Notes:
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed May 15, 2024 9:08 am
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.
