sustain itself.
Family is the foundation of all systems.

So, insecure you are.

[Veritas Aequitas]

By the way, morality is not "shared across all cultures and species". Some cultures practice polygamy, others monogamy. The ancient Greeks thought trading with non-Greeks was cowardly and contemned it. Some societies enslave other humans, others do not. Sharks, I'd suggest, don't have morals. Neither do mosquitoes.

'Morality' and 'Ethics' at present are very loose terms and it seem anything goes.
If we are to be serious with 'morality' we have to define 'what is morality' in relation to its specific patterns of human activities within human nature.

1. I define morality as the management [eliminate and prevent] of evil acts to enable its related good to emerge spontaneously.
2. What is evil are those thoughts and acts that could lead to fatality and extreme harms and sufferings.
As such, there is a need for consensus [to trash out] on 1 & 2 before we start to discuss the topic re morality and ethics, else it is 'till the cows come home'.

For 2 we must produce a relevant and specific listing of acts that fits within the above definition in 1.

I believe it is not too difficult to agree on the following as evil and in terms of degree of evilness [x/100] and weightages, i.e.
1. Torture and killing babies for pleasure 95/100
2. Genocide 90/100
2i. Humans killing of humans 80/100
3. Rapes 80/100
4. Severe torture 80/100
5. Incest 60/100
6. Slavery 90/100
7. and so on


The above figures are my guess which can be deliberated by others to arrive at a consensus.

You cannot deny 1 & 2 are shared across all cultures and within humanity.
The others exists in all and shared across all cultures as fundamental features but expressed in practice with exceptions.

The exceptions are merely due to the degree of activeness and weakness of the inherent moral functions.
There are exceptions to the killing of humans by humans only because the majority has a weak moral function to avoid killing humans in the present psychological state.
While there are exceptions to the others, it does not obviate the inherent fundamentals of such moral functions are present in all humans which is objective, i.e. exist independent of any individual's subjective opinion, beliefs or judgments.

Yes, sharks and mosquitoes do not have morals, and human morality should not be extended to non-human animals; humans still need to kill other animal for food and killing of insects and dangerous virus/bacteria is critical to survival.
Nevertheless, humans must treat them humanely [using critical thinking, rationality and wisdom] where necessary.

Virtues [an extensive listing of] are also to be dealt independent from morality, however, virtues are necessary as supporting features of morality and ethics.

[Alexiev]

By the way, morality is not "shared across all cultures and species". Some cultures practice polygamy, others monogamy. The ancient Greeks thought trading with non-Greeks was cowardly and contemned it. Some societies enslave other humans, others do not. Sharks, I'd suggest, don't have morals. Neither do mosquitoes.

'Morality' and 'Ethics' at present are very loose terms and it seem anything goes.
If we are to be serious with 'morality' we have to define 'what is morality' in relation to its specific patterns of human activities within human nature.

1. I define morality as the management [eliminate and prevent] of evil acts to enable its related good to emerge spontaneously.
2. What is evil are those thoughts and acts that could lead to fatality and extreme harms and sufferings.
As such, there is a need for consensus [to trash out] on 1 & 2 before we start to discuss the topic re morality and ethics, else it is 'till the cows come home'.

For 2 we must produce a relevant and specific listing of acts that fits within the above definition in 1.

I believe it is not too difficult to agree on the following as evil and in terms of degree of evilness [x/100] and weightages, i.e.
1. Torture and killing babies for pleasure 95/100
2. Genocide 90/100
2i. Humans killing of humans 80/100
3. Rapes 80/100
4. Severe torture 80/100
5. Incest 60/100
6. Slavery 90/100
7. and so on


The above figures are my guess which can be deliberated by others to arrive at a consensus.

You cannot deny 1 & 2 are shared across all cultures and within humanity.
The others exists in all and shared across all cultures as fundamental features but expressed in practice with exceptions.

The exceptions are merely due to the degree of activeness and weakness of the inherent moral functions.
There are exceptions to the killing of humans by humans only because the majority has a weak moral function to avoid killing humans in the present psychological state.
While there are exceptions to the others, it does not obviate the inherent fundamentals of such moral functions are present in all humans which is objective, i.e. exist independent of any individual's subjective opinion, beliefs or judgments.

Yes, sharks and mosquitoes do not have morals, and human morality should not be extended to non-human animals; humans still need to kill other animal for food and killing of insects and dangerous virus/bacteria is critical to survival.
Nevertheless, humans must treat them humanely [using critical thinking, rationality and wisdom] where necessary.

