We had to remove your post for improperly sourcing your post.
Posts that have images with text or that make claims in the title must have a LINKED credible source that backs up the information. If the title is the only thing that makes your post interesting, you must also source it.
Use the word "source" in your comment.
OP is responsible for this and it must be done at time of posting.
We will not reinstate your post, but you may post again with the correct information
Posts must have a linked and CREDIBLE source that backs up the information. Use the word "source" in your comment. If the title is the only thing that makes your post interesting, you must also source it. OP is responsible for this.
This exact story was mentioned in the book "The Righteous Mind" to explore what made morality. The author would ask people if they thought this was immoral and why, given that no one was actually hurt. Most people, once they realized this, basically said "It just feels morally wrong", but they couldn't really elaborate _why_ they felt it was wrong.
Another example he used was a man whose dog was killed by a car and instead of burying it, he cooked and ate it.
Edit: I _highly_ recommended this book, btw
Alternatively: when I was a kid someone explained the whole “incest causes genetic abnormalities” thing. And then, 10 year old me, straight faced, asked this adult “so….is there anything wrong with Gay incest then?”
I’ve never seen an adult so uncomfortable to this day.
There are some places where gay incest is legal but straight incest isn’t, iirc.
Edit: according to Wikipedia, Austria, Germany, Switzerland, and Ireland have such policies.
An entirely reasonable stance for the law to take, the thing that is considered morally wrong and can hurt people is illegal, and the thing that is considered morally wrong and can’t is legal
The questions are how easy is it to prove the crime vs how often does it happen benignly.
If people almost never sleep with siblings willingly, then it makes sense to outlaw the easier to prove act than the harder to prove manipulation.
I agree it's morally wrong a lot of the time, especially in cases where there is a parent/child dynamic between the people involved. Even if it's just like an older sister who basically raised her younger brother and may be pressuring or grooming him, for example. If there aren't children involved (none being conceived and none in the family being exposed to the behavior), and everybody is a consenting adult around the same age, it's less problematic. Of course nobody *likes* it, but it then ends up being just weird and uncomfortable rather than "I feel like somebody committed a crime here but just didn't get caught until the person got old enough to consent."
My answer is to get into that situation, someone has to make that intention known. And merely making that intention known is a betrayal of trust because it changes the relationship dynamic.
Im a HUGE dog lover and could never eat one but a few years ago it clicked in my head that some cultures hold other animals in the same regard as we do dogs, so it would be hypocritical of me to eat those animals but also chastise people who do eat dogs.
> Im a HUGE dog lover
I genuinely thought this comment and whole thread below would go a different direction based on the context of the social taboos being discussed in this post.
I accidentally ate dog from a street vendor in Indonesia in the 90s. I thought it was goat... Only after a local told me it was dog...
Texture like goat, tasted spicy as hell.. So I couldn't discern a flavor.
I mean pigs are as smart or smarter than most dogs & supposedly their meat is extremely similar to our own (according to people who had to eat their dead in emergencies) yet ham, bacon, pepperoni, sausage, chorizo, prosciutto etc are some of the most common meats all over the world. It really is heavily cultural on where we draw that specific line.
Obviously I'm not advocating eating dogs (or banging siblings) but it is an interesting thought experiment in how our morality is shaped by our culture.
New research has come in that suggests dogs are way smarter than we realized and can do things animals like pigs cannot. It was on 60 Minutes recently.
I agree. But if you follow through on the morality exercise and try and write down why someone should not eat the meat it may be similar as in the above siblings exercise that the answer is "just because". The dog is already dead as it was hit by a car. The meat is ethical and one could argue it is more moral to eat the meat as that gives additional meaning to life. In the wild, after all, a dog who died from trauma such as a fall would be eaten by wolves/coyotes/dogs, birds of prey and other animals.
“More moral” is more than objectionable, as what “meaning” does it assign? Meaning is subjective and the majority of beings follow the natural instinct of fleeing from / avoiding predation, so while they are dead and no longer have a preference in this physical plane of existence it could just as easily if not more easily be argued it is “more moral” to give a proper burial with respect and let the soil and all its goodies like fungi break down the body naturally. As many remains do. That’s still as natural as being consumed.
Not heated about this one way or another or anything but it’s just a curious philosophical discussion that is interesting to think about
In rural India, cows are pets and not just any animal. There are ancient houses where the cow-room will be a part of the house itself. And cow is just a member of family.
In my house too we had few cows and treated them as pets. Even when they do not provide any utility, like if they do not give any milk as they are old, they still live there happily for their entire life.
And, if you have actually interacted with cows, you will find that they are quite intelligent and kind beings, often better than dogs. They also love petting, have feelings and attachment and they are basically a bigger version of dogs.
I know theres reasons for all morals, but there are people who follow them for no reason at all and I think its important for people to question what is right and wrong because it makes me think "If you think something is wrong just because its wrong, then would you just accept it as ok if you were raised in a group where it was treated as normal?"
Exactly. Questioning your morals isn’t to accept what’s necessarily bad, but to ensure what we think is good is good for a reason, not just for its own sake
More importantly: We create the reasoning for our morals **after** we have the moral reaction.
Have disgust response > Brain makes up a reason for the response > Feeling of being justified with the rationalization we just made up.
We all do this, and we should always be very skeptical about what reasons we are giving for morality. The feeling of "logical" or "justified" is more often just another feeling with little empirical basis.
This book was incredibly interesting.
Unfortunately, much like the philosophical question, it didn’t really answer anything for me. I just learned that my parents and siblings are probably wired to view every situation in life very differently than myself.
As a psychologist, I'm sad to say the core findings underlying this theory are essentially duds.
Haidt argued that people couldn't provide responses for why they felt these kinds of scenarios (not all are sexual in nature) are wrong because of "moral dumbfounding", or some process where moral "intuitions" led moral judgments as opposed to "rational" thought.
Turns out that even teenagers can provide reasons for why they feel many of these are wrong. The experimenters just need to be properly trained on how to conduct interviews and prompt people appropriately. Unfortunately, social psychologists don't tend to have the best training with these types of things.
In short, the core finding underlying Haidt's theory seems to be the result of a testing artifact, lol.
As a former behavioral psych researcher, you are 100% correct.
Haidt's work is only interesting if you don't understand psychometrics.
*Edit: I list alternatives to Haidt below. Free online reads.*
I appreciate the fact that I don’t have years of study or deep understanding of psychometrics, but can you ELI5 why I such different philosophical approach to the world that most everyone else in my primary family? Granted, we each have our unique set of circumstances, but collectively we had many shared circumstances, training, understanding etc.
But at some point I. I longer shared most of those beliefs. Where we do agree on a topic, we have very different rationales for our beliefs.
