Search This Blog

Sunday, December 12, 2010

It's a conundrum

The recent news of the (Palin-hating) Columbia professor recently arrested for an incestuous sexual relationship with "a young relative" above the age of 18 -- which is to say, his daughter, whom he apparently began to schtup after her 18th birthday -- (discussed here, among other places) is surely a vexing conundrum for the "liberal" "mind" (as well as for consistent libertarians, though not for exactly the dilemma examined here).

On the one hand, "What's wrong with you bible-thumpers that you can't stand to see others (who are your moral and intellectual betters, in any event) express their 'love' as they see fit?" -- This horn of the dilemma applies to consistent libertarians, as well as to "liberals," for both groups operate with essentially the same intentionally-busted moral compass. The point here being that neither group can stand on any moral ground more firm than "Eeeew!" by which to condemn the incestuous relationship.

On the other hand, on the "liberal" view of reality, there is a very dangerous "slippery slope" involved here – that is, while it is surely as "unjust" to refuse to redefine marriage so as to include incestuous relationships as it is to refuse to redefine marriage so as to include “same-sex couples” or multiples (for, since when is “love” limited to two?), nevertheless it must be admitted that redefining marriage so as to include incestuous relationships would eviscerate the entire estate tax (death tax) regime. I mean, OMG! what if rich white conservative old people married one or more of their children just before they died?

7 comments:

The Phantom Blogger said...

I've never understood how somebody who accepts the liberal and libertarians claims that "its ok as long as you don't hurt anyone" and "its ok as long as it's between consenting adults" can claim that incest is wrong. They know that incest is wrong, but just as a gut reaction or from instinct, as everybody does, but they can't explain why, since they believe in those two statements. Yet they never seem to realize that the failure of there moral, philosophical and political beliefs, to logically explain why this behaviour is wrong, and can't lead them to this obvious truth, means that there must be something inherently wrong with them.

Crude said...

I've never understood how somebody who accepts the liberal and libertarians claims that "its ok as long as you don't hurt anyone" and "its ok as long as it's between consenting adults" can claim that incest is wrong.

Because many of them are hypocrites, and the only reason they oppose what they do is because they think it would be political suicide to do otherwise right now.

Here's a question: Let's say someone bites the bullet and says 'what these two did was consensual and they were both adults, so it's okay.' Fine. Does that mean that this father was able to raise his daughter to encourage and foster a relationship he fully intended to start after she was a 'consenting adult'?

Ilíon said...

"Fine. Does that mean that this father was able to raise his daughter to encourage and foster a relationship he fully intended to start after she was a 'consenting adult'?"

It seems to me that for a consistent libertarian, the answer has to be "Yes." For, a consistent libertarian refuses to recognize/admit either to the inter-connectedness of individuals (as being members of families and societies, each mutually owning expectations and owing obligations) or to the obvious fact that very few individuals are fully autonomous (or can be, especially in relation to one’s parents) as their ideology insists all persons are.

That is, libertarian ideology, consistently applied, would assert that it is impossible for a parent to “groom” his or her child for the role of incestuous amorist.

Crude said...

My, that didn't take long at all.

Dr. Michael Bauman said...

On what possible basis could one argue that consent equals morality? The fact that folks agree to an action does not make it right. You can consent to evil. You can dissent from virtue. It happens all the time.

Ilíon said...

Of course, and that goes without saying ... or, when a society is generally sane it goes without saying. Unfortunately, we no longer have a sane society.

Dr. Michael Bauman said...

When they say that they only exclude what injures others, they assume that they know injury when they see it. They do not. Not one of them recognizes or evades the damage to souls their libertine ethic and actions entail, both to themselves and to others.