What’s wrong with INCEST?

[@drpeterboghossian]

Using incest, which is considered an extreme action in most cultures, really highlighted the nature of moral relativity and moral absolutism. We'll be releasing more conversations like this from Florida, Puerto Rico, and Australia, so be sure to subscribe!

[@AndyFromBeaverton]

Please more, but most of all stay safe. We need these public conversations. Be careful about publically telling people where you are going next. I just watched your PSU encounter with radical trans activists. I would have been paranoid about getting hit from behind.

[@derp8575]

Royal family and Rothschilds have been marrying first cousins for a long time. It keeps families closer and helps preserve wealth. Meanwhile they tell us to marry strangers outside of our bloodline. We were lied to about genetic deformities from marrying a first cousin. We were lied to about practically everything.

[@lawrence208]

the question about incest is interesting and i admit i wouldnt know what to say off the top of my head if asked whether i'd accept incest if no children were born as a result of the incest. I grew up in the church and i know all the rules, but when put in that perspective that all humans are from adam and eve and incest had to happen in order us to exist......that also makes sense. ultimately i think the fact that a baby born out of incest having a much higher chance of ending up with health complications compared to a baby not born out of incest would imply that it wasnt what nature/god had intended. maybe the effect of incest wore out after X generations allowing the human population to procreate without the high risks of health complications that came with incest? 🤷‍♂

[@marvenlunn6086]

Morality changes as we learn history proves this some things that were considered moral in the past are considered immoral now

[@derp8575]

@@marvenlunn6086 Lies. We're currently told that male can become female. Anyone who challenges that is called a bigot. Morality is on its deathbed.

[@kronk2294]

Listening to people wrestle with ideas without devolving into insults is therapeutic

[@drpeterboghossian]

Now imagine living in a society like this…

[@kronk2294]

@@drpeterboghossian brilliant people such as yourself are showing us the way. Vervaeke’s recursive relevance realization, Mcgilchrist revealing the reductive and confabulatory tendencies of the left hemisphere, Schmachtenberger with his sense making project, Peterson sparking new interest in psychoanalysis, symbolism, and reflecting deeply on our values… the list goes on Your contribution of street epistemology is so powerful. It uniquely demonstrates an actual method by which ordinary people can have otherwise difficult conversations and make sense of the world. More than that, you demonstrate it without bias and without an agenda. Many of your co-contributors to this effort struggle both to leap from academic abstracts to actionable steps taken by ordinary people, as well as with keeping their own biases subdued. Thank you for sharing your work with us all. So eager to continue to see how all these puzzle pieces fit together- not the least of which is the “big tech” elephant in the room. As someone who works for big tech it’s not lost on me how software is, in many ways, driving these new sociological challenges

[@curiouschronic582]

Right? It's litterally my version of meditation listening to a calm exchange of ideas ❤

[@lynnm6413]

​​@@drpeterboghossianI actually used to believe I lived in a society like this, certainly my circle of friends reflected the beauty of non conformists, normies, nerds and our quota Muslim first son of an Afghan family who had to use his cousins to spend a night out with all of our group, but never gave into German culture if that posed a conflict to his core traditional principles. Class of 2000 in Germany.... I weep for this Generation 😢

[@iand654456]

Isn't it? We need this in schools now they can start in 1st or 2nd grade.

[@zeusthecat6295]

"You are a genius. No I'm just older than you". One of many great quotes from this video. I love these so much. Wish I could have a conversation with Peter one day. I would love to have my opinions challenged in a structured way like this to see if my mind would change. How great would society be if we weren't so attached to our opinions and we could just change our mind like its no big deal.

[@U2BSUCKS]

He is a Genius!!! These conversations are Genius. Sometimes you watch these discussions and you are sure the world is doomed. Then you watch one like this and you feel like the world might end up ok. Peter and the 2 very intelligent, together young men give me hope. I think no one talked about manipulation, control, and abuse that could result from Incestuous relationships even between adults. Just because only adults are involved in the Incenstuous relationship does not make it moral.

[@pcolt4]

Lol I love how he thought what made him a genius was being able to come up with the phrase "paradigm shift" on command 🤣

[@chantelfordham602]

Enjoyed this one.. LOVE seeing youngsters engage in thinking outside of their comfort zone and respectfully debating ideas.. Great stuff!

[@drpeterboghossian]

Thanks. I took flack from this content but I stand by it.

[@lexaharpell5823]

@@drpeterboghossian Keep creating this type of flack. It expands views. Thanks you for this content.

[@trailertrish2587]

@drpetetboghossian, ten years ago, if you told me that secular society was going to form a cult that would march us into a dark age, I would have called you a crazy, delusional, conspiracy theorist. But here we are. You asked people to think and talk and you took flack for it.

[@Chris-hq7nl]

Really both of these young guys did very well expressing and defending their arguments. Well done!

[@drpeterboghossian]

They were very thoughtful guys. They told me afterward that they really enjoyed the conversation.

[@TheBonelessChikn]

@@drpeterboghossian Hey Peter, are you aware that the Bible's explanation against the mass amounts of incest is that "fallen angels/demons" mated with the human women. Genesis 6:1-4 "6 When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the SONS OF GOD saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, z“My Spirit shall not abide in1 man forever, afor he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” 4 The NEPHILIM2 were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown" Just FYI

[@nancydupuis8083]

The young man who called Peter sir did it reflexivly because he was brought up with good manner

[@bradleygoins380]

I was just about to comment that he is the most respectful person I've seen in these videos so far. Many could learn from him.

[@iainsan]

This is what real teaching looks like. Good job, Peter!

[@drpeterboghossian]

Thank you!

[@marwar819]

Children need to feel safe in their family and family members need to trust each other. It could break families apart.