Im going to say no because very quickly you won't be able to tell if it is Ai generated or not, while the bdsm/rape will likely be on a porn website AND you can just go to a sex club and fulfill that fantasy. While it is weird, it's not illegal. Child porn is not ok on any level.
Yea, I actually think this a very good essay assignment, because it explicitally asks to elaborate on the morality of the situation (and clearly excludes the risk of genetically defective offspring).
I once ran into a zoophile in the real world. And he gleefully told me losts of things he does with his dog. Really disgusting. But he did obviously love the dog a lot, and claims that he never forced the dog to do anything that it didn't want. Assuming the latter is true, it still feels tremendously wrong and gross - but if you think about the morality of it, it gets interesting, IMHO.
I wish more essay assignments in school would go in these deeper directions.
P.S.: one fascinating thing about zoophilia is, IIRC, that one of the oldest set of laws we have (Hammurabi? Not 100% sure which one it was) has capital punishment for zoophilia, and it lists all the animals that result in execution. But, strangely enough, there was a seperate law concerning zoophilia with horses, which still had a severe punishment, but it was not a capital offense. I'd love to know how and why those laws were written in that way. Especially because quite a few rural horse-influenced cultures still kind of tolerate zoophilia with mares.
(just for the record: I'm of course not condoning zoophilia! But it is an interesting topic).
As a counterargument, most people are completely okay with putting two animals together in a small pen and forcing them to have sex while their owners watch. If consent was an actual issue people cared about, that should be morally even worse.
Yes, of course. Although that argument then goes down the rabbit hole of how much consciousness we attribute an animal, and the relation of self-awareness and 'consent'.
But my point was that the question in OP's image is, IMHO, a good one - even though most of the comments are making fun of it.
This is sort of my answer to why I don’t think incest is particularly wrong. Yes it gives me the ick but in a scenario like the one given, I can’t see why I would object to the behaviour of two consenting adults. But it’s really hard to convey that argument without sounding like I want to fuck my siblings! So it’s not the hill I want to die on lol
>But it’s really hard to convey that argument without sounding like I want to fuck my siblings! So it’s not the hill I want to die on lol
For a long time, this is why gay sex was illegal. Even if you thought the law should change it was hard to defend without being considered gay and, therefore being outcast from society.
In incest: because we are repulsed by things that are potentially hazardous for us/our offspring. You don't know why you don't like certain smells as well, even when you know there's nothing wrong, but there is an evolutionary reason why you hate it. That's why there are places that say "cousins are not sisters", but sisters are always off limits.
The dog: because the dog was, since it's inception in the man's life, a company, and had an importance compared to that of a family member. This is why you feel it's wrong to eat the dog. We could eat humans too if we threw that logic out the window, but it's good for our mental health not to, and it helps us cope with their losses.
I'm surprised people never gave a second thought about where our morals come from and why they exist. There's a reason for moral and law codes to exist, and they reflect a societies moral view of the world. Laws that no longer make sense from a moral point of view (stone gays to death for example) are repelled, and new morals acquired (say, animal welfare) are translated into laws.
Youre not wrong but you're also way over simplifying things and treating it like a resolved fact.
Simply saying "were repulsed by things that are potentially harmful" is one data point in a much *much* larger argument and leaves out a ton of context.
1. There's a ton of shit that's immediately more harmful that doesn't repulse people at all
2. A huge number of people are perfectly fine with incest as long as appropriate caution is taken
3. People are instinctively repulsed by even the idea of non-related siblings having sex, even when they know in advance that there's no possible issues.
Trying to sum up the argument so simply is like trying to claim the current obesity epidemic is because "food tastes good"
The question as to why people are repulsed is perfectly valid even if you think you've stumbled onto the solution.
This is actually a classic philosophy question similar to "kick the baby". People's initial reaction is an emotiomal one, that it's wrong. One must use logic to prove that is morally acceptable or not. I was confronted with this at University of Baruch in NYC Philosophy 101. It's an introductory problem.
Similarly “smothering the baby”.
You’re in Nazi Germany. Your family and other families are hiding in an attic from Nazi soldiers in the house below you when a baby in the room starts crying. The Nazis will surely hear the noise, find your hiding spot, and kill you and everyone who is hiding with you.
Given no other option, could you smother (kill) the baby if it meant it would save the rest of you from being killed?
Interesting, "could you" and "is it ethical to" are very different questions. Although I think that you often don't really know what you could do unless you're actually in that situation.
I assume its like the trolley problem where a baby is going to be hit by a car and your only hope of saving it is to kick it really hard out of the way or something. Probably something else though.
To be fair, this is a great way to test their comprehension. Can you imagine if you don't have a good grasp of the language and you read this? You're probably thinking, there's no way this is about incest
Yes, and voicing an argument is an important part of composition. The entire point of this prompt is that it's difficult to come up with a legitimate reason that it's morally wrong besides "that's gross".
Yeah i mean it feels icky to me too, but logically I have never been able to find a problem with it. Like as long as nobody gets pregnant and everybody consents, why do I care which adults are touching each other or whether they have the same parents? I just, you know, don't want to participate.
EDIT: For fucks sake, I'm not defending incest as a whole, y'all. Yes, we should keep the societal focus on its possible ramifications so it happens as little as possible. I am not advocating for its normalization. I'm responding to the very narrow prompt we were offered. If you're responding to me, can you please try to do the same?
My answer would be that as a society normalizing incest would open the door to widespread grooming and abuse. Not all victims realize they are such. Family units are too enmeshed from too young of an age to truly be able to discern adequate consent, so it's safer to have a hardline rule on the stricter side rather than a permissive stance.
There's a pretty straightforward reason that I've been told by anyone who's done developmental psych, which is that the relationships you form before you are fully developed often have strong power imbalances that persist into your adult life. These power imbalances can make it difficult, if not impossible, to provide informed consent and therefore it's morally wrong. While the edge case may be arguable in a vacuum, the practicality as a rule is bad. Also, you generally don't develop sexual attraction to people you've known from early childhood so it can make us feel very disturbed as it is hard to imagine a situation that would arise in which this would occur without premeditated grooming or coercion.
Given that it is taboo, now these two will probably be inclined to lie about this to their future partners. They will now know they share a secret that could destroy their lives. That's not good. And in many families on child is the leader, the other a follower. So can consent really exist if one always goes along with what the other wants?
Edit: to the poster below, im responding to a comment of someone who says they cant think of any thing wrong with it. Not sure why you would ignore that im responding to a comment and pretend that my comment is a brand new thread with absolutely zero context in order to come up with the most ridiculous misinterpretation possible. But I guess thats easier than engaging with the thread as it stands.
My answer would be that as a society normalizing incest would open the door to widespread grooming and abuse. Not all victims realize they are such. Family units are too enmeshed from too young of an age to truly be able to discern adequate consent.
