Incest Deterrence & Morality is Objectivity

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Dubious.
from anthropology?? that is too weak to support your argument.

It is a biological and psychological fact that incest inbreeding exists in higher animals up to human beings.
The risk vary with the closeness of the family relationship.
Infant mortality [not prominent] is not the critical issue. What is most concerning are the wide range of genetic disorders arising from incest.

The point here is, if there is no deterrence, especially for humans, the effect on the group and humanity will be disastrous in the long run. So far, the incest deterrence instinct has worked well for the human species because as the population increases they will marry outside their group and tribe.

What is relevant to the OP is the identification of the inherent incest avoidance algorithm which is represented by physical neurons within a network as a scientific fact and therefrom an objective moral fact culminating to 'Morality is Objective' as qualified to that specific fact.
From "morality is objective", that will provide objective grounds to facilitate and expedite moral progress within humanity.

If you are indifferent and give excuses like you do above, you are not contributing to expedite moral progress which is necessary given the current ongoings of evil acts all over the world.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

There are two main aspects to morality and ethics to be considered, i.e.

1. Spontaneity of a moral state
2. Moral Judgments

1. Spontaneity of a moral state
All humans are programmed with the potential for certain acts which are critical for survival but can be potentially evil.
E.g. all humans are programmed 'to kill' living things as a necessity for food, self defense and other positives but such 'to kill' could be redirect to humans for various reasons.
But one will note the majority humans do not go about killing, murder, rape, torture and commit other acts on other humans arbitrary.
This is because, the majority of humans are programmed with the necessary inhibitors at work internally to ensure humans are naturally indifferent to killing humans.
This is the natural spontaneity of the moral state.
When humans are in such a natural state of being moral spontaneously, there is no need for elements of emotions, e.g. love or sympathy [empathy].


2. Moral Judgments
But the moral inhibitors can be weakened or some humans as forced in situations to make a moral choice due to various reasons.
In this case, the moral agent is put in a position to make a moral judgment.
This is when emotions of love, empathy, compassion and also conscience kick in where the moral agent has no choice but to make a decision.
Note the various casuistry dilemma, re Trolley Problems, etc.

The point is where there is a need for moral judgment it is somewhat too late, i.e. this is fire-fighting which common at present.

However, when humanity is armed with 'moral is objective' humanity will have grounds to develop and promote states where the moral states is inherently spontaneous without the conditions for moral judgments.
For example when in the future [not present], all humans do not have the impulse to kill humans at all [no wars, no fights, etc.], there is no need for judgment whether to kill or not kill another humans.

Note the development and progress toward the non-existence of chattel slavery since 10,000 years ago to the present and toward the future.

[Sculptor]

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.

Dubious.
from anthropology?? that is too weak to support your argument.

That is TWO people now that have knowlegde is anthroplogy and you have just responded with your ignorance based on the endemic assumptions of your own personal cultural experience.
This is one reason why you can never trust moral objectivists.
All you are doing is imposing your own predjuces.

Incest custom is for the positive reasons of EXOGAMY. Societies that practice the avoidance of close familial marrage HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE of incest problems which are ratre even when commonly practiced.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Dubious.
from anthropology?? that is too weak to support your argument.

That is TWO people now that have knowlegde is anthroplogy and you have just responded with your ignorance based on the endemic assumptions of your own personal cultural experience.
This is one reason why you can never trust moral objectivists.
All you are doing is imposing your own predjuces.

Incest custom is for the positive reasons of EXOGAMY. Societies that practice the avoidance of close familial marrage HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE of incest problems which are ratre even when commonly practiced.

TWO??? out of >8 billion?

As I had stated the inbreeding avoidance mechanism is an evolutionary default that is continually evolving.
As such it is an instinct in the first place, thus there is no need for knowledge of incest problems. Even at present, many humans still have instinctual phobia without having knowledge of the consequences.

It is obvious the higher animals that force their 'male who had just matured' out of the pack do not have knowledge of the incest problems at all.
However, in addition to the instinct, some humans [savants] could have inferred from observations of the cause-effect of incestuous relation and thus establish incest avoidance rules.

You seem to have the strong urge to be primitive as a moral relativist.

As evolving and progressive humans, now that we are very knowledgeable via genetics of the incest problems
We should then use such knowledge to prevent the incest problems as much as possible to the extent of eliminating it.
We can use laws but that is politics which is independent of morality-proper.