[@groundrunner752]

What if the two parties have no other family other than themselves? What if the parties are adults and no children are involved or even in question?

[@yoface938]

@@groundrunner752 Why make irrelevant hypotheticals? We’re talking social ethics and morality here. They serve a purpose. To create intentionally a scenario around general purpose of society is in itself pointless. You want a hypothetical? Let’s say that you and that lady in your profile got ship wrecked on a unknown island in the pacific. You didn’t survive the shipwreck, that lady did. However it turns out that island was full of native cannibals. The men put a collar on her neck and gang raped her ever day, after failing to conceive after months time they chopped her up and ate her. How would you feel about that? Well I have news for you, they didn’t feel they did anything wrong. In their eyes they took in and fed a stranger, married her with a collar as proof as vow, the gang rapes is cultural tradition so no man would knowingly kill another man’s seed out of hate. And when they found out something wrong with her they sacrificed her to their god and fed their starving children not letting anything to waste. Now how do you feel? Trick question, you never felt a thing because u died in this hypothetical at the beginning.

[@mbburry4759]

That's a good answer for sure... but he didn't say parent-child. Like cousins and stuff...

[@rogerward801]

​@@groundrunner752As if people can't control themselves

[@bigdick1267]

​@@groundrunner752 did this happen just all of a sudden as adults or was there any power imbalance and possible grooming

[@gametime2473]

Two of your best contestants IMO. Some smart young men here, it gives me hope for the future.

[@cowboypicayune527]

It weirdly cute how Boghossian and his interlocutors holds hands and tussle over the microphone while debating the morality of incest.

[@sugarman4354]

Two great guys. Respectful of one another & logical in their beliefs.

[@GerbendeJong]

Great talk! Thank you for continuing this work!

[@drpeterboghossian]

Thanks for watching and supporting the channel.

[@jesusmtz29]

Really great back and forth. Both guys did well to think through this one.

[@dilloneliassen9622]

Put me on the "agree" line. Incest is morally wrong, even if children do not result because familial love is different from romantic love. The introduction of romantic love, which people fall in and out of, unlike familial love (broadly speaking), will probably affect intra-family relationships in unhealthy ways. Every member of a family has a vested interest in a stable family; the effects of an incestuous relationship among family members while it's happening and the aftermath of when it ends, even if it's never discovered, will probably be profound, to say nothing of the effects if an incestuous relationship is discovered by the rest of a family. And I'm willing to change my mind if someone can show me reasonable evidence that incestuous relationships have positive or neutral effects on intra-family relationships/don't destabilize families.

[@TheKarlslok]

So everything that the family, even the larger extended family, dont aprove of is morally wrong to you? In a family of criminals, respecting the law is morally wrong?! I like my freedom, as long as I dont hurt anyone else. If my family dont want me to be free or act free, this family is not of any importance to me. If the choice was having my family dictate how I should live, or I would dictate how to live aka freedom, I would choose the latter every time.

[@dilloneliassen9622]

@@TheKarlslok I said incest is morally wrong. I didn't say "everything that the family, even the larger extended family, dont aprove of is morally wrong to" me. I don't understand how you could so wildly misinterpret what I wrote.

[@dandrechesterfield5411]

Yeah that was my thoughts exactly. I think it's wrong from even a utilitarian point of view.

[@j.clements2093]

The fact that you felt you needed to explain why incest is wrong is not only baffling but incredibly sad for the state of our society. Our country, our culture is lost.

[@TheBerkeleyBeauty]

@@dilloneliassen9622 - You implied exactly that. The point was it’s only morally wrong because most of us were socially raised that way. What if our “morals” were different?

[@justinm5034]

You can tell the guy in the green took philosophy classes. Honestly think taking a couple of those classes are a must because it really allows you to expand your way of thinking even if it isn’t your major.

[@SisyphusSRB]

I never took philosophy classes yet I'm a "philosopher". As far as I understand philosophy, you don't need any classes, you don't need to finish college or even high school. You only need to ask yourself questions and you "find the answer". I put that in the quotation because I can't possibly know if my philosophies are right, but they might as well be. I came up to the same conclusion that morality is subjective and without humans, there is no morality. But we need it because if there is no right or wrong, what's to stop people from killing, raping etc. Some people still do that, but if those things weren't considered moraly wrong, everyone would do those things. Also some of my philosophies that I arrogantly thought I came up with turned out to already exist in the form of nihilism and stoicism. I'm not a smart guy, not stupid either, just avarege. I don't understand human obsession with school, is that the only way for me to learn? Can't I learn things by just thinking and reading books I want to read?

[@ahakangard]

I suppose these are the kind of individuals that you want to engage in conversation. They show a keen capacity in questioning and dissecting their own beliefs, which is a really good marker

[@baroquefiddle4790]

Mr. Boghossian, you are an absolute legend! When I was in college training in psychology many years ago, I had a teacher who taught like this, I felt excited for all his classes. To this day he still impresses me. Its such a travesty whats happened to academia.

[@user-sl4ul4nc3t]

Liberalism happened to it. Knowledge is about tradition...

[@biblicalworldview1]

That guy in the green is extremely thoughtful and articulate. They both were. I really love this line of questioning. I would love to get an actual theologian in this. I would like to hear a person try to make a case for inalienable or Universal rights without the existence of God and I don't think it can be done. I enjoy how Peter pushes back on any idea and makes people really think. I am a Christian, obviously. However I think we should all think about what we believe and why we believe it and be able to defend it and think about it when we are asked questions that we can't answer. If what we believe is true we have nothing to worry about, and if what we believe is not true then we should change our beliefs.

[@stacerrrrr]

I think the Abolition of Man by Lewis makes a pretty strong argument

[@bogkazealijamislim5998]

Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics Stefan Molyneux

[@bennypit4411]

Yeah...... But he supports incest. Lets find out if he has a sister.