Virtues [an extensive listing of] are also to be dealt independent from morality, however, virtues are necessary as supporting features of morality and ethics.

You are confusing cause and effect. I don't doubt that ethical rules conduce a workable society. So what? Why would that mean they are "objective"?

In addition, infanticide is common in many primitive cultures. So much for your rule number one. ((I know you hedged with the "for pleasure" rider, but how do you know what causes "pleasure" for others.)

The most significant reason for my objection to your proposal, though, is that it is neither provable nor falsifiable. When I pointed out that marriage rules often ignore genetic closeness and promote marrying outside the clan, it might seem that this would falsify the notion that rules against incest are based on genetic factors. But it hasn't shaken your faith. This objection holds for most evolutionary psychology. Its practitioners merely speculate that certain practices (like Lortikeet's "filtering") have Darwinian value. But they have no evidence to support that. If women prefer mating with handsome men, can we assume that handsome men are more likely to survive and reproduce? If women prefer rich men, perhaps we should be aware that poor men have more children (these days). The logical error here is called "affirming the consequent".

There are no "inherent rules". Rules, by their nature, are created by humans (and perhaps some other animals). Some may have "inherent" (i.e. natural) value. But others do not.

[Veritas Aequitas]

By the way, morality is not "shared across all cultures and species". Some cultures practice polygamy, others monogamy. The ancient Greeks thought trading with non-Greeks was cowardly and contemned it. Some societies enslave other humans, others do not. Sharks, I'd suggest, don't have morals. Neither do mosquitoes.

'Morality' and 'Ethics' at present are very loose terms and it seem anything goes.
If we are to be serious with 'morality' we have to define 'what is morality' in relation to its specific patterns of human activities within human nature.

1. I define morality as the management [eliminate and prevent] of evil acts to enable its related good to emerge spontaneously.
2. What is evil are those thoughts and acts that could lead to fatality and extreme harms and sufferings.
As such, there is a need for consensus [to trash out] on 1 & 2 before we start to discuss the topic re morality and ethics, else it is 'till the cows come home'.

For 2 we must produce a relevant and specific listing of acts that fits within the above definition in 1.

I believe it is not too difficult to agree on the following as evil and in terms of degree of evilness [x/100] and weightages, i.e.
1. Torture and killing babies for pleasure 95/100
2. Genocide 90/100
2i. Humans killing of humans 80/100
3. Rapes 80/100
4. Severe torture 80/100
5. Incest 60/100
6. Slavery 90/100
7. and so on


The above figures are my guess which can be deliberated by others to arrive at a consensus.

You cannot deny 1 & 2 are shared across all cultures and within humanity.
The others exists in all and shared across all cultures as fundamental features but expressed in practice with exceptions.

The exceptions are merely due to the degree of activeness and weakness of the inherent moral functions.
There are exceptions to the killing of humans by humans only because the majority has a weak moral function to avoid killing humans in the present psychological state.
While there are exceptions to the others, it does not obviate the inherent fundamentals of such moral functions are present in all humans which is objective, i.e. exist independent of any individual's subjective opinion, beliefs or judgments.

Yes, sharks and mosquitoes do not have morals, and human morality should not be extended to non-human animals; humans still need to kill other animal for food and killing of insects and dangerous virus/bacteria is critical to survival.
Nevertheless, humans must treat them humanely [using critical thinking, rationality and wisdom] where necessary.

Virtues [an extensive listing of] are also to be dealt independent from morality, however, virtues are necessary as supporting features of morality and ethics.

You are confusing cause and effect. I don't doubt that ethical rules conduce a workable society. So what? Why would that mean they are "objective"?

In the OP I have presented what I meant by 'objective' . I suggest you reread the OP again, here is the part re 'what is objectivity' in my case;

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].

In addition, infanticide is common in many primitive cultures. So much for your rule number one. ((I know you hedged with the "for pleasure" rider, but how do you know what causes "pleasure" for others.)

The most significant reason for my objection to your proposal, though, is that it is neither provable nor falsifiable. When I pointed out that marriage rules often ignore genetic closeness and promote marrying outside the clan, it might seem that this would falsify the notion that rules against incest are based on genetic factors. But it hasn't shaken your faith. This objection holds for most evolutionary psychology. Its practitioners merely speculate that certain practices (like Lortikeet's "filtering") have Darwinian value. But they have no evidence to support that. If women prefer mating with handsome men, can we assume that handsome men are more likely to survive and reproduce? If women prefer rich men, perhaps we should be aware that poor men have more children (these days). The logical error here is called "affirming the consequent".