In morality, humans spontaneously do not practice incest without threats of the law.
In order to do that we have to have a moral Framework and System.
To enable progress we need to establish objective grounds for the moral elements therein.
I have argued, there is the existing objective inbreeding avoidance mechanism inherent within all humans which is justified scientifically via evolutionary biology and psychology -thus a scientific fact.
When the above scientific fact is inputted into a moral FSERC, it is a moral fact and from there, Morality is Objective as qualified this specific scientific fact.

[Sculptor]

Dubious.
from anthropology?? that is too weak to support your argument.

That is TWO people now that have knowlegde is anthroplogy and you have just responded with your ignorance based on the endemic assumptions of your own personal cultural experience.
This is one reason why you can never trust moral objectivists.
All you are doing is imposing your own predjuces.

Incest custom is for the positive reasons of EXOGAMY. Societies that practice the avoidance of close familial marrage HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE of incest problems which are ratre even when commonly practiced.

TWO??? out of >8 billion?

No two people that know what they are talking about against ONE that does not - YOU

[Sculptor]

Amazing Fact..

The genome variability of the Cheatah is so small that scientist have suggested that at the end of the last ice-age the entire species was represented by a single breeding pair.

So much for the problems of incest.

[Lorikeet]

Incest increases the reproduction of unfit mutations, but it also propagates the same genes making them more vulnerable to shifting environmental circumstances.

It's all about probabilities.
Intergroup violence is also detrimental to group cohesion and competitiveness, so social species evolved behaviours that inhibited intergroup violence, usually based on shared genes.

No god required.
No consciousness is necessary.
Behaviours that increase a disadvantage are gradually filtered out of the gene-pool.

Females are genetic and memetic, filtering agencies.

[Sculptor]

Incest increases the reproduction of unfit mutations, but it also propagates the same genes making them more vulnerable to shifting environmental circumstances.

No.
Incest has the potential for recessive unfit mutations to express themselves phenotypically.
I cannot play any role in propogating unfit genes. But the opposite. By allowing these genes to express themselves it lowers the chance of those genes propogating to the degree which it impedes the reproduction of viable progeny.

The "unfit" genes have to be present in the genome in the first place.

One famous example of this is the recessive disease heamophilia, which would pop up amongst the Royal families of Europe. who had for centuries been marrying close relatives. The problem never expressed itself until two parents with the recessive gene produce offspiring who got both genes at a rate of 25%.
The offsping and the other 75% of siblings were perfectly healthy.

[Lorikeet]

No....appearances are manifestation of essence.
A phenotype represents a genotype.

Unfit genes decease survival probabilities.
That slight probability of a disadvantage suffices when survival is determined by the most minute factors.
That 25% over time makes a difference.
It also depends on which strategy is adopted: r/ of K/.

Less fit offspring decrease group fitness, determining group competitiveness over time.

In the wild unfit children are culled out of the herd.
In human environments they are not, to the same degree. They are relatively protected from culling.
This means that incest is more detrimental to humans.

[Alexiev]

Whether incest is genetically harmful to humans or not, it cannot explain why so many cultures proscribed marriage to some cousons and mandate it for others. This suggests that there must be some other reason for the marriage rules.

In addition, if we are genetically programed to object to incest we wouldn't need rules prohibiting it. Taboos exist to ban behavior people would otherwise see as desirable, not to prevent them from doing things they have no desire to do.

Clearly, it is advantageous for a child to have 4 doting grandparents rather than the two he or she would have if siblings married. This is only one of the many benefits of exogamy.

[Alexiev]

Whether incest is genetically harmful to humans or not, it cannot explain why so many cultures proscribed marriage to some cousons and mandate it for others. This suggests that there must be some other reason for the marriage rules.

In addition, if we are genetically programed to object to incest we wouldn't need rules prohibiting it. Taboos exist to ban behavior people would otherwise see as desirable, not to prevent them from doing things they have no desire to do.

Clearly, it is advantageous for a child to have 4 doting grandparents rather than the two he or she would have if siblings married. This is only one of the many benefits of exogamy.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Amazing Fact..

The genome variability of the Cheetah is so small that scientist have suggested that at the end of the last ice-age the entire species was represented by a single breeding pair.

So much for the problems of incest.

So what??
Point is at present, there is an inherent inbreeding avoidance mechanism in cheetahs.