[@zeeshawn15]

Dude this was like a debate class. Uncle Ji hit him with "I'm just older than you" Professor knows where this kid's mind going in terms of debate.

[@TheLastSecretGarden]

I want to hug all three of these guys.

[@mrmanic4151]

Dude on the right reminds me of when I first started delving into my morals and being open to breaking them apart, he's gonna be annoying at parties for a few years to come and have a lot of fun doing it, I can relate...

[@wgdmiller52]

Nice to see open conversations at a university. When people can have different points of view , and still accept each other.

[@princeofruins3287]

I'm not gonna accept someone who says incest is okay.

[@henriquesousa4994]

@@princeofruins3287 what do you mean? Are you going to do something about it?

[@13BD]

Love it! Very articulate and well thought out. I applaud both of these young men!

[@gabeo9474]

I think the term _subjective_ would've been a better fit than _relative_ here. _Relative_ implies the existence of an external dependency, but the argument was that morality is formed individualistically. As far as the actual argument goes, morality cannot be individually subjective or it entirely loses its meaning because then each person could adapt morality to align with their behavior no matter how harmful it was to others, so there's more to it than individual choice. Of course, as a nonreligious person, I don't believe that morality was bestowed upon us by Skydaddy and the gang either. My theory is that morality is actually not a product of religion at all. I think that morality is a fundamental set of rules for life that has gradually and continuously developed from the earliest beginnings of human existence. As our ancestors have bumbled along creating civilization and making countless errors in the process, they would eventually find objectively better ways of doing things, which is how morality was formed and developed. Religion did not create morality, rather it embraced, explicitly defined, and socially enforced morality as it was best understood at the time.

[@stevenqueen2333]

I reject your morality and substitute it with my own. Everything you just argued was completely meaningless. Lol

[@gabeo9474]

@@stevenqueen2333 Right, and not only is my argument meaningless, but I'm also literally a bad/immoral person if I don't fully agree with your subjective definition of morality. Apply this broadly across society, and individually subjective morality creates two options: 1. accept everyone's morality as valid - _be so open minded that your brain falls out,_ or 2. accept that you are a "bad" person.

[@coachduke9323]

Well articulated position. Two things that are problematic. One, morals aren’t universal. Therefore, the notion of evolutionary biology is the source of morality is flawed and in opposition to the facts. In reality, morality varies greatly depending upon the country and region. Add a historical context and there’s no evidence of a universal morality in the past nor present . Two, throughout history, a culture divorced from religion has not existed. Therefore to claim religion borrowed morality is a moot point. The point is, religion is and has been the source and guardians of morality.

[@siggyincr7447]

​@@coachduke9323 Might be a false dichotomy there. Morals not being universal doesn't exclude the foundations for morality being in our evolution as a social species. Experiments have shown that social animals of all sorts have an innate sense of fairness. Why would we be any different? We're born with an innate sense of when we feel like we have been wronged. This is far more fundamental than the social construct that we call morality, but it is a critical aspect of it. Without this part of us that produces negative emotions when we feel like we haven't been treated fairly and the development of a theory of mind as we grow into adults, moral right and wrong would be at best a purely intellectual concept. Morality is just the result of culture taking those fundamental senses of knowing when we have been wronged and empathy, and developing them into codified systems. If you want to call the earliest forms of superstition and tribal understanding "religion", then sure "throughout history, a culture divorced from religion has not existed", and excluding more than the last hundred years. I wouldn't call religion the source of morality though. That's too restrictive. Culture is the source of morality and religion is just one aspect of culture, the dominant one at times but still just an aspect of culture as a whole. And religion has only "guarded" morality in as far as it served those in charge. If modern Christianity tried to enforce biblical literalism they would be seen as sociopathic in our world, and rightly so. The Enlightenment civilized Christianity, not the other way around. Religion is part of culture and is both influencer and influenced. I might define morality as such: Morality is the often codified culture of social and interpersonal interaction that builds upon our innate social behaviors.

[@YSFmemories]

@@coachduke9323 No. There's a difference between a culture's understanding of morality vs actual morality. For example, we had traditional medicines across the world in the past. It's not that medicine wasn't universally applicable back then because different cultures had different ideas, they all simply had the wrong idea.

[@JustSomeGuy69420]

Y'all really made me think! Maybe I will start going to family reunions again! Great video Peter!

[@Puppies-z9h]

This is a great episode. I appreciate the character, thoughts and communication of the participants.

[@consciouscrypto3090]

It would be horrible to grow up in a household in which you are seen as a sexual object by other members of the household! And if that was normal among all your friends too? Innocence is already lost too soon in this world. Let's not normalize debauchery in the families too.

[@TheRomanticsWB]

Exactly. How would we police molestation if parents were allowed to have sex with their children? It's hard enough to do already in a world where incest is generally viewed as wrong... Imagine if incest was viewed as right and even desirable.

[@thatuberrican8745]

Bravo to that young man for standing by his faith in spite of Peter's escalating line of questioning. That's a difficult place to stay rooted in, so I think his conviction is to be commended.

[@thesandman1384]

Is it though? Is dogmatic conviction that denies reason commendable? Just a question

[@thatuberrican8745]

@@thesandman1384 From a moralistic standpoint, based on the framework of the Christian faith, yes.

[@LeeStoneman]

So...bravo for not changing your opinion in the face of facts and strong argument?

[@cerealmancerealman6340]

Top tier Reddit comment sarcasticly commending someone for not wanting to have sex with family members 🤣

[@dynamicduo222]

1:25 THE PRODUCTION QUALITY 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

[@chrisgreen3896]

By far the most reasoned , intelligent participants peter has had to date. Well done chaps… also not held done by political correctness too.