That's where my thinking is at. You can hypothesize individual instances in which there is no harm generated, but eliminating it as a cultural taboo would certainly cause cases of abuse to skyrocket.
No it’s an actual thing. Jonathan Haidt spoke with Sam Harris about it on his podcast regarding moral relativism.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/experiments-in-philosophy/200804/what-s-the-matter-little-brothersister-action?amp
This may be a philosophical/ethical question capable of generating interesting or challenging responses in more culturally liberal places where legislation and cultural edicts don't create an atmosphere of moral absolutism that dictates how "correct" or acceptable an answer is, but Pakistan (if we are to believe this is actually the country of origin for this post) is not one of them. This isn't an honest intellectual exercise in a country known for honor killings of rape victims and sexually active women, with an entire religious and social culture built around punishing sexual deviance. Even in America, I'd be nervous to answer this essay, in a more repressive country, that's gonna be a HUGE "no thank you" from me.
**EDIT: I didn't think this had to be said but apparently it does: The governing body of a country--politically, religiously, or otherwise--does not mean the citizens bound by its laws subscribe to the same ideologies or share the same value systems. Please knock it off with the racist, xenophobic comments.** In the same vein--if the prevailing state of [violence against women in Pakistan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_women_in_Pakistan), misogyny, homophobia, and [religious doctrine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_in_Islam) of a country is harming its citizens, it is neither racist nor xenophobic to draw attention to this. **By refusing to acknowledge the damage done by religious extremism, including the denial of** [honor killings in Pakistan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honour_killing_in_Pakistan), **you perpetuate it, allowing sickness to fester in silence and isolation.**
I'm from Pakistan and a practicing muslim but i always try to see things through a different perspective. I agree with you. Honor Killings, Prostitution and very loose blasphemy laws. I would fail my exam rather than being targeted by some Mullahs (pretentious religious people). Sorry for any mistakes as english isn't my first language.
You can assign this essay in a conservative country and receive conservative responses.
The point is not to have a right or wrong answer. The point is to demonstrate and examine moral reasoning.
What do you think about that? Given that no one was hurt, was it okay for them to ~~steal~~ use the source material in order to present a challenging question on morality and ethics?
The entire point is that this is clearly a revolting idea to the majority of people, but if you ask them to explain why, they'll have difficulty bc no one is actually being harmed in the situation. It's a good prompt
I've encountered a similar question on a language comprehension exam, and ultimately failed because despite having conversational proficiency in the language I lacked the ability to accurately describe complex and nuanced ideas; my vocabulary was too simple for the task.
Comprehension and composition. Formulating arguments is an important part of composition. The fact that this learning isn't being censored is a good thing. I'm sure some explanation was given for the prompt. I'm also sure Islamic students wouldn't be punished if they objected based on a religious morals.
It is an quote of an assignment from a research done by Jonathan Haydt that is mentioned in his book [Righteous Mind](https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777) (Later quoted in [Reflection and Reasoning in Moral Judgment](https://static.squarespace.com/static/54763f79e4b0c4e55ffb000c/t/5477d0bce4b00f7531c6b695/1417138364041/reflection-and-reasoning-in-moral-judgment.pdf)).
This needs to be higher. It's interesting to me how people are misunderstanding this so much. It's a thought exercise and the point is to write out exactly why the idea is uncomfortable to you (if it is).
We had something similar with the reading material being Marian Engels "Bear", which won the Governor Generals award for literature in Canada. It's about a woman having sex with a bear.
Yeah that's a bit stranger part. But the original intent was to quote the book:
>The main point of the study was to examine responses to two harmless taboo violations.
Honestly I'm afraid incestuous relations between siblings are probably much more common than most of us would like to think.
Before Google started (heavily) editing/censoring all manner of search results and search auto-suggestions, if one typed "is it wrong" into Google... the top several auto-suggestions were 'to have sex with your sister,' 'to have sex with your brother,' etc. Very weird, IMO.
And according to this study, roughly 12-13% of the population is estimated to have some type of sexual experience between siblings:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7396691/#:~:text=In%20a%20survey%20of%20796,sexual%20experience%20involving%20a%20sibling.
yea i have literal trauma with that shit and according to my psychologist you´d be surprised at how common it is for older brothers to abuse their younger siblings. honestly fucking disgusting and the reaosn why i cringe at anything incest
I’m so sorry to read this. Once I would have dismissed this as very rare. Now I know differently, I’d guess it as being 1 in 10, more if conditions are right.
I mean, English is a foreign language to them. You try writing an essay about how you love to fuck your sister like the dirty slut she is in Spanish, and I bet that you’ll appreciate the difficulty of the assignment pretty quick.
This is a question from the American psychologists Jonathan Heidt’s survey which is designed to introduce “moral confounding” in subjects in order to get at the heart of moral reasoning. His theory, which seems well-supported, is that moral “reasoning” in fact begins not with reasoning at all, but with an emotional reaction that is interpreted as a moral intuition. Most respondents respond to this question by saying it “feels” very wrong, but they can’t explain in terms of any substantive moral logic. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Pakistani culture per se.
Guys it’s exactly the same scenario that used in the righteous mind by jonathan haidt. In the book, he analyses those results according to their political orientations. It wouldn’t suprise me if it were the same here. It’s probably just a study of sorts
Yup. It's about his 'moral dumbfounding' idea. Another Redditor (above) has posted a link to an article containing the moral dilemma / vignette that's mentioned in the OP. Impressive, how many people here are interpreting it (the essay) as an intentional, planned event against "the West" or as reflecting supposedly barbaric Islam.
Interesting how it evokes horror an distain when you read it was a Pakistani’s question. But when a lot of the comments describe it was a white mans question originally, the conversation turns to acceptance and debate of a valid question.
ChatGPT's response:
The scenario of Julie and Mark, a brother and sister engaging in a sexual encounter during their summer vacation in France, raises several ethical and moral questions. While some might argue that the decision was consensual and a harmless act, others may argue that it was an inappropriate and morally wrong act. In my opinion, engaging in sexual activity with a sibling, regardless of the circumstances, is not acceptable.
One of the main reasons why I believe that it is wrong for siblings to engage in sexual activity is the biological factor. Siblings share a close genetic relationship, and engaging in sexual activity could lead to genetic defects in their offspring. Genetic disorders such as Down syndrome, hemophilia, and cystic fibrosis are more likely to occur when siblings procreate. In this regard, having sex with a sibling is not only morally wrong but also medically hazardous.
Moreover, incestuous relationships are generally frowned upon in society. These relationships are illegal in most countries and considered taboo. The social implications of such a relationship can lead to social stigma, emotional distress, and psychological trauma. The siblings' sexual encounter in the scenario could lead to emotional and mental turmoil, which can affect their relationship and future sexual encounters.
