One moral relativist argument naturally conflates with another. What's wrong with any sort of incest?
Anyway, that it's a step removed in the series being discussed is moot when the point was that addressing one addresses both to a "naive" viewer, for lack of a better term.
When you take a moral relativist argument to its natural conclusion, you're inevitably going to get to the point where everything is just OK except rape and murder, more or less. Most people on this forum are offended by far more than simple rape or murder, though, so obviously we've all got our own rules that are not fully objective.
Twincest is gross. I'm sure you could find support that it undermines a family unit. Do I feel like digging into research and studies and having this debate this morning? I do not. :-)
You know, when I actually think about it, I'm having trouble coming up with an argument not based on social taboo, which isn't an argument in and of itself. There is no inherent power imbalance which is the real moral issue in most cases of incest, and if they are identical twins there isn't really any possibility of it leading to genetic bottlenecks and stuff. It being "gross" to an observer has no bearing on it's moral implications.
So, references to (but not actual) incest in a work of fiction is bad because it's "gross." But, all of the actual violence, references to violence, etc..., in other shows, isn't as bad because it isn't as "gross?"
I'm not a fan of uber violence, either. Not when it's the whole point of the show. It's one of the reasons I'm not a huge fan of Soul Eater, DBZ, etc (aside from them just being shallow).
But Sketchbook is right, really social taboo is the only concrete argument I can think of. That doesn't mean that social taboos (and extended, society) are value-less.
You know, when I actually think about it, I'm having trouble coming up with an argument not based on social taboo, which isn't an argument in and of itself. There is no inherent power imbalance which is the real moral issue in most cases of incest, and if they are identical twins there isn't really any possibility of it leading to genetic bottlenecks and stuff. It being "gross" to an observer has no bearing on it's moral implications.
God damn it this is going to bug me all day.
Why let it bug you? Just accept the conclusion.
When you take a moral relativist argument to its natural conclusion, you're inevitably going to get to the point where everything is just OK except rape and murder, more or less. Most people on this forum are offended by far more than simple rape or murder, though, so obviously we've all got our own rules that are not fully objective.
No, because some of us recognize that being offended by something does not make it immoral.
The problem with moral relativity is that it pretends that anything that can't be quantified, doesn't exist. So the "healthiness" of a more socially "normal" (for the US, in the, say, 19th through 21st centuries) sibling relationship must either be quantified in every iota or declared nonexistent.
Humans be complex, yo, and so is psychology. Intuition isn't worthless, just unreliable.
No, because some of us recognize that being offended by something does not make it immoral.
A fair few of the group argue as if it does. :-) Still, "morality" is something that either comes from consensus or God. Since God, as far as anybody alive knows, hasn't come down and handed out pamphlets, we're left with consensus.
The thing is, as far as I can tell you're the one taking a moral relativist position here, yet you say
When you take a moral relativist argument to its natural conclusion, you're inevitably going to get to the point where everything is just OK except rape and murder, more or less.
Moral relativism is the idea that morality differs among different cultures and different individuals and is largely subjective. The base concept isn't complex.
I can't figure out if you're trolling or just arguing half assedly on your own time.
Yet your only argument against twincest is based on social taboo, which in and of itself has little bearing on morality except from a relativist perspective - the moral relativist would hold that such social taboos and norms are in fact what morality is.
The problem with moral relativity is that it pretends that anything that can't be quantified, doesn't exist. So the "healthiness" of a more socially "normal" (for the US, in the, say, 19th through 21st centuries) sibling relationship must either be quantified in every iota or declared nonexistent.
This is basically a complete straw man, though I'll grant that there are some people who think this way. I'm not a moral relativist, though.
It's not a straw man at all. This is how most "smart" people approach arguments about morality on the internet. Citation! Soure! Quote! Study! Surveys about morality aren't good enough, that's just layman opinion, man!
It's difficult or impossible to discuss things that are intuitive with people who either don't share your intuitive sense or lack any social intuition whatever. These people are present in any large enough online community and tend to hijack the debate as everyone goes "Well, really, I *should* be able to back up my arguments, right? Let me go find some sources..."
Yeah, on reflection, that is a pretty common view in the modern world and your criticism of such people is valid. However, I haven't seen that kind of behaviour in this thread as yet.