[@brhmhkr]

It makes me smile every time the guy on the right grabs the microphone and practically holds Peter's hand while talking. I need to stop watching The Behavior Panel.

[@PpAirO5]

Both persons well spoken and calm. I support the green shirt.

[@mahboopful]

It's unhealthy for the dynamic of the family as a whole. There is potential for abuse becomes of power differences among family members. It may be hard to determine truth, it takes wisdom.

[@sabinesfamily]

I was surprised no brought this up.

[@paveantelic7876]

i mean yeah but power differences not only exist already but are inherent in the human species

[@excalibro8365]

There is potential for abuse in normal no-family-ties relationships as well.

[@allenpoe17]

Peter: What's wrong with incest? Me: Wait a minute? Dad? Is that you?

[@porchviewfarm2471]

These 2 men are fantastic. Great exercise.

[@mary-gael7633]

The guy in the green shirt made interesting points, but it's quite mindblowing to me that none of them even thought of how power dynamics work in a familly, aspecially the ascendancy of parents over their children. And between siblings, or any person who you allways lived with, those dynamics exist too and this is what makes incest in the cellular familly moraly wrong. With extended familly or people who never lived together, it's different of course and his arguments can be applied to these situations. But not within the cellular familly.

[@ScatPack123]

Interesting take, hadn’t thought about it that way. Thank you!

[@michaelr5606]

Siblings separated at birth and reunited at 20. They start getting it on. Do you still claim it’s wrong?

[@jamesbizs]

Ok so then all of that would also be a valid argument for step siblings or adoptions? No incest and yet the things you argued still cover that?

[@ScatPack123]

@@michaelr5606 to me it is from a religious standpoint. They are not meant to procreate, therefore it shouldnt be morally acceptable to marry that person knowing it is your sister/brother.

[@ScatPack123]

@@michaelr5606 See Lev. 18:6-18 for reference*

[@SantoValentino]

So many people get the “judging” quote wrong and use it out of context

[@nancydupuis8083]

Absolutely, they interpret it as meaning morality is pointless

[@lanishx8935]

Very surprised how well thought out the first gentleman's argument was for just being a college kid ambushed with a random question. That's fairly heavy philosophy as far as "street philosophy" goes. Keep up the interviews.

[@benth162]

It is not about having or not having children as a result of incest. It has to do with the psychology of the relationship between parents and their children. Sex with your children even if they initiate the encounter, changes the interpersonal dynamic between parents and their child, because sex put them on the same level as the parent, which can be disastrous to that relationship when they become teenagers and need strict guidance when their hormones are running wild. Having Children from that incestuous relationship can produce children with confused genetics, which they can carry even though they may not be personally affected, thus possibly handing off to their own children.

[@razzle_dazzle]

Incest is not always "sex with your children". It could be fully consenting adult siblings of the same sex. That's what's interesting about the question - it makes you realize that it's surprisingly hard to justify why incest _per se_ is wrong - that is, why incest is still wrong when all the possibilities of harm have been removed.

[@AlteraLin]

@@razzle_dazzle I think a lot of the "wrong" is it grosses people out. People often justify rights and wrongs by feeling first, then the logic is simply used to justify the feelings. Generally speaking, children raised together will naturally develop a repulse towards one another, as we're genetic made that way, called the Westermarck effect. They don't have to be related to have that effect.

[@DamnitMan88]

I'm all for the forbidden stuff.

[@altonsafe]

Is there never a point where the child is seen as an equal by the parent? Are you only thinking ages 1-18?

[@emiliawisniewski3947]

@@razzle_dazzle - Just because you have two siblings of the same sex having consensual sex with each other doesn't mean that behaviour is not harmful to them. Adults can have sex with pre-pubescent children where children cannot result, and we don't consider that a good for either party, adults can have with animals who don't need to express consent, and we also don't consider that a good for society either. Some siblings unknowingly have had consensual sex with each other (e.g. donor siblings) and that has created deep distress in families particularly where children have resulted. What good is brought about by incest, exactly? Sex for the sake of sex? To pleasure the self with no concern for the other party? You can't take away the power dynamic that comes from family members potentially exploiting each other if sex is on the table. Siblings shouldn't be having sex with other because you should be able to have a close blood relative that can support you through life without the expectation of sex with that relative. It's why we find sex among very close family abhorrent but sex between distant relatives permissible (e.g. second, third cousins).

[@LH-kr4od]

Its very important that we have a distinction between eros and familial and fraternal love.

[@LH-kr4od]

What we're seeing with the LGBTQ+ obsession, combined with porn culture, is how society starts to break down when people are trained to only view themselves and each other in a sexual way. This rot has set in everywhere from schools to the White House.

[@evansjessicae]

My second UCF video and I'm still proud to be from Orlando! These guys were great, but I'm especially proud of the younger one who is so firm in his Christian beliefs.

[@sully_n_dubs]

Loved listening to these guys. There is a glimmer of hope.

[@renaissanceman3]

Man, these are the kinds of questions I want to hear at political debates. Kinda helps to see how political candidates explain their thinking.

[@ChrizzeeB]

Beautiful. Especially the kid who said he's not religious but he knows a lot about the bible.

[@silaslizzie43]

Many blacks in the US are raised in religious households. How is that 'beautiful'?

[@mbburry4759]

You should do this question more, its really interesting

[@valenives474]

There are also power dynamics possibly at play here. Older and younger members of a family, it may not be consensual or wanted on both ends... This is a really creepy slippery slope.

[@paulelago9453]

Power dynamics aren’t real

[@tangerinesarebetterthanora7060]

@@paulelago9453 literally just watch a nature documentary ffs if you don't believe in power dynamics. That's like saying you don't believe in gravity.