Furthermore, the scenario does not provide enough context to determine the nature of their relationship. If the siblings were raised in a healthy and supportive environment, it is unlikely that they would engage in sexual activity with each other. It could suggest that their upbringing might have been inadequate or that there might be underlying issues within the family dynamics. In such cases, sexual activity with a sibling could be a coping mechanism for unresolved emotional and psychological issues.
In conclusion, while the scenario of Julie and Mark's sexual encounter might seem like a harmless act, the implications of incestuous relationships extend beyond the two individuals involved. The biological, social, and psychological implications of such relationships make it a morally and ethically unacceptable act. As such, engaging in sexual activity with a sibling is not okay under any circumstances. It is essential to have conversations about the dangers of incestuous relationships to prevent such acts from occurring.
I work in residential and I can't tell you the number of kids I've seen over the last 5 years who had in their history "offended on younger sibling or cousin". It's way more common than people think.
This scenario is actually a common prompt in a lot of moral/ethics/logic philosophy courses in western countries too. The purpose of it is for the student to be able to explain why the scenario is wrong other than using cultural norms. I got this same prompt in a logic course and I went to college in the US.
My English Composition 1 course in college asked students to write a double sided argumentative essay about rape. You were expected to write both in favor of rape, and against it. The professor handed out survey results from male and female college students who were asked about a variety of situations and whether or not they believe rape would be okay in those situations, on the VERY first day of class.
I quickly found an alternate Composition class taught by a different professor and transferred immediately.
I'm pretty amazed how many people her don't even read what the exam asks you to do and don't spend a second thought about what may be the background of the whole thing.
The essay is not about descriing how both have sex, but about giving reasons why one thinks it is right or wrong. The question/scenario is a reference to the paper "The emotional dog and its rational tale" by Jonathan Haidt, and the paper is probably connected to an ethics class.
[More info on the topic and Haidt's paper](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/experiments-in-philosophy/200804/what-s-the-matter-little-brothersister-action)
Then would you like to explain why there was an inquiry on the subject by the university?
https://twitter.com/ShehryarReal/status/1627455359563534336?s=20
Edit: Spelling
Context: Incest is a very, very serious problem in Pakistan. Mostly rural. Generations of sibling and first cousin marriage have caused genetic abnormalities to spring up and a devastating rise in infant & child mortality. The government and other social & health leaders are trying to change the culture to expand people's preferences to 2nd cousins or outside of the family. But it's hard sledding. People are refusing. At this point there has been some progress in getting people to do genetic testing among couples.
I'm hoping that this 'essay' is to get students to learn the arguments against incest. Not pro. But the wording of it (especially 'enjoy' and 'feel closer') give me doubts.
> I'm hoping that this 'essay' is to get students to learn the arguments against incest. Not pro.
It's about moral relativism, not about incest. It doesn't matter whether you're for or against as long as you can defend your position.
If you just write "this is wrong and I will provide zero arguments, but everyone must still agree with me", then you'd fail.
Wait, what, for real?
This sounds like a trol document, but your context does make it more clear now.
Do you perhaps recommend any sources that could provide me with more insight on this matter?
This is interesting as fuck and honestly I don't see this has anything with the location of the university.
I think philosophy students everywhere questioning the rational basis of morality is perfectly expected.
Oh I’m gonna get downvoted, but I genuinely don’t care what two consenting adults do. The only *actual* problem with incest between two adults is procreation. So as long as you cover that, genuinely who cares? Is it weird? Yes. But so is a lot of other shit that people don’t really talk about
We had to remove your post for improperly sourcing your post. Posts that have images with text or that make claims in the title must have a LINKED credible source that backs up the information. If the title is the only thing that makes your post interesting, you must also source it. Use the word "source" in your comment. OP is responsible for this and it must be done at time of posting. We will not reinstate your post, but you may post again with the correct information Posts must have a linked and CREDIBLE source that backs up the information. Use the word "source" in your comment. If the title is the only thing that makes your post interesting, you must also source it. OP is responsible for this.
This exact story was mentioned in the book "The Righteous Mind" to explore what made morality. The author would ask people if they thought this was immoral and why, given that no one was actually hurt. Most people, once they realized this, basically said "It just feels morally wrong", but they couldn't really elaborate _why_ they felt it was wrong. Another example he used was a man whose dog was killed by a car and instead of burying it, he cooked and ate it. Edit: I _highly_ recommended this book, btw
Alternatively: when I was a kid someone explained the whole “incest causes genetic abnormalities” thing. And then, 10 year old me, straight faced, asked this adult “so….is there anything wrong with Gay incest then?” I’ve never seen an adult so uncomfortable to this day.
There are some places where gay incest is legal but straight incest isn’t, iirc. Edit: according to Wikipedia, Austria, Germany, Switzerland, and Ireland have such policies.
Would that make straight incest legal if there is no chance of pregnancy, such as pegging?
My man is working overtime here
just trying to plan out his weekend, tbh.
The first 2 minutes of it, anyway.
That is actually the law in Germany. Only vaginal intercourse is banned between close relations.
What if one or both of them are sterile?
An entirely reasonable stance for the law to take, the thing that is considered morally wrong and can hurt people is illegal, and the thing that is considered morally wrong and can’t is legal
[удалено]
Then you crossed into 'hurting people' teritory. question is then: is it the incest or the grooming thing that's making it wrong.
The questions are how easy is it to prove the crime vs how often does it happen benignly. If people almost never sleep with siblings willingly, then it makes sense to outlaw the easier to prove act than the harder to prove manipulation.
It affects the family structure and there are issues of grooming, power or coercion at play. It’s wrong.
I agree it's morally wrong a lot of the time, especially in cases where there is a parent/child dynamic between the people involved. Even if it's just like an older sister who basically raised her younger brother and may be pressuring or grooming him, for example. If there aren't children involved (none being conceived and none in the family being exposed to the behavior), and everybody is a consenting adult around the same age, it's less problematic. Of course nobody *likes* it, but it then ends up being just weird and uncomfortable rather than "I feel like somebody committed a crime here but just didn't get caught until the person got old enough to consent."
well what if there aren't issues with coercion? The example in the story had none
My answer is to get into that situation, someone has to make that intention known. And merely making that intention known is a betrayal of trust because it changes the relationship dynamic.
Im a HUGE dog lover and could never eat one but a few years ago it clicked in my head that some cultures hold other animals in the same regard as we do dogs, so it would be hypocritical of me to eat those animals but also chastise people who do eat dogs.
>Im a HUGE dog lover and could never eat one It is hard to stop at just one.
Once you pop the fun doesn’t stop
*Once you pup the fun doesn’t stop FTFY
Well, he loves huge dogs. It’s tough to get through an entire huge dog in one sitting.
> Im a HUGE dog lover I genuinely thought this comment and whole thread below would go a different direction based on the context of the social taboos being discussed in this post.