I had to laugh because I saw this as soon as Muppet posted his first response to Rym.
Here's the deal:
Problem was Muppet jumped to conclusions about why Rym asked that question, then Rym ignored Muppet's "Moral Relativism" response and Rym asked again because it didn't address the question.
Rym was asking what was the actual thing wrong with x. That's not the moral relativism rabbit hole.
Of course it's a rabbit hole. Any answer I could give would be based on nothing but my own moral compass and tolerance for taboo. It's not a defensible position when challenged.
I could argue that romantic entanglements between siblings have potential to destabilize a family, but couldn't quantify it and even if I did quantify it, the logical response to that from Rym would be "it's a cartoon" and then there I am, looking like an asshole. :-)
Yes, intuition plays a significant role in morality. However, with regards to twincest I don't think that that intuition gives any reason to disapprove of the behaviour of others.
As for destabilizing families, while that potential likely exists we both know that argument is a rationalization. Also, such a potential is only relevant when considered independently of the greater society. The destabilization in this case would mostly be because of the societal taboo, not the other way around.
I don't think it's a rationalization at all. I think a family unit has almost priceless value and that incest in a family, even incest without a power gap, has the potential to do irreparable damage. How is that a rationalization?
You're right that the most likely avenue of destabilization would be due the taboo itself, but I don't think it's the only avenue.
I just feel that the "twincest" as it is presented in Ouran is a non-issue from any perspective. To focus on that specific aspect as a reason to avoid the show (specifically because the affected nature of it is part of the plot and character progression), despite much more egregious "bad" references in other shows, seems silly. Burst Angel seems a far worse show in this regard. ;^)
Anyway it should be noted that she did go ahead and watch Ouran, like a year ago. I just didn't watch with her because I didn't care for it (and I still think it's crap, but obviously the internet disagrees.)
Well, for a heterosexual adult male, it has mostly nothing to offer beyond the parts where it makes fun of girls who like shojo manga and yaoi. That's the part that I like it for. XD
Comments
In this case, it's affected twincest. What's wrong with that? It's a full step removed.
Anyway, that it's a step removed in the series being discussed is moot when the point was that addressing one addresses both to a "naive" viewer, for lack of a better term.
When you take a moral relativist argument to its natural conclusion, you're inevitably going to get to the point where everything is just OK except rape and murder, more or less. Most people on this forum are offended by far more than simple rape or murder, though, so obviously we've all got our own rules that are not fully objective.
Twincest is gross. I'm sure you could find support that it undermines a family unit. Do I feel like digging into research and studies and having this debate this morning? I do not. :-)
God damn it this is going to bug me all day.
But Sketchbook is right, really social taboo is the only concrete argument I can think of. That doesn't mean that social taboos (and extended, society) are value-less.
Humans be complex, yo, and so is psychology. Intuition isn't worthless, just unreliable. A fair few of the group argue as if it does. :-) Still, "morality" is something that either comes from consensus or God. Since God, as far as anybody alive knows, hasn't come down and handed out pamphlets, we're left with consensus.
I can't figure out if you're trolling or just arguing half assedly on your own time.
It's difficult or impossible to discuss things that are intuitive with people who either don't share your intuitive sense or lack any social intuition whatever. These people are present in any large enough online community and tend to hijack the debate as everyone goes "Well, really, I *should* be able to back up my arguments, right? Let me go find some sources..."
Here's the deal:
Problem was Muppet jumped to conclusions about why Rym asked that question, then Rym ignored Muppet's "Moral Relativism" response and Rym asked again because it didn't address the question.
Rym was asking what was the actual thing wrong with x. That's not the moral relativism rabbit hole.
Sadface.
I could argue that romantic entanglements between siblings have potential to destabilize a family, but couldn't quantify it and even if I did quantify it, the logical response to that from Rym would be "it's a cartoon" and then there I am, looking like an asshole. :-)
As for destabilizing families, while that potential likely exists we both know that argument is a rationalization. Also, such a potential is only relevant when considered independently of the greater society. The destabilization in this case would mostly be because of the societal taboo, not the other way around.
You're right that the most likely avenue of destabilization would be due the taboo itself, but I don't think it's the only avenue.
Well I can't argue with that.
Sibling sex is creepy and I'm OK with the fact that this is my only argument against it.
Me: Oh shits