[@paulelago9453]

@@tangerinesarebetterthanora7060 gravity is demonstrably true. “Power dynamics “ as you call them,are subjective and cannot actually be proven. Prove to me power dynamics exist

[@tangerinesarebetterthanora7060]

@@paulelago9453 All power is relational. Give me one instance where you can quantify something's power without it being measured against something else. I'll wait.........

[@ncorp2668]

@@paulelago9453 Child vs adult, man vs woman, young vs elderly, able bodied vs disabled.

[@robertoseveno]

These young men are Thinking. Love it.

[@edenbercier7511]

They have brains what is the point of this comment?

[@childofvenus3781]

Great video. i have always wondered why is it that some of the people who i've considered rational who are not religious; treat the topic of incest as if it's something that is clearly objectively wrong like rape; when one is clearly harmful and the other not necessarily.

[@stevenqueen2333]

If truth and morality are relative, then this entire conversation is meaningless.

[@chantelfordham602]

Everything is meaningless 🤷

[@stevenqueen2333]

@Chantel Fordham not if you repent, accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior, have your sins forgiven and receive eternal life.

[@chantelfordham602]

@@stevenqueen2333 fair enough.. Can respect that.. I'll move from strongly disagree to slightly disagree 😉

[@nancydupuis8083]

Good point

[@stefenrosenfarb3974]

@@chantelfordham602if everything is inherently meaningless, then you wouldn’t be able to articulate anything into words that we could understand back and forth. You’ve also made an objective claim which is absolutely contradictory.

[@bradleygoins380]

The yung man that kept calling Peter sir is auper respectful and should serve as an example to other youth.

[@yourenotspecial3735]

And the guy in the green is a shining example of what youth can become if they open up their minds to other possibilities.

[@jameslea8282]

Green dude is so cute with his “serious speech” expression when he talks hahah. They did good

[@joelle186]

Of what I know from Europe, kings and queens did it because they didn't want to risk to mix their "blue" blood with regular blood, or to keep all the wealth in the family through the generations.

[@darkstarofmars]

I’m a strictly non religious person non atheist or spiritual but in labeled and I’ll say all the major religions text are worth reading and learning from in context of the writings and especially history of thought and consciousness.

[@rationalbacon5872]

Keep your mind open. I was you once, but life taught me many painful lessons to show me I was wrong.

[@jenniferterry6775]

Wow. I am blown away by how many people are ok or even just blase' about incest. The Pornification of this generation is glaringly obvious.

[@ncorp2668]

Not really "people", more like men and the endless pit of taboos and breaking of boundaries that seem to be deeply tied to their outlook on seggs.

[@ChrizzeeB]

They were using logic, not just personal taste. Unlike yourself.

[@dorothyclark8680]

Great interviews!

[@SongsOfSavagery]

This is the third one I've watched. Easily my favorite. The guy on the right has a really coherent set of ethics and deep self-awareness (i.e. I don't object morally, but can't deny I don't like it.")

[@largeknife]

Bruh when he asked him if they were friends, that answer, "sometimes" and that eyebrow raise were fucking hilarious.

[@Uch123456]

God prohibited incest after a time because of the fall of man and the gene defects that resulted from that that would ultimately affect the offspring. Before the fall there was nothing wrong with incest. So this discussion can't be divorced from children. The nature of the union between men and women can be defined as having the capacity to produce offspring. This reminds me slightly of the question "what is a women". Though some women may not be able to have children they are of the nature to have children, if that makes sense.

[@kalig.4982]

Why did god make the gen defects happen?

[@Uch123456]

@Kali G. Because of the sin of Adam and Eve. Genesis 3:3 - God said, You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die!"

[@zgobermn6895]

Yes, it is immoral. It's a violation of the the family order.

[@enekaitzteixeira7010]

No such thing.

[@spcekase]

Says who?

[@mikel9751]

@@spcekase youre fucking your cousins?

[@Siddharth-94]

​@@enekaitzteixeira7010not to the pedophiles

[@jmc0369]

There are no such thing as group rights; only individual rights; as at the end of the day, all groups are comprised of individuals.

[@SteveKarpali]

This is what happens when you start taking "two consenting adults, no one being hurt," to its logical conclusion

[@paveantelic7876]

exactly lol, im sick of hearing "2 cOnSeNtInG aDuLtS"

[@tassiomm]

What's your point? lol

[@samgoodwin89]

@@paveantelic7876sounds like you want to control other people

[@paveantelic7876]

@@samgoodwin89 it's true, i do

[@caisearbhan4738]

It strikes me as peculiar that these individuals were college students, but here's my opinion: incest is deemed unacceptable due to a multitude of reasons, such as medical, social, psychological, and ethical factors. The potential negative outcomes that stem from incest, which can involve damage to family connections, genetic health, mental welfare, and social stability, have influenced the majority of societies to maintain and enforce taboos and regulations against this practice.

[@langhans156]

I am curious. What other reason is there other than genetic health(which is a damn good reason) that warrants condemnation of incest?

[@Car-qu2bc]

@@langhans156there is no other good argument against incest. Especially not from the same people who argue “love is love” when it comes to same sex couples. The reason people oppose incest is because they’ve been culturally conditioned to by society at large. Not because they’ve actually stopped to think about it

[@langhans156]

@@Car-qu2bc That's what I was trying to get at with my rhetorical question.

[@GodwinXZ]

Consenting Incest will, most likely, in my opinion will be the next thing to join the LGBT alphabet soup coalition. If that is accepted then the MAPs will be next. Slippery slope is a very real concept in our modern society.

[@debbievines9872]

Don't forget beastiality.

[@mr.mclibtard5015]

If maps aren't hurting anyone, why do you care?

[@ncorp2668]

I think this question is misleading because there is a completely theoretical component vs actual reality and how/why it exists. People will take this to mean two adult siblings or cousins, when in reality, it is something that exists as a product of CSA.