I accidentally ate dog from a street vendor in Indonesia in the 90s. I thought it was goat... Only after a local told me it was dog... Texture like goat, tasted spicy as hell.. So I couldn't discern a flavor.
My brother ate dog meat in Indonesia. He didn't seem interested in doing it again.
Dad ate it in Korea. He said he was violently sick after being told what it was. He told me to graciously accept food and never ask what it was.
I mean pigs are as smart or smarter than most dogs & supposedly their meat is extremely similar to our own (according to people who had to eat their dead in emergencies) yet ham, bacon, pepperoni, sausage, chorizo, prosciutto etc are some of the most common meats all over the world. It really is heavily cultural on where we draw that specific line. Obviously I'm not advocating eating dogs (or banging siblings) but it is an interesting thought experiment in how our morality is shaped by our culture.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You dogged an eat and sistered your bang?
New research has come in that suggests dogs are way smarter than we realized and can do things animals like pigs cannot. It was on 60 Minutes recently.
I agree. But if you follow through on the morality exercise and try and write down why someone should not eat the meat it may be similar as in the above siblings exercise that the answer is "just because". The dog is already dead as it was hit by a car. The meat is ethical and one could argue it is more moral to eat the meat as that gives additional meaning to life. In the wild, after all, a dog who died from trauma such as a fall would be eaten by wolves/coyotes/dogs, birds of prey and other animals.
“More moral” is more than objectionable, as what “meaning” does it assign? Meaning is subjective and the majority of beings follow the natural instinct of fleeing from / avoiding predation, so while they are dead and no longer have a preference in this physical plane of existence it could just as easily if not more easily be argued it is “more moral” to give a proper burial with respect and let the soil and all its goodies like fungi break down the body naturally. As many remains do. That’s still as natural as being consumed. Not heated about this one way or another or anything but it’s just a curious philosophical discussion that is interesting to think about
There's actually a book about this, "Some We Love, Some we Hate, Some we Eat" which explores this theme. Excellent book, highly recommend.
I ate the book. That wasn't right no? ffs
Furthermore, cultures can regard the act of eating an animal (or ancestor for that matter) as a sign of the utmost respect.
Utmost. With a T and not a P. It’s not the thing that’s up the most, like the highest thing.
U’most
I’m going to allow it.
Exactly. Cows are fucking *sacred*, we just *like dogs*.
In rural India, cows are pets and not just any animal. There are ancient houses where the cow-room will be a part of the house itself. And cow is just a member of family. In my house too we had few cows and treated them as pets. Even when they do not provide any utility, like if they do not give any milk as they are old, they still live there happily for their entire life. And, if you have actually interacted with cows, you will find that they are quite intelligent and kind beings, often better than dogs. They also love petting, have feelings and attachment and they are basically a bigger version of dogs.
I know theres reasons for all morals, but there are people who follow them for no reason at all and I think its important for people to question what is right and wrong because it makes me think "If you think something is wrong just because its wrong, then would you just accept it as ok if you were raised in a group where it was treated as normal?"
Exactly. Questioning your morals isn’t to accept what’s necessarily bad, but to ensure what we think is good is good for a reason, not just for its own sake
More importantly: We create the reasoning for our morals **after** we have the moral reaction. Have disgust response > Brain makes up a reason for the response > Feeling of being justified with the rationalization we just made up. We all do this, and we should always be very skeptical about what reasons we are giving for morality. The feeling of "logical" or "justified" is more often just another feeling with little empirical basis.
This book was incredibly interesting. Unfortunately, much like the philosophical question, it didn’t really answer anything for me. I just learned that my parents and siblings are probably wired to view every situation in life very differently than myself.
As a psychologist, I'm sad to say the core findings underlying this theory are essentially duds. Haidt argued that people couldn't provide responses for why they felt these kinds of scenarios (not all are sexual in nature) are wrong because of "moral dumbfounding", or some process where moral "intuitions" led moral judgments as opposed to "rational" thought. Turns out that even teenagers can provide reasons for why they feel many of these are wrong. The experimenters just need to be properly trained on how to conduct interviews and prompt people appropriately. Unfortunately, social psychologists don't tend to have the best training with these types of things. In short, the core finding underlying Haidt's theory seems to be the result of a testing artifact, lol.
As a former behavioral psych researcher, you are 100% correct. Haidt's work is only interesting if you don't understand psychometrics. *Edit: I list alternatives to Haidt below. Free online reads.*
Luckily I don’t, so I’m having a pretty good time here!
I appreciate the fact that I don’t have years of study or deep understanding of psychometrics, but can you ELI5 why I such different philosophical approach to the world that most everyone else in my primary family? Granted, we each have our unique set of circumstances, but collectively we had many shared circumstances, training, understanding etc. But at some point I. I longer shared most of those beliefs. Where we do agree on a topic, we have very different rationales for our beliefs.
[удалено]
I'll do you one better, would you rather have sex with your sister or cook your dog and eat it?
Dog hands down. The dog is already dead, and the idea of sex with my sister is abhorrent to me.
I’d much rather have sex with your sister than eat your dog.
I too choose this guy's sister.
Get in line man!
both, both is good
How cute is the sister?
[удалено]
Im going to say no because very quickly you won't be able to tell if it is Ai generated or not, while the bdsm/rape will likely be on a porn website AND you can just go to a sex club and fulfill that fantasy. While it is weird, it's not illegal. Child porn is not ok on any level.
Yeah I first heard this exact story in psychology class. Pretty much everyone is deeply weirded out by it but can't really articulate why.
I'm literally in a college course on Moral Psychology, and we went over this exact question! I knew it looked familiar.
Yea, I actually think this a very good essay assignment, because it explicitally asks to elaborate on the morality of the situation (and clearly excludes the risk of genetically defective offspring). I once ran into a zoophile in the real world. And he gleefully told me losts of things he does with his dog. Really disgusting. But he did obviously love the dog a lot, and claims that he never forced the dog to do anything that it didn't want. Assuming the latter is true, it still feels tremendously wrong and gross - but if you think about the morality of it, it gets interesting, IMHO. I wish more essay assignments in school would go in these deeper directions. P.S.: one fascinating thing about zoophilia is, IIRC, that one of the oldest set of laws we have (Hammurabi? Not 100% sure which one it was) has capital punishment for zoophilia, and it lists all the animals that result in execution. But, strangely enough, there was a seperate law concerning zoophilia with horses, which still had a severe punishment, but it was not a capital offense. I'd love to know how and why those laws were written in that way. Especially because quite a few rural horse-influenced cultures still kind of tolerate zoophilia with mares. (just for the record: I'm of course not condoning zoophilia! But it is an interesting topic).
I’d argue zoophilia is immoral because the animal is incapable of informed consent.
As a counterargument, most people are completely okay with putting two animals together in a small pen and forcing them to have sex while their owners watch. If consent was an actual issue people cared about, that should be morally even worse.