There are no "inherent rules". Rules, by their nature, are created by humans (and perhaps some other animals). Some may have "inherent" (i.e. natural) value. But others do not.

I did not state there are inherent rules per se, which are of course man-made.

For human beings there are inherent instinctual impulses which are natural,
e.g. the "oughtness" to 1. breathe, 2. eat, 3. drink, 4. avoid threats which are potentially fatalistic which are very evident.
These are science-biological facts which are objective [as defined in the OP and above] because they are contingent upon a human-based FSERC.
Any thing contingent upon a human-based FSERC is objective [as defined above].

To facilitate the above "oughtness" to 1. breathe, 2. eat, 3. drink, 4. avoid threats which are potentially fatalistic, the above are inputted into a moral FSERC to generate moral maxims which are objective.
The natural objective moral maxim would be;
it is immoral [naturally] to prevent humans from breathing, eating, drinking and avoid fatal threats.
For morality-proper such an objective moral maxim should not be established as enforceable rules.
Enforceable rules and laws belong to politics and legislation, they are not of morality-proper.

Within morality-proper, there are no inherent rules, but rather the moral agent is encouraged to develop his natural moral potential in alignment with natural impulses.

The above natural "oughtness" to 1. breathe, 2. eat, 3. drink, 4. avoid threats which are potentially fatalistic are imperative and evident.

However, there are other natural impulses that are critical but not imperative in the immediate sense but rather they evolve with the progress of the average man.
One of this is the inbreeding avoidance impulse.

As I had stated, the inherent inbreeding avoidance impulse is not an imperative impulse, but it is coded and present in ALL humans, thus its physical existence is objective [as defined].
It is true that the inherent inbreeding avoidance impulse is not practiced by many individuals and culture at present, but this is merely due to the weakness or damage in their inability to align with the natural inhibition.
I have argued there had been an trend in the reduction of incest relations at present from say 1000 years ago.
This is the same with the objective moral facts of 'the oughtnot-ness to enslave humans' with the obvious reduction in chattel slavery.

I also mentioned Pinker's "The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined"

There is an all round reduction in immoral acts because there is an inherent moral functions [of varying degrees of activeness] in ALL humans.
Because it is generic in ALL humans, it qualifies to be objective when dealt within the moral FSERC.

This objection holds for most evolutionary psychology. Its practitioners merely speculate that certain practices (like Lortikeet's "filtering") have Darwinian value. But they have no evidence to support that.

There are tons of evidences to show that inbreeding has serious consequences for the species.
If there is no inhibition at all to inbreeding within a higher animal species, the species could be extinct in time.
Thus the general moral maxim [is not rule] is inbreeding ought to be prohibited.
Since a maxim is not an enforceable rule, those who are rational [or driven by the right instinct] will not practice inbreeding.
There are those exceptions who practice inbreeding due to various reasons, but the trend toward the future is the natural maxim will prevail [as evident].

My point;
1. Inbreeding avoidance algorithm that is encoded in ALL humans is a scientific fact, so it is objective.
2. This physical algorithm has varying degrees of activeness within humanity.
3. When this inbreeding avoidance as a scientific fact is inputted into a human based Moral FSERC, it is an objective moral facts [as qualified], thus morality is objective [as qualified].

If you do not agree, suggest you try to prove my 1, 2 and 3 is false.

[Alexiev]

There are tons of evidences to show that inbreeding has serious consequences for the species.
If there is no inhibition at all to inbreeding within a higher animal species, the species could be extinct in time.
Thus the general moral maxim [is not rule] is inbreeding ought to be prohibited.
Since a maxim is not an enforceable rule, those who are rational [or driven by the right instinct] will not practice inbreeding.
There are those exceptions who practice inbreeding due to various reasons, but the trend toward the future is the natural maxim will prevail [as evident].

My point;
1. Inbreeding avoidance algorithm that is encoded in ALL humans is a scientific fact, so it is objective.
2. This physical algorithm has varying degrees of activeness within humanity.
3. When this inbreeding avoidance as a scientific fact is inputted into a human based Moral FSERC, it is an objective moral facts [as qualified], thus morality is objective [as qualified].

If you do not agree, suggest you try to prove my 1, 2 and 3 is false.