[@ncorp2668]

In other words, if we're talking about immediate family, that would never occur as a natural happenstance in adulthood, unless someone was adopted and they're meeting for the first time. It would have to involve seggs abyewse within the family being passed down.

[@masonzuleger]

Lack of consequence shouldn't necessarily remove morality. If you drive drunk but make it home ok does that mean it was the right thing to do? Just because no kids are involved doesn't mean it is right. Also, using history as a moral guide is dubious.

[@nancydupuis8083]

Good point

[@pandaloon6083]

Drunk driving involves risk even if the risk doesn't materialize. Taking the chance -- when you consider the value of human life, likelihood of harm, and the cheap cost of avoiding that harm -- in those circumstances taking the risk seems immoral because it devalues human life. The thought experiment in the video tries to eliminate a particular kind of harm. So, perhaps a better analogy would be "Is drunk driving immoral if your car's top speed is 10 mph?"

[@yolisazokufa]

​@@pandaloon6083 idk about that revised analogy. i appreciated the 2 points made by mason. i feel in these discussions, we don't hear enough about intuition. feel like we have been socialised to abandon our intuitive thought. intellect has more value than intuition - why? we have to employ so many contradicting ideas constantly as we continue to take several stances; politically, morally, religiously, etc but neglect to question intuitively. any person undertaking any task under an influence or impairment cannot be trusted. in no way is it right. we begin to manipulate reality with all our differing justifications and ideologies in order for us to feel okay, it seems. thus, certain acts become normalised. this is not at all to mean that the act is just/right because it might be normal. just because people CAN do whatever does not mean people SHOULD do whatever.

[@yolisazokufa]

to circle back to what mason said about using history as moral guide. in the context of my previous comment, basing ethics on what is considered normal is dubious. just because there is a history of a certain behaviour does not make it right. we are here to survive, not to play devil's advocate.

[@pandaloon6083]

@@yolisazokufa Well, it's not the history of a tradition that makes the behavior right. Instead, the argument is that the behavior managed to survive long enough to become a tradition because there is something good or beneficial about the behavior. {See, Chesterton's Fence} The difficult task can be distinguishing the baby from the dirty bath water. That task is sometimes made more difficult when people aren't accustomed to making explicit moral arguments. Meaning, when people are accustomed to uncritically citing a piece of moral authority or a merely rely on some sense of intuition and ick. then its hard for the rest of us get beyond something subjective to something more amenable to objective analysis.

[@a2dskins]

Morally = social construct. Constructs change with society. So can we just say "because people think so"

[@Scottishfoxy777]

Society has changed much over the years but this is something we all agree on. It's not right 😕

[@johnl5316]

There are heterosexual males who have a dramatic fetish consisting of imagining themselves as women.There is a subset of very feminine gay males with a histrionic character disorder. There are young kids on the autism scale who experience distress at bodily changes, and this would include people whose bipolar disorder prevents them from being anything other than dramatic in their understanding of phenomena. And there is that group of teenage, emotionally vulnerable girls who fall into social contagion, and in the past they exhibited cutting or eating disorders or possession by spirits or by witches. Historically, male to female transexuals and their "supporters" were notably anti-gay, by the way. I worked for decades as a PhD clinical psychologist and did sex therapy at UCLA (& am gay). All of this information was well known for decades, and then was suppressed. There is simply no other group in the "trans" category.

[@jamesbizs]

Interesting, haven’t seen someone use the term transsexual in awhile. Always transgender now. No transvestite either. Weird

[@joyj7405]

Very clearly and well put. Would you include female to male "transitioners" like Buck Angel and Scott Nugent in the social contagion category? Also, what is "ex therapy" please?

[@johnl5316]

@@joyj7405 sex therapy

[@johnl5316]

@@joyj7405 I do not know the women you referenced.

[@talkshitko9234]

Guy in green shiirt is a good open thinker. With more knowledge he will move away from his theist way of thinking. As for morale codes ,I have always used the tribes that believed cannibalism was morally ok, as it kept their own tribe strong ,and weakened neighboring tribes.

[@MizJaniceResinArt]

It's so cute when Peter asks "what's contradictory?" and the student gives his definition of contradictory 😊

[@bradbauer9984]

Some of te most reasonable kids I’ve ever seen him do this with. Good on UCF.

[@dturtles33]

Incest, as long as you dont have kids or do it with kids is simply disgusting (to me) but not immoral. For something to be immoral, someone must hurt someone else against their will. I think this is an unassailable definition of "moral".

[@mr.mclibtard5015]

False

[@Car-qu2bc]

@@mr.mclibtard5015how so?

[@IainWhoCantSleep]

green jersey kid is on the ball great video

[@MarkHWillson]

After having personally witnessed a group of folks yesterday "protesting Florida", its interesting to see these two here talking in the intro about how they love living there. Not trying to make any kind of point or take a stance, its just funny to me. Ha.

[@kofinineteen]

Thanksgiving dinner is going to be awkward at green-shirt’s house this year.

[@joshuasquires7199]

Both gentlemen did well in this thought experiment. I wish it was longer though >.< hahaahah. Also Hell yeah on the Jiu Jitsu ^_^

[@Sensorama2000]

The boy in the green shirt really likes the sound of his voice. And the way he grabs the mic is...

[@jsonmedia]

WTF! How people can rationalize this is very scary, pregnancy or not.

[@MasonSStarkey]

its crazy how few of these comments there are O_o

[@JimCastleberry]

The culture is falling apart. If no God exists, ALL things are permissible. Nothing is morally wrong.

[@talkshitko9234]

Incorrect!..listen to the students last comment.Morales are just societal rules or codes of conduct.Chinese bow to greet people Europeans shake right hands.Muslims marry cousins , Europeans recently stopped this.