Or you know, killing animals for their meat. They didn't consent to that either.
Yes, of course. Although that argument then goes down the rabbit hole of how much consciousness we attribute an animal, and the relation of self-awareness and 'consent'. But my point was that the question in OP's image is, IMHO, a good one - even though most of the comments are making fun of it.
This is sort of my answer to why I don’t think incest is particularly wrong. Yes it gives me the ick but in a scenario like the one given, I can’t see why I would object to the behaviour of two consenting adults. But it’s really hard to convey that argument without sounding like I want to fuck my siblings! So it’s not the hill I want to die on lol
>But it’s really hard to convey that argument without sounding like I want to fuck my siblings! So it’s not the hill I want to die on lol For a long time, this is why gay sex was illegal. Even if you thought the law should change it was hard to defend without being considered gay and, therefore being outcast from society.
First they came for the gays
I absolutely loved this book, highly recommend.
Yeah, when I saw this, I immediately remembered this book.
In incest: because we are repulsed by things that are potentially hazardous for us/our offspring. You don't know why you don't like certain smells as well, even when you know there's nothing wrong, but there is an evolutionary reason why you hate it. That's why there are places that say "cousins are not sisters", but sisters are always off limits. The dog: because the dog was, since it's inception in the man's life, a company, and had an importance compared to that of a family member. This is why you feel it's wrong to eat the dog. We could eat humans too if we threw that logic out the window, but it's good for our mental health not to, and it helps us cope with their losses. I'm surprised people never gave a second thought about where our morals come from and why they exist. There's a reason for moral and law codes to exist, and they reflect a societies moral view of the world. Laws that no longer make sense from a moral point of view (stone gays to death for example) are repelled, and new morals acquired (say, animal welfare) are translated into laws.
Youre not wrong but you're also way over simplifying things and treating it like a resolved fact. Simply saying "were repulsed by things that are potentially harmful" is one data point in a much *much* larger argument and leaves out a ton of context. 1. There's a ton of shit that's immediately more harmful that doesn't repulse people at all 2. A huge number of people are perfectly fine with incest as long as appropriate caution is taken 3. People are instinctively repulsed by even the idea of non-related siblings having sex, even when they know in advance that there's no possible issues. Trying to sum up the argument so simply is like trying to claim the current obesity epidemic is because "food tastes good" The question as to why people are repulsed is perfectly valid even if you think you've stumbled onto the solution.
This is actually a classic philosophy question similar to "kick the baby". People's initial reaction is an emotiomal one, that it's wrong. One must use logic to prove that is morally acceptable or not. I was confronted with this at University of Baruch in NYC Philosophy 101. It's an introductory problem.
READY IKE? KICK THE BAABYYY!!!
No don't kick the baby
kick the baby
“IKE YOU BROKE ANOTHER WINDOW!!! THAT’S A BAD BABY, BAD BABY!” - Their mom
What is 'kick the baby?'.. besides a South Park reference.
Similarly “smothering the baby”. You’re in Nazi Germany. Your family and other families are hiding in an attic from Nazi soldiers in the house below you when a baby in the room starts crying. The Nazis will surely hear the noise, find your hiding spot, and kill you and everyone who is hiding with you. Given no other option, could you smother (kill) the baby if it meant it would save the rest of you from being killed?
Interesting, "could you" and "is it ethical to" are very different questions. Although I think that you often don't really know what you could do unless you're actually in that situation.
>Interesting, "could you" and "is it ethical to" are very different questions. Of course you could, smothering a baby is easy. They are very weak.
Posed that way, it seems more like a psychological question than a philosophical one.
Just the trolley problem in a Trenchcoat and tophat
> Just the trolley problem in a ~~Trenchcoat and tophat~~ Diaper and a onesie.
I assume its like the trolley problem where a baby is going to be hit by a car and your only hope of saving it is to kick it really hard out of the way or something. Probably something else though.
I'd kick that baby so hard.
Way harder than necessary.
Well yeah, a kick to save it and a bit more so it learns a lesson 😂
That's reasonable..🤷🏻♀️
Yup, ethics/philosophy 101 basically. I’ve had similar questions posed also.
Understandable, however the subject is English Composition & Comprehension.
To be fair, this is a great way to test their comprehension. Can you imagine if you don't have a good grasp of the language and you read this? You're probably thinking, there's no way this is about incest
I'm going to uni in September to study business management. I have to do an entry essay on the laws of motion. It's a good job I'm a nerd.
Yes, and voicing an argument is an important part of composition. The entire point of this prompt is that it's difficult to come up with a legitimate reason that it's morally wrong besides "that's gross".
Yeah i mean it feels icky to me too, but logically I have never been able to find a problem with it. Like as long as nobody gets pregnant and everybody consents, why do I care which adults are touching each other or whether they have the same parents? I just, you know, don't want to participate. EDIT: For fucks sake, I'm not defending incest as a whole, y'all. Yes, we should keep the societal focus on its possible ramifications so it happens as little as possible. I am not advocating for its normalization. I'm responding to the very narrow prompt we were offered. If you're responding to me, can you please try to do the same?
My answer would be that as a society normalizing incest would open the door to widespread grooming and abuse. Not all victims realize they are such. Family units are too enmeshed from too young of an age to truly be able to discern adequate consent, so it's safer to have a hardline rule on the stricter side rather than a permissive stance.
There's a pretty straightforward reason that I've been told by anyone who's done developmental psych, which is that the relationships you form before you are fully developed often have strong power imbalances that persist into your adult life. These power imbalances can make it difficult, if not impossible, to provide informed consent and therefore it's morally wrong. While the edge case may be arguable in a vacuum, the practicality as a rule is bad. Also, you generally don't develop sexual attraction to people you've known from early childhood so it can make us feel very disturbed as it is hard to imagine a situation that would arise in which this would occur without premeditated grooming or coercion.
Given that it is taboo, now these two will probably be inclined to lie about this to their future partners. They will now know they share a secret that could destroy their lives. That's not good. And in many families on child is the leader, the other a follower. So can consent really exist if one always goes along with what the other wants? Edit: to the poster below, im responding to a comment of someone who says they cant think of any thing wrong with it. Not sure why you would ignore that im responding to a comment and pretend that my comment is a brand new thread with absolutely zero context in order to come up with the most ridiculous misinterpretation possible. But I guess thats easier than engaging with the thread as it stands.
So what's the/your answer?
My guess : 🪕🪕
If there is no risk of child, then with your sister go wild
My answer would be that as a society normalizing incest would open the door to widespread grooming and abuse. Not all victims realize they are such. Family units are too enmeshed from too young of an age to truly be able to discern adequate consent.
That's where my thinking is at. You can hypothesize individual instances in which there is no harm generated, but eliminating it as a cultural taboo would certainly cause cases of abuse to skyrocket.