Your logic is, as usual, filled with holes. Once again, you fail to address the common marriage rule which bans one kind of inbreeding, but promotes another form in which the genetic closeness is equal (cross cousin vs. parallel cousin marriage).

All species DO become "extinct in time". So the possibility of the inevitable hardly promotes your silly notion. You have simply invented the "instinctual" avoidance to inbreeding. You have no evidence to support this theory. In fact, if such an avoidance were "instinctual", we wouldn't need the moral rules. We need the moral rules ONLY because the avoidance must be culturally promoted (if it is to exist) because it is NOT
instinctual. Once again, you are "affirming the consequent". IN other words, you assume that inbreeding is genetically disadvantageous. Then you assume that a natural or instinctual aversion to genetically disadvantageous behaviors will develop. Then you assume that moral rules result from these natural ("instinctual") urges.

This reverses Darwinian theory, which states that genetic traits which promote descendant-leaving success will tend to spread. The error is to assume that if a trait has spread, it must be because of its impact on descendant-leaving success. This is a clear logical error.

Inbreeding avoidance is NOT a "scientific fact". Humans are not "coded" like computers. We have the ability to choose, and we have culturally constituted moral rules to help us make acceptable choices. These are not "algorithms". Once again, you ignore the FACT that societies commonly promote certain kinds of inbreeding, and prohibit others in which the genetic relation is equally close. How does this fit into your idiotic theory? If that doesn't prove 1, 2, and 3 false, what could? If your theory is not falsifiable, what good is it?

[Sculptor]

There are tons of evidences to show that inbreeding has serious consequences for the species.
If there is no inhibition at all to inbreeding within a higher animal species, the species could be extinct in time.
Thus the general moral maxim [is not rule] is inbreeding ought to be prohibited.
Since a maxim is not an enforceable rule, those who are rational [or driven by the right instinct] will not practice inbreeding.
There are those exceptions who practice inbreeding due to various reasons, but the trend toward the future is the natural maxim will prevail [as evident].

My point;
1. Inbreeding avoidance algorithm that is encoded in ALL humans is a scientific fact, so it is objective.
2. This physical algorithm has varying degrees of activeness within humanity.
3. When this inbreeding avoidance as a scientific fact is inputted into a human based Moral FSERC, it is an objective moral facts [as qualified], thus morality is objective [as qualified].

If you do not agree, suggest you try to prove my 1, 2 and 3 is false.

Your logic is, as usual, filled with holes. Once again, you fail to address the common marriage rule which bans one kind of inbreeding, but promotes another form in which the genetic closeness is equal (cross cousin vs. parallel cousin marriage).

All species DO become "extinct in time". So the possibility of the inevitable hardly promotes your silly notion. You have simply invented the "instinctual" avoidance to inbreeding. You have no evidence to support this theory. In fact, if such an avoidance were "instinctual", we wouldn't need the moral rules. We need the moral rules ONLY because the avoidance must be culturally promoted (if it is to exist) because it is NOT
instinctual. Once again, you are "affirming the consequent". IN other words, you assume that inbreeding is genetically disadvantageous. Then you assume that a natural or instinctual aversion to genetically disadvantageous behaviors will develop. Then you assume that moral rules result from these natural ("instinctual") urges.

This reverses Darwinian theory, which states that genetic traits which promote descendant-leaving success will tend to spread. The error is to assume that if a trait has spread, it must be because of its impact on descendant-leaving success. This is a clear logical error.

Inbreeding avoidance is NOT a "scientific fact". Humans are not "coded" like computers. We have the ability to choose, and we have culturally constituted moral rules to help us make acceptable choices. These are not "algorithms". Once again, you ignore the FACT that societies commonly promote certain kinds of inbreeding, and prohibit others in which the genetic relation is equally close. How does this fit into your idiotic theory? If that doesn't prove 1, 2, and 3 false, what could? If your theory is not falsifiable, what good is it?