[@gloriaf6971]

Incest that involves child sexual abuse by the mother, father, or any relative that takes advantage of a minor is immoral. If it happens between two consenting adults, then I have no moral objection to it. It's my opinion that adults can engage in any sexual experience they freely consent to. I don't think sexual relationships between close family members are a good idea. However people are free to choose what they want to do.

[@dustinbreckenridge4750]

This was great. 🙏

[@rockerknight25]

"Is incest immoral" is one of my pet questions. I tend to start it off by asking "Is gay incest more or less immoral than regular incest?" The discussions are fantastic.

[@HotelierNYC]

That kid in the green is my man right there.

[@kevinlund4510]

Tremendous thought exercise!

[@AndyJarman]

The integrity of relationships is compromised where sex is introduced within the family. When sexual relationships are entered into then the guardian/mentor status of the parent cannot be maintained - the child's world view about the eole of the parwnt is lost. Sexual relationships require allegiances to be assumed, when the allegiance is betrayed the relationship of trust and respect is lost. The loss of trust and respect between family members has far reaching implications for the aocial and legal relationships wirhin the nuclear and the extended family unit. This destabilises society at large if it becomes widely practiced. This is the same reason why polygamy is destabilising at a societal level. Whixh spouse has a eight to expect greater fidelity in a polygamous relation ship?

[@pandaloon6083]

Eventually the hypothetical will shift. Brother and sister. Separated at birth. Neither knew of the other's existence. Aliens invade Earth. No survivors. No society to corrupt. Brother and sister manage to escape Earth and land on earth-like planet. Is their forthcoming sexual relationship immoral? Does the answer change when they later learn they are in fact brother and sister?

[@julius-stark]

I'm not religious. I can't really speak on the morality of it, but it's gross. It's like saying, if a person volunteers to have their body donated to cannibals when they die, is that okay or morally wrong? Technically no one gets hurt so it's okay, right? Well no, it's gross, and stuff like that and incest are just stepping stones to worse things. We need to have rules or else we're no better than animals.

[@TheKarlslok]

What makes us better then animals? Our ability to become 8 billion on the expense of all other living things on this planet as well as us killing the ecosystem ignoring the fact we are a minor part of it?

[@samhirst2830]

How many people are naturally attracted to their siblings? Incest is always non-consensual. Every case involves a sexually twisted man raping his sibling.

[@julius-stark]

@@samhirst2830 Uh, didn't Lena Dunham admit to molesting her sister? Incest isn't only male to female, neither is SA. Thanks to the internet I've seen people openly admitting to dating siblings. Game of Thrones really made these people feel too comfortable to brag about their incest.

[@marixsunnyotp3142]

​​@@samhirst2830have you examined every single case on Earth? You're speaking with no proofs

[@TruthQuest4700]

"Biblically" sex among cousins could be assumed given that Noah's children and their spouses were supposedly the only humans left on earth after the flood and would have led to their off-spring (cousins) mating with one another to carry on the human race. Prior to the 20th century it wasn't unusual for cousins or second cousins to marry in order to keep wealth within a family circle.

[@kevinjackson4933]

I remember when people hadn't been 'educated' out of their basic morality and just said, "Because it's a sin." Those were better times.

[@tangerinesarebetterthanora7060]

Simpler people, simpler times.

[@emiliawisniewski3947]

To be fair, many people don't know what sin is, so won't naturally leap to this statement. Some secular people believe sin is simply what is natural that has been corrupted by religion, so therefore nothing is truly sin at all. How they navigate morality is confusing, but this is a position.

[@ChrizzeeB]

I remember when they tried to burn all the Catholics/Protestants in Europe. No asking why - they just accepted sin is sin. Sigh... the Good old days..

[@VoxMachina8]

This is exactly why logic or rational thought alone is NOT the highest priority. Logic that is not grounded in principles or morality often leads to justifying and rationalizing depravity. There is no depth of evil that can't be rationalized away by someone wanting to make an excuse for it. NOTHING is off-limits for the person, group, society who's highest ideal is short-term pleasure. Discipline and personal accountability are like an existential threat to people like that.

[@Hannah-kz2uf]

Well said

[@anniestumpy9918]

Wow, you watched the whole (?) video and learned absolutely nothing! That's impressive in it's own right!

[@VoxMachina8]

@@anniestumpy9918 what vague nonsense is this? Thanks for your clarity. You're obviously right...about no point at all.

[@BeyondmyselfIsrael]

Been saying this for the longest your subconscious can rationalize anything In this world. The guy in green just proved that.

[@marixsunnyotp3142]

rip logic

[@TingTingalingy]

I had a friend that lived in Orlando & he said most locals don't usually partake in what Orlando has to offer tourists. It seemed very boring, to me, outside the theme parks.

[@darkstarofmars]

Mother Nature is cruel, and Father Time benign. But this world still gave, a friend for us to find. Dog.

[@danafloraladd]

The purpose of the story of Adam and Eve is not to promote incest, but show how religion points to our unfavorable human traits, and how we reach salvation from sin… You can’t understand salvation, by just reading about Adam and Eve, because the human race did not end with just them

[@danafloraladd]

The whole point of Adam and eve is to point out that you have a choice between obtaining knowledge or being a dumb animal in the animal kingdom that does what they want and has incest if they want… You can’t have hands and have a human brain and have a society that functions well under incest, as intellect and incest contradict each other… The whole point of them being kicked out of the garden is that they woke up to observing the wrongdoings of their incestuous nature

[@Hscaper]

Grown adults that talk about the Christian god and don’t catch themselves sounding silly just blows my mind.

[@AndyLiu-b7s]

I understand why the guy on the left went straight to disagree instead of neutral. If you think about it, the topic of incest when taken out the concept of moral and children, is nothing more than two people who find each other pleasant and attractive trying to take a step further with their relationship. This is of course if the relationship is not based on abuse.