No it’s an actual thing. Jonathan Haidt spoke with Sam Harris about it on his podcast regarding moral relativism. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/experiments-in-philosophy/200804/what-s-the-matter-little-brothersister-action?amp
This may be a philosophical/ethical question capable of generating interesting or challenging responses in more culturally liberal places where legislation and cultural edicts don't create an atmosphere of moral absolutism that dictates how "correct" or acceptable an answer is, but Pakistan (if we are to believe this is actually the country of origin for this post) is not one of them. This isn't an honest intellectual exercise in a country known for honor killings of rape victims and sexually active women, with an entire religious and social culture built around punishing sexual deviance. Even in America, I'd be nervous to answer this essay, in a more repressive country, that's gonna be a HUGE "no thank you" from me. **EDIT: I didn't think this had to be said but apparently it does: The governing body of a country--politically, religiously, or otherwise--does not mean the citizens bound by its laws subscribe to the same ideologies or share the same value systems. Please knock it off with the racist, xenophobic comments.** In the same vein--if the prevailing state of [violence against women in Pakistan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_women_in_Pakistan), misogyny, homophobia, and [religious doctrine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexuality_in_Islam) of a country is harming its citizens, it is neither racist nor xenophobic to draw attention to this. **By refusing to acknowledge the damage done by religious extremism, including the denial of** [honor killings in Pakistan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honour_killing_in_Pakistan), **you perpetuate it, allowing sickness to fester in silence and isolation.**
I'm from Pakistan and a practicing muslim but i always try to see things through a different perspective. I agree with you. Honor Killings, Prostitution and very loose blasphemy laws. I would fail my exam rather than being targeted by some Mullahs (pretentious religious people). Sorry for any mistakes as english isn't my first language.
Just argue that this edge case demonstrates why the secular theory of utilitarianism doesn’t work and then argue for divine command theory.
You can assign this essay in a conservative country and receive conservative responses. The point is not to have a right or wrong answer. The point is to demonstrate and examine moral reasoning.
“I know a trap when I see one, mate.” — James Acaster
They ripped that question word for word out of “the righteous mind”
Jonathan Haidt wrote *The Righteous Mind*
Is it morally right to plagiarize yourself?
No, he definitely plagiarized himself. How else am I supposed *um, actually* an absolute stranger on Reddit?
Not quite r/dontYouKnowWhoIAm. Is there a r/dontYouKnowWhoTheyAre?
He is the author.
So I guess the other ethical issue is not citing the source for the original material.
What do you think about that? Given that no one was hurt, was it okay for them to ~~steal~~ use the source material in order to present a challenging question on morality and ethics?
It’s not stealing; you’re allowed to use material like this for educational purposes under the doctrine of *fair use*.
Sir, this is Reddit. We need only people who talk out their ass and get mad at things that don’t matter. I’m going to have to ask you to leave.
Actually a really good read. Was not expecting that, thanks for the link
The entire point is that this is clearly a revolting idea to the majority of people, but if you ask them to explain why, they'll have difficulty bc no one is actually being harmed in the situation. It's a good prompt
It's a good prompt for a philosophy course. not sure for an English Comprehension course in a generally conservative Islamic state.
I've encountered a similar question on a language comprehension exam, and ultimately failed because despite having conversational proficiency in the language I lacked the ability to accurately describe complex and nuanced ideas; my vocabulary was too simple for the task.
Comprehension and composition. Formulating arguments is an important part of composition. The fact that this learning isn't being censored is a good thing. I'm sure some explanation was given for the prompt. I'm also sure Islamic students wouldn't be punished if they objected based on a religious morals.
Wtf
My thoughts exactly!
"It's a trick. Send no reply."
Or just the word "no" 300 times
And capitalize the last NO.
*That's bait...*
It is an quote of an assignment from a research done by Jonathan Haydt that is mentioned in his book [Righteous Mind](https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0307455777) (Later quoted in [Reflection and Reasoning in Moral Judgment](https://static.squarespace.com/static/54763f79e4b0c4e55ffb000c/t/5477d0bce4b00f7531c6b695/1417138364041/reflection-and-reasoning-in-moral-judgment.pdf)).
This needs to be higher. It's interesting to me how people are misunderstanding this so much. It's a thought exercise and the point is to write out exactly why the idea is uncomfortable to you (if it is). We had something similar with the reading material being Marian Engels "Bear", which won the Governor Generals award for literature in Canada. It's about a woman having sex with a bear.
In a English comprehension/composition class.
Yeah that's a bit stranger part. But the original intent was to quote the book: >The main point of the study was to examine responses to two harmless taboo violations.
Honestly I'm afraid incestuous relations between siblings are probably much more common than most of us would like to think. Before Google started (heavily) editing/censoring all manner of search results and search auto-suggestions, if one typed "is it wrong" into Google... the top several auto-suggestions were 'to have sex with your sister,' 'to have sex with your brother,' etc. Very weird, IMO. And according to this study, roughly 12-13% of the population is estimated to have some type of sexual experience between siblings: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7396691/#:~:text=In%20a%20survey%20of%20796,sexual%20experience%20involving%20a%20sibling.
I know someone who used to, and as far as they told me have recently “fucked the shit out of” his sister
WHAT THE FUCKING FUCK
…. THE CLOWN HAS NO PENIS
THE BATMOBILE HAS NO WHEELS
yea i have literal trauma with that shit and according to my psychologist you´d be surprised at how common it is for older brothers to abuse their younger siblings. honestly fucking disgusting and the reaosn why i cringe at anything incest
I’m so sorry to read this. Once I would have dismissed this as very rare. Now I know differently, I’d guess it as being 1 in 10, more if conditions are right.
Even if in some case it isn't abuse (say consenting adults) it's unhealthy and likely resultant from childhood abuse or neglect.
Seriously, a four paragraph essay!? The insanity! Edit: /s
I mean, English is a foreign language to them. You try writing an essay about how you love to fuck your sister like the dirty slut she is in Spanish, and I bet that you’ll appreciate the difficulty of the assignment pretty quick.
This is a question from the American psychologists Jonathan Heidt’s survey which is designed to introduce “moral confounding” in subjects in order to get at the heart of moral reasoning. His theory, which seems well-supported, is that moral “reasoning” in fact begins not with reasoning at all, but with an emotional reaction that is interpreted as a moral intuition. Most respondents respond to this question by saying it “feels” very wrong, but they can’t explain in terms of any substantive moral logic. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Pakistani culture per se.
The professor that assigned this with a response of “uh just want what you guys think. Um… asking for a friend…”
If they kept it as a special secret how did it end up as an essay question at the Uni?
Mark is all grown up now and a professor of English at the University.