Veritas is a brick wall to new ideas that challenge his culturally endemic assumptions.
The fact is that his notion of incest avoidnace is a tissue of lies and is based on an ad hoc rationalisation of a long established cultural practice.
In breeding, though has been widely practiced in many cultures and is common to our nearest ancestors the Chimpanzes and Benobo, expecially the Benobo who are the most sexually promiscuous species of mammal on the plant, and the closest to us of any of the apes.
But all this has been explained to him again and again.
Close breeding is commonly practiced in farming and pet breeding, - more in fact than would be practicable in nature. And this is possibly why we as humans even noticed that inbreeding could be a problem since ordinariy is has no negative consequences, excpet in the presence of harmful genes that express only recesssively.
This, also he has been informed of too.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are tons of evidences to show that inbreeding has serious consequences for the species.
If there is no inhibition at all to inbreeding within a higher animal species, the species could be extinct in time.
Thus the general moral maxim [is not rule] is inbreeding ought to be prohibited.
Since a maxim is not an enforceable rule, those who are rational [or driven by the right instinct] will not practice inbreeding.
There are those exceptions who practice inbreeding due to various reasons, but the trend toward the future is the natural maxim will prevail [as evident].

My point;
1. Inbreeding avoidance algorithm that is encoded in ALL humans is a scientific fact, so it is objective.
2. This physical algorithm has varying degrees of activeness within humanity.
3. When this inbreeding avoidance as a scientific fact is inputted into a human based Moral FSERC, it is an objective moral facts [as qualified], thus morality is objective [as qualified].

If you do not agree, suggest you try to prove my 1, 2 and 3 is false.

Your logic is, as usual, filled with holes. Once again, you fail to address the common marriage rule which bans one kind of inbreeding, but promotes another form in which the genetic closeness is equal (cross cousin vs. parallel cousin marriage).

Don't be too arrogant with your 'logic' which is more likely to fill with holes.

My view is 'whatever is ruled by rules' or laws in this case, that is not morality-proper but rather it only has some association with the inherent morality-proper within all humans.
Society and cultures has rules & customs merely in an attempt to align with what is natural morality; this is because the majority of humans in the past and at present do not have the natural abilities to have self-control or rationality in this case.

There are different degrees of risks to inbreeding.
Inbreeding between those that are most closely related, parent <-> children, siblings are of higher risks while those between cousins are of lower risks.

In the past, breeding between very closely-related was very common; however, some smart people then has noted the relations between the negative effects of incest between the very closely-related, so, they came out with customs, rules and enforceable laws to prevent the related negative consequences of such inbreeding like parents & children, between siblings.

Inbreeding between cousins were not very noticeable, thus it is still acceptable within some cultures are present and there are customs and rules but there are no laws against incest between cousins.

At present, science has confirmed evidences of the negative consequences of inbreeding between the very-closely related [parents-child, siblings] and lesser risk but still potentially negative between cousins.

The negative consequences that science has confirmed and validate the inherent inbreeding avoidance algorithm within all humans that underlies the customs, rules and laws humans has established so far. This 'scientific fact' is a polished conjecture [hypothesis].

My argument is, the natural and physical inherent inbreeding-avoidance algorithm which is present in ALL humans [encoded in the DNA] that is objective scientifically.
This scientific objectivity is tranposable to moral objectivity within a moral framework and system.

My focus is not not customs, rules and laws established to prevent incest, what I am interested is the innate physical algorithm in the brain that is driving humans to avoid inbreeding.

All species DO become "extinct in time". So the possibility of the inevitable hardly promotes your silly notion.

We have observed many species has been extinct in time.
Are you 100% sure, ALL species will be extinct in time?

What I said was, theoretically [T1], if incest is accepted universally as a principle and allowed to be practiced then it is very likely the species will be extinct in time.
This is why we must promote at least theoretically [T2] and morally, incest should not be permissible at all.
From the above, T2 is more rational than T1 in terms of the preservation of the species.

You have simply invented the "instinctual" avoidance to inbreeding. You have no evidence to support this theory. In fact, if such an avoidance were "instinctual", we wouldn't need the moral rules. We need the moral rules ONLY because the avoidance must be culturally promoted (if it is to exist) because it is NOT
instinctual. Once again, you are "affirming the consequent". IN other words, you assume that inbreeding is genetically disadvantageous. Then you assume that a natural or instinctual aversion to genetically disadvantageous behaviors will develop. Then you assume that moral rules result from these natural ("instinctual") urges.

It is undeniable science has discover the inherent inbreeding avoidance algorithm within the higher animals.
By instinctual, I mean the existence of an innate or inherent natural inhibitor to avoid inbreeding but at present this natural has varying degrees of activeness with humanity.

This reverses Darwinian theory, which states that genetic traits which promote descendant-leaving success will tend to spread. The error is to assume that if a trait has spread, it must be because of its impact on descendant-leaving success. This is a clear logical error.