[@ROMEYYOUROCK]

I appreciate the guy sticking to his world view. I completely disagree but can appreciate him being consistent. I wonder if he'd stay true to his world view if he was asked if beastiality is morally wrong.

[@sunshinemerlot9790]

Wow, this made me sick. I was a foster parent for 16 years, the damage that incest result in is life-long. It doesn't matter if a child is the result of it, the damage is already done to the victim (usually a child), the aggressor, the family unit as a whole and by extension society. Even Aristotle recognized that crimes within the family were wrong on a higher level. Incest isn't wrong because of the Bible but because it has been shown to have extremely negative effects on the people involved. It is easy to dismiss the negative consequences as long as one keeps it in the realm of theorizing but the reality-the demonstrable reality--shows that it is extremely negative. LGBT rights are not the same as incest. Most LGBT relationships are based on consent and between two individuals who willingly enter into the relationship. The power dynamic is much more equal than in an incesteous relationship. An incesteous relationship between a parent and a child or another adult, the power dynamic is usually skewed in favor of the the parent or the older individual. Even with two adults, one of the participants usually has more control over the other one to the point that the second individual cannot have their own intimate relationship with other individual. Lastly, *if* incenteous relationship were healthy, you wouldn't have to qualify it with "Is Incest moral wrong if no children result?" But you do have to qualify it with "if no children result" because we all instinctively know that they are wrong and that they are not healthy, loving and equal relationships.

[@gladyslucas198]

is incest wrong if it's between two individuals who grew up separately, met as adults, found out they were siblings, then still decided to have sex?

[@sunshinemerlot9790]

@@gladyslucas198 Yes, it is still wrong. The example provided is so rare that it is not indicative of the harm that incest victims go through. Yes, in some alternate universe, there could be that ONE couple that get together, do not know that they are related and engage in a consensual sexual relationship. In this case, ignorance is bliss--as long as they remain ignorant and depending on the circumstances of their initial separation. Once they do know, harm will inevitably come into the equation. Adults with trauma backgrounds will often times accept things that are harmful to them because they are desperate for that familial connection. They are easier to be taken advantage of and to manipulate. Once it is known, the power dynamic shifts. People can treat this as a "thought exercise" but the reality is much worse. If you want an example, look up Steven and Katie Pladl.

[@gladyslucas198]

​@@sunshinemerlot9790 I can understand how it would be harmful between people in a familiar relationship, but outside of that, when they just happen to be related genetically but don't hold family bonds, what is the harm? I don't accept the idea that the power dynamic shifts once the individuals realize they're related. It may become weird, but the weirdness would only stem from the idea that incest is inherently weird/immoral, which is the thing being questioned in the first place. Also, this is indeed a thought exercise. I love this thought experiment because I believe there is zero legitimate rationale behind incest being immoral, it just feels icky or disgusting. It's purely feelings based, imo, but since feeling-based rationale is illegitimated in modern discourse, people will come up with flaky reasoning.

[@sunshinemerlot9790]

@@gladyslucas198 When you have time, look up Genetic Sexual Attraction. It may be a thought experiment to you but to a growing number of ethicist, lawmakers, fertility doctors, social workers etc. GSA is a very real issue with real actual people. GSA (and quite often the subsequent physical relationship that often times follows) has a devastating emotional toll on the people involved. Lastly, you might have noticed that I have never made a moral argument. Incest is wrong not because it is "icky" but because it has a profoundly negative effect on the people involved.

[@willsl321]

But aren’t you changing the basic question being discussed? What makes incest by itself immoral? To be clear, I agree that it is immoral, but you seem to be defining incest as something that necessarily includes sexual assault and child abuse. Obviously these things occur within the family and they’re very bad. But whether or not they’re bad is an easier question to answer than the conceptual question of whether incest by itself (in the absence of consent issues or children) is morally wrong.

[@thatuberrican8745]

My answer to the first claim would've been even more basic then the second guy's response. Simply put, and in the same way that Dave Chapelle once expressed it, because "that shit is gross".

[@lindadavies3281]

Are they getting their facts from Game of Thones? I didn't know it was a documentary.🤔

[@nphoenixcrimefighter]

Relative mortality means anything and everything will eventually be moral when the situation arises.

[@TheRomanticsWB]

I find most examples of the 'ideology' of moral relativism to simply be saying, X exists SOMEWHERE so it must be simply relative. This really isn't any proof that it's good or OK. It's simply proof that someone, somewhere, does it and thinks it's fine. I think moral relativism as an ideology is a load of irrational horse poo.

[@orcaunoo]

you can tell black shirt isn’t an independent thinker based on how he responded to the first few questions before the exercise actually started.

[@edidiongmoses2889]

When bro was asked to defend his opinion he couldn’t and decided to deflect to religion. That’s not an independent thinker😂😂

[@michaeldromes3948]

Very intriguing topic that forces you to think a bit harder beyond just the initial repulsion and the current social programming. As for the childless qualifier in the question, I'm not even sure potential offspring would be a viable argument against incest in the first place. 1) There are couples with way higher chances of passing all sorts of defects and genetic diseases, yet we don't ban them from procreating, we don't sterilize them and we don't even force abortions when those defects are detected early on. It's all up to the individual couple. 2) Apparently 1st generation incest doesn't even produce that much higher likelyhood of defects occurring, it's really the 2nd generation and further that creates those defects infamous from certain royal bloodlines of the past. It's probably still a good thing to keep it as a social taboo because otherwise we'd most likely see increase in abuse, grooming and unnecessary conflict in some families, but it probably shouldn't be prosecuted and ideally socially ignored if there happens to be 2 cousins or say lesbian sisters who fell for each other. Consenting adults doing their own thing and all that.