Females typically stay in the pride to which they were born, while males leave their birth pride and attempt to take over another, often working with other males to overthrow the resident male.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... itoriality#:~

How come I have to keep educating you?

Surely the human genome is traceable to a pair or so humans somewhere in Africa, thus there must be inbreeding then initially.
But what is critical is, as the population grew and evolved, the inbreeding avoidance mechanism is adapted and triggered to ensure breeding among close kin are avoided at least within the majority.

Any inbreeding that happened is due to damage or a weakened inbreeding mechanism by individuals or some authorities.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Incest increases the reproduction of unfit mutations, but it also propagates the same genes making them more vulnerable to shifting environmental circumstances.

No.
Incest has the potential for recessive unfit mutations to express themselves phenotypically.
I cannot play any role in propogating unfit genes. But the opposite. By allowing these genes to express themselves it lowers the chance of those genes propogating to the degree which it impedes the reproduction of viable progeny.

The "unfit" genes have to be present in the genome in the first place.

One famous example of this is the recessive disease heamophilia, which would pop up amongst the Royal families of Europe. who had for centuries been marrying close relatives. The problem never expressed itself until two parents with the recessive gene produce offspiring who got both genes at a rate of 25%.
The offsping and the other 75% of siblings were perfectly healthy.

I agree with Lorikeet's
Incest increases the reproduction of unfit mutations, but it also propagates the same genes making them more vulnerable to shifting environmental circumstances.

The critical element with Haemophilia is not incest.
Rather the critical element is the X-linked recessive where Haemophilia is possible regardless of whether it is incest or not.

How come I got to keep educating you?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Whether incest is genetically harmful to humans or not, it cannot explain why so many cultures proscribed marriage to some cousons and mandate it for others. This suggests that there must be some other reason for the marriage rules.

In addition, if we are genetically programed to object to incest we wouldn't need rules prohibiting it. Taboos exist to ban behavior people would otherwise see as desirable, not to prevent them from doing things they have no desire to do.

Clearly, it is advantageous for a child to have 4 doting grandparents rather than the two he or she would have if siblings married. This is only one of the many benefits of exogamy.

All adults are programmed with the sexual drive to the opposite sex. When the human sexual drive strongly triggered, some will want to fuck everything fuckable on sight and available, some will even use force.
But the majority [>90%] of humans are sexually indifferent to their siblings, parents and children and near relatives.
There are a lot of studies done to confirm the above.
It is something like 100%-gays who do not have any sexual attraction for the opposite sex.

Are you one of the 10% exception?
If not, why?? it is because you have an active inherent inbreeding avoidance mechanism within you. Know-Thyself, learn about it.

As I stated, the inherent inbreeding avoidance mechanism evolved within the species and in time with varying degrees of strength, less in animals and more in humans.
Even then the strength vary within humans.

Every variable is distributed over a Normal Curve.
As such there are the inevitable percentile [one end of the curve] of those who has damaged or weak inbreeding avoidance mechanism.
Customs, rules and laws are established to ensure the naturally existing weaker ones do not cross the limit.

My point is we must recognize the inherent inbreeding avoidance mechanism which is supported by its physical neural correlates as objective, first scientifically-objective and therefrom morally-objective within a moral framework and system.

It is only with moral framework and system [morality is objective] that will facilitate humanity to research more deeply into the details of the inherent inbreeding avoidance mechanism so at to make improvements on it and to expedite its strength in every normal individual.

[Sculptor]

Incest increases the reproduction of unfit mutations, but it also propagates the same genes making them more vulnerable to shifting environmental circumstances.

No.
Incest has the potential for recessive unfit mutations to express themselves phenotypically.
I cannot play any role in propogating unfit genes. But the opposite. By allowing these genes to express themselves it lowers the chance of those genes propogating to the degree which it impedes the reproduction of viable progeny.

The "unfit" genes have to be present in the genome in the first place.

One famous example of this is the recessive disease heamophilia, which would pop up amongst the Royal families of Europe. who had for centuries been marrying close relatives. The problem never expressed itself until two parents with the recessive gene produce offspiring who got both genes at a rate of 25%.
The offsping and the other 75% of siblings were perfectly healthy.

I agree with Lorikeet's
Incest increases the reproduction of unfit mutations, but it also propagates the same genes making them more vulnerable to shifting environmental circumstances.

How?
Think exactly about the form of words, then check my response to them.
And now tell me HOW.