I do not know what is your definition of 'success' in this case.
Generally, descendant-leaving success in reproduction and survivability in the central trait of evolution. If this is negative, there is no evolution of the higher animals at all.

Inbreeding avoidance is NOT a "scientific fact". Humans are not "coded" like computers. We have the ability to choose, and we have culturally constituted moral rules to help us make acceptable choices. These are not "algorithms". Once again, you ignore the FACT that societies commonly promote certain kinds of inbreeding, and prohibit others in which the genetic relation is equally close. How does this fit into your idiotic theory? If that doesn't prove 1, 2, and 3 false, what could? If your theory is not falsifiable, what good is it?

Whatever is a scientific fact is merely a polished conjecture [hypothesis] accepted by peers.
The inbreeding avoidance hypothesis is a well polished conjecture [hypothesis] as supported by evidences and the loads of scientific papers on this polished hypothesis.
Just google "Scholarly articles for inbreeding avoidance".
Meanwhile here is a starter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding_avoidance to various related papers.

That societies at present still practice inbreeding between cousins is due to many reasons, e.g. the negative consequence are not so obvious, ignorance, established customs from old, religion, stupid-cupid passions, etc.
But as I had argued, such practices of marriage between closer cousins are getting less and less [trend since 500 years ago] as more people are scientifically-aware of the potential risks of inbreeding.

My point is this,
What is morality must be grounded primarily grounded and GUIDED on reason and rationality, i.e.

Theoretically [T1] [as reasoned], if incest is accepted universally as a principle and allowed to be practiced then it is very likely the species will be extinct in time.
Therefore theoretically [T2] and morally [as reasoned], incest should not be permissible at all.
From the above, T2 is more rational than T1 as a moral principle as reasoned in terms of the preservation of the species.

T2 is supported by evidence of the inbreeding avoidance algorithm, i.e. inhibiting system in the brain.
Moral wise, T2 should NOT be enforceable on individual[s] as a rule or law but merely as a guide.
Each individual should develop their inherent T2 potential within themselves so that they are naturally and morally spontaneous and pro-active.

To ensure moral progress the majority must recognize the existence of the natural physical inherent moral potential within their brain so that they can expedite its moral competency and progress.
This is why morality is objective, we need something objective to improve upon.

[Veritas Aequitas]

.........
.........

Inbreeding avoidance is NOT a "scientific fact". Humans are not "coded" like computers. We have the ability to choose, and we have culturally constituted moral rules to help us make acceptable choices. These are not "algorithms". Once again, you ignore the FACT that societies commonly promote certain kinds of inbreeding, and prohibit others in which the genetic relation is equally close. How does this fit into your idiotic theory? If that doesn't prove 1, 2, and 3 false, what could? If your theory is not falsifiable, what good is it?

Veritas is a brick wall to new ideas that challenge his culturally endemic assumptions.
The fact is that his notion of incest avoidnace is a tissue of lies and is based on an ad hoc rationalisation of a long established cultural practice.
In breeding, though has been widely practiced in many cultures and is common to our nearest ancestors the Chimpanzes and Benobo, expecially the Benobo who are the most sexually promiscuous species of mammal on the plant, and the closest to us of any of the apes.
But all this has been explained to him again and again.
Close breeding is commonly practiced in farming and pet breeding, - more in fact than would be practicable in nature. And this is possibly why we as humans even noticed that inbreeding could be a problem since ordinariy is has no negative consequences, excpet in the presence of harmful genes that express only recesssively.
This, also he has been informed of too.

Don't bullshit based on your ignorance.

I have already shown you studies that indicate, our nearest ancestors the Chimpanzes and Benobo, expecially the Benobo do practice some reasonable degree of inbreeding avoidance.
There are evidences, even lower living organisms like plant has inherent inbreeding avoidance features. Certain species of plant disperse their seeds as far as possible to avoid pollinations of the closely related; else like monoculture one disease could wipe out the whole species or family.

But it would be of low intelligence and rationality to compare humans to apes and plants.
The fact is humans has a higher capacity of intelligence, rationality to avoid all possible risk associated with inbreeding.
ALL Humans via the DNA are already embedded with the inbreeding-avoidance-algorithm and an inherent potential [i.e. objective].
With our higher intelligence and rationality, humans need to recognize the inherent inbreeding avoidance potential within and strive to expedite to increase the activeness of this inherent moral potential so, to leave no possibility of any risks related in inbreeding.