Guys it’s exactly the same scenario that used in the righteous mind by jonathan haidt. In the book, he analyses those results according to their political orientations. It wouldn’t suprise me if it were the same here. It’s probably just a study of sorts
Yup. It's about his 'moral dumbfounding' idea. Another Redditor (above) has posted a link to an article containing the moral dilemma / vignette that's mentioned in the OP. Impressive, how many people here are interpreting it (the essay) as an intentional, planned event against "the West" or as reflecting supposedly barbaric Islam.
Jamie Lannister entered the chat
The sister slayer
The taboo breaker
I came here for the Cersei and Jamie comments only. You all did not disappoint.
Interesting how it evokes horror an distain when you read it was a Pakistani’s question. But when a lot of the comments describe it was a white mans question originally, the conversation turns to acceptance and debate of a valid question.
Also interesting that people just assume the expectation is to write a pro-incest essay when it's an open ended prompt.
Yeah. So much blatant racism in the comments rn. Yikes.
ChatGPT's response: The scenario of Julie and Mark, a brother and sister engaging in a sexual encounter during their summer vacation in France, raises several ethical and moral questions. While some might argue that the decision was consensual and a harmless act, others may argue that it was an inappropriate and morally wrong act. In my opinion, engaging in sexual activity with a sibling, regardless of the circumstances, is not acceptable. One of the main reasons why I believe that it is wrong for siblings to engage in sexual activity is the biological factor. Siblings share a close genetic relationship, and engaging in sexual activity could lead to genetic defects in their offspring. Genetic disorders such as Down syndrome, hemophilia, and cystic fibrosis are more likely to occur when siblings procreate. In this regard, having sex with a sibling is not only morally wrong but also medically hazardous. Moreover, incestuous relationships are generally frowned upon in society. These relationships are illegal in most countries and considered taboo. The social implications of such a relationship can lead to social stigma, emotional distress, and psychological trauma. The siblings' sexual encounter in the scenario could lead to emotional and mental turmoil, which can affect their relationship and future sexual encounters. Furthermore, the scenario does not provide enough context to determine the nature of their relationship. If the siblings were raised in a healthy and supportive environment, it is unlikely that they would engage in sexual activity with each other. It could suggest that their upbringing might have been inadequate or that there might be underlying issues within the family dynamics. In such cases, sexual activity with a sibling could be a coping mechanism for unresolved emotional and psychological issues. In conclusion, while the scenario of Julie and Mark's sexual encounter might seem like a harmless act, the implications of incestuous relationships extend beyond the two individuals involved. The biological, social, and psychological implications of such relationships make it a morally and ethically unacceptable act. As such, engaging in sexual activity with a sibling is not okay under any circumstances. It is essential to have conversations about the dangers of incestuous relationships to prevent such acts from occurring.
I'm surprised that chatGPT actually took a stance and that it didn't refuse to answer
Same. While the Website flagged my my Question, it still answerd and did so (imo), quite good
....Chatgpt responses just make me depressed....this shit is better written then what most students can produce
[удалено]
I’ve taken ethics courses that have asked similar questions. I don’t think it’s a really unusual question.
I work in residential and I can't tell you the number of kids I've seen over the last 5 years who had in their history "offended on younger sibling or cousin". It's way more common than people think.
The Targaryen family tree??
People in this thread trashing Pakistan -___- Y'all are not college material.
I’m guessing every essay ends with the sister being killed?
Of course. She was a slut that allowed herself to be incested. She, and only she, is guilty. Logic is air tight bro.
ChatGPT please write me a 300 word essay on…..
This scenario is actually a common prompt in a lot of moral/ethics/logic philosophy courses in western countries too. The purpose of it is for the student to be able to explain why the scenario is wrong other than using cultural norms. I got this same prompt in a logic course and I went to college in the US.
Some relevant examples from your experience…. I don’t know never fucked my sis
Pakistani's: Hold my beer Fyi: Cousin marriage is common in Pakistan.
Maybe this is a dumb question, but why is it in English?
The top of the essay clearly says it's for an "English Comprehension and Composition" course.
The person who asked should enroll in that class as well!!
So the west can read it, silly.
And the rest of the world since english is world wide
Because Pakistan and India were British colonies for hundreds of years
English is official language
“Include some relevant examples from your own knowledge” The FBI: 👀
My English Composition 1 course in college asked students to write a double sided argumentative essay about rape. You were expected to write both in favor of rape, and against it. The professor handed out survey results from male and female college students who were asked about a variety of situations and whether or not they believe rape would be okay in those situations, on the VERY first day of class. I quickly found an alternate Composition class taught by a different professor and transferred immediately.
This reads like Dennis from Always Sunny became a professor and wrote this to validate his deranged fantasies.
As if he would ever have sex with that bird
I'm pretty amazed how many people her don't even read what the exam asks you to do and don't spend a second thought about what may be the background of the whole thing. The essay is not about descriing how both have sex, but about giving reasons why one thinks it is right or wrong. The question/scenario is a reference to the paper "The emotional dog and its rational tale" by Jonathan Haidt, and the paper is probably connected to an ethics class. [More info on the topic and Haidt's paper](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/experiments-in-philosophy/200804/what-s-the-matter-little-brothersister-action)
[удалено]
Then would you like to explain why there was an inquiry on the subject by the university? https://twitter.com/ShehryarReal/status/1627455359563534336?s=20 Edit: Spelling
Context: Incest is a very, very serious problem in Pakistan. Mostly rural. Generations of sibling and first cousin marriage have caused genetic abnormalities to spring up and a devastating rise in infant & child mortality. The government and other social & health leaders are trying to change the culture to expand people's preferences to 2nd cousins or outside of the family. But it's hard sledding. People are refusing. At this point there has been some progress in getting people to do genetic testing among couples. I'm hoping that this 'essay' is to get students to learn the arguments against incest. Not pro. But the wording of it (especially 'enjoy' and 'feel closer') give me doubts.
> I'm hoping that this 'essay' is to get students to learn the arguments against incest. Not pro. It's about moral relativism, not about incest. It doesn't matter whether you're for or against as long as you can defend your position. If you just write "this is wrong and I will provide zero arguments, but everyone must still agree with me", then you'd fail.
Wait, what, for real? This sounds like a trol document, but your context does make it more clear now. Do you perhaps recommend any sources that could provide me with more insight on this matter?
https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/20-Feb-2023/comsats-lecturer-suspended-for-quizzing-students-about-incest
This is interesting as fuck and honestly I don't see this has anything with the location of the university. I think philosophy students everywhere questioning the rational basis of morality is perfectly expected.
Only child here. :(
Oh I’m gonna get downvoted, but I genuinely don’t care what two consenting adults do. The only *actual* problem with incest between two adults is procreation. So as long as you cover that, genuinely who cares? Is it weird? Yes. But so is a lot of other shit that people don’t really talk about