When the scientific fact [polished conjecture] of the inbreeding avoidance inhibitors is inputted into a moral framework and system, it enables an objective moral fact, thus morality is objective as qualified to inbreeding avoidance.

This is so ABC, if all humans were to increase the activeness so as to spontaneously aligned with the inbreeding avoidance inhibitors, then there will be ZERO risk to humanity specific incest.

The current state of humanity is that many [perhaps a large %] are so driven sexually by their primal sex-drive that they will fuck any holes they see, even those of their children, siblings and close relatives and leave the possibilities of the risks related to incest.
You are condoning and gambling with such risks.

[Sculptor]

.........
.........

Inbreeding avoidance is NOT a "scientific fact". Humans are not "coded" like computers. We have the ability to choose, and we have culturally constituted moral rules to help us make acceptable choices. These are not "algorithms". Once again, you ignore the FACT that societies commonly promote certain kinds of inbreeding, and prohibit others in which the genetic relation is equally close. How does this fit into your idiotic theory? If that doesn't prove 1, 2, and 3 false, what could? If your theory is not falsifiable, what good is it?

Veritas is a brick wall to new ideas that challenge his culturally endemic assumptions.
The fact is that his notion of incest avoidnace is a tissue of lies and is based on an ad hoc rationalisation of a long established cultural practice.
In breeding, though has been widely practiced in many cultures and is common to our nearest ancestors the Chimpanzes and Benobo, expecially the Benobo who are the most sexually promiscuous species of mammal on the plant, and the closest to us of any of the apes.
But all this has been explained to him again and again.
Close breeding is commonly practiced in farming and pet breeding, - more in fact than would be practicable in nature. And this is possibly why we as humans even noticed that inbreeding could be a problem since ordinariy is has no negative consequences, excpet in the presence of harmful genes that express only recesssively.
This, also he has been informed of too.

Don't bullshit based on your ignorance.

This is as far as I read.

Once again, hardly the entree for me to bother reading anything you type.

[Alexiev]

Don't be too arrogant with your 'logic' which is more likely to fill with holes (sic?).

My view is 'whatever is ruled by rules' or laws in this case, that is not morality-proper but rather it only has some association with the inherent morality-proper within all humans.
Society and cultures has (sic) rules & customs merely in an attempt to align with what is natural morality; this is because the majority of humans in the past and at present do not have the natural abilities to have self-control or rationality in this case.

You can neither write nor read. The Wiki article you cite specifically states:

Animals only rarely exhibit inbreeding avoidance

You misunderstand the evidence of cross cousin marriage. If equally closely related people are on the one hand prohibited from inbreeding, and on the other encouraged to do so, wouldn't that suggest there are other reasons for exogamy than genetic ones?

Nature vs. nurture debates are seldom resolvable. Without a genetic predisposition for learning language, we would not learn it. Without a language to learn we would not learn it. A similar linguistic ability leads some children to learn English, and other Chinese. Some children become Christians, others Muslims. Their morals differ (objectively, if slightly). This is so obvious that it would be silly to deny it.

Carry on, though.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Don't be too arrogant with your 'logic' which is more likely to fill with holes (sic?).

My view is 'whatever is ruled by rules' or laws in this case, that is not morality-proper but rather it only has some association with the inherent morality-proper within all humans.
Society and cultures has (sic) rules & customs merely in an attempt to align with what is natural morality; this is because the majority of humans in the past and at present do not have the natural abilities to have self-control or rationality in this case.

You can neither write nor read. The Wiki article you cite specifically states:

Animals only rarely exhibit inbreeding avoidance

There is no need to resort to childish taunting.

I wrote:

It is undeniable science has discover the inherent inbreeding avoidance algorithm within the higher animals.
By instinctual, I mean the existence of an innate or inherent natural inhibitor to avoid inbreeding but at present this natural has varying degrees of activeness with humanity.

There is a big range of living organisms within the animal [non-human] kingdom.
I did not mention about frequencies related to animals. However, I did qualify 'higher animals' where incest avoidance is very evident. Upon reaching maturity, either the males or females will leave the pack, pride or group.

You misunderstand the evidence of cross cousin marriage. If equally closely related people are on the one hand prohibited from inbreeding, and on the other encouraged to do so, wouldn't that suggest there are other reasons for exogamy than genetic ones?

Nature vs. nurture debates are seldom resolvable. Without a genetic predisposition for learning language, we would not learn it. Without a language to learn we would not learn it. A similar linguistic ability leads some children to learn English, and other Chinese. Some children become Christians, others Muslims. Their morals differ (objectively, if slightly). This is so obvious that it would be silly to deny it.

Carry on, though.

I have already explained, the inbreeding-avoidance algorithm is a potential in ALL humans and some higher animals [even some lower animals and plants].
However this inbreeding avoidance potential is an early adaption and it is not very active in the majority of humans.
Thus there is room for variation in the expression of this inbreeding-avoidance algorithm.

When the first humans first emerged or form small groups when they migrated, there is bound to be close-relation [parent-child, siblings, etc.] incest to increase the number of humans within the group.

However, because there is an inherent inbreeding-avoidance algorithm, it will take effect as as the number within the group or population increases.
With the increase in greater numbers within the group, parent-child, siblings, inbreeding instances will wane but the lesser risk cousin-inbreeding may still be going on.
But as the population increase greater, cousin-inbreeding will also waned in time especially now that we have >8 billion and the scientific knowledge of the risk of inbreeding even with cousins.

But even with the more active inbreeding-avoidance algorithm, incest will still happen due to various other psychological weakness and other reasons [given earlier].

But because the interbreeding avoidance algorithm [IAA] is inherent in ALL humans with varying degrees of activity and strength, humanity need to recognize its physical existence as objective [independent of individuals' view].

With this recognition the IAA exists physically and is objective morally, humanity can strive to increase the strength and activeness to the extent that there will be ZERO cases of incest [close or cousin related] except where both participants have damaged brain re incest avoidance.

When the majority are ignorant of this IAA as objective, they will be indifferent to its existence and will not be do any thing to improve its strength in striving to prevent and reduce cases of incest to ZERO [with exception in cases of those with brain-damaged].

With the propensity for ZERO cases of incest, humanity could even go the extent of preventing brain damage at its root to avoid incest.

[Alexiev]

There is a big range of living organisms within the animal [non-human] kingdom.
I did not mention about frequencies related to animals. However, I did qualify 'higher animals' where incest avoidance is very evident. Upon reaching maturity, either the males or females will leave the pack, pride or group.


However this inbreeding avoidance potential is an early adaption and it is not very active in the majority of humans.
Thus there is room for variation in the expression of this inbreeding-avoidance algorithm.

When the first humans first emerged or form small groups when they migrated, there is bound to be close-relation [parent-child, siblings, etc.] incest to increase the number of humans within the group.

However, because there is an inherent inbreeding-avoidance algorithm, it will take effect as as the number within the group or population increases.
With the increase in greater numbers within the group, parent-child, siblings, inbreeding instances will wane but the lesser risk cousin-inbreeding may still be going on.
But as the population increase greater, cousin-inbreeding will also waned in time especially now that we have >8 billion and the scientific knowledge of the risk of inbreeding even with cousins.

But even with the more active inbreeding-avoidance algorithm, incest will still happen due to various other psychological weakness and other reasons [given earlier].

But because the interbreeding avoidance algorithm [IAA] is inherent in ALL humans with varying degrees of activity and strength, humanity need to recognize its physical existence as objective [independent of individuals' view].

With this recognition the IAA exists physically and is objective morally, humanity can strive to increase the strength and activeness to the extent that there will be ZERO cases of incest [close or cousin related] except where both participants have damaged brain re incest avoidance.

When the majority are ignorant of this IAA as objective, they will be indifferent to its existence and will not be do any thing to improve its strength in striving to prevent and reduce cases of incest to ZERO [with exception in cases of those with brain-damaged].

With the propensity for ZERO cases of incest, humanity could even go the extent of preventing brain damage at its root to avoid incest.

Your claims are unsupported by any evidence. If as you suggest (but as may not be correct) inbreeding has a negative influence on descendent leaving success, is it reasonable to claim there is an "inbreeding-avoidance algorithm" somehow encoded in human DNA. Of course it isn't. Why would it be? Is every potentially adaptive trait "encoded"? Of course not. In fact, many species go extinct. Is behavior "encoded"? Not that we know of. The assumption that because we (i.e. Veritas) might assume that behaviors which enhance Darwinian "success" are so encoded is incorrect on two counts. First, we lack evidence that such behaviors DO enhance Darwinian success. Second, the notion that all human behaviors are "encoded" is silly. It certainly might be true that exogamy promotes descendent-leaving success, but the evidence (cross-cousin marriage) suggests that the reason is cultural: promoting economic and social relations between clans may very well enhance survival and genetic success.