Why is incest between siblings not intrinsically evil?

[Guilherme1]

Some people when trying to justify the incest that the children of Adam and Eve probably committed to continue humanity, say that incest is only intrinsically evil in the direct line (if you have a relationship with your parents, grandparents, children, grandchildren…), but not in the specific case of incest between sibilings, which is part of the collateral line.

I don’t understand it at all. I mean, my sister is closer to me in the family tree and has a higher genetic similarity with me than my grandmother, but it would be immoral to have a relationship with my grandmother even if she and I were the only people in the world, while it wouldn’t be immoral to have a relationship with my sister if she and I were, for example, the only people in the world.

To also say that incest between sibilings was morally good in the past, but is morally bad now, sounds like saying that God’s moral law changes over time. It suggests that God’s moral law, at least in certain matters, is not bound up to reflect God’s righteous, immutable character. Rather, it is subject to practical considerations. Let’s also remember that the ends never justify the means, so you never can do an evil act to get some good result from it, even if humanity will go extinct if you don’t do this evil act.

 

[Fauken]

From the Catechism:

https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

"2388 Incest designates intimate relations between relatives or in-laws within a degree that prohibits marriage between them.181 St. Paul stigmatizes this especially grave offense: "It is actually reported that there is immorality among you . . . for a man is living with his father’s wife. . . . In the name of the Lord Jesus . . . you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. . . . “182 Incest corrupts family relationships and marks a regression toward animality.”

It doesn’t exclude relations between siblings. Though it does say that incest is graver when done by an adult to a child.

 

[Wesrock]

My understanding is that sibling relations are not absolutely contrary to the natural law (even if not preferred), but the prohibition is due to religious/divine law.

The parental relationship really forbids that type of intimacy and abuse.

 

[po18guy]

I imagine that it was a command of God. Human DNA was rather pure then, lacking the mutations which have occurred as time passed. As well, the world had to be populated somehow. If two original limes of humans were created at the beginning, then there might not be the lines of descent which God desired.

As it is with the taking of life, when God commands it, morality is not involved, as morality does not apply to God. Laws were made for man, not for God. The genetic errors which occur now from “in-breeding” are a man-made construct, not God’s.

The problem is that many today see God as just a hugely powerful man Whom we cannot see. When one’s fundamental understanding is so profoundly mistaken, thought which flow from that misunderstanding will also be flawed.

Just opinion.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Human DNA was rather pure then, lacking the mutations which have occurred as time passed.

That’s not how that works.

 

[Rau]

po18guy:

Human DNA was rather pure then, lacking the mutations which have occurred as time passed.

That’s not how that works.

Explain…?

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Uh, I don’t know how to explain that “pure” DNA isn’t a thing. It’s just wrong, I don’t know what exactly to say. What exactly do you want me to explain? Maybe that’ll help.

 

[Rau]

Uh, I don’t know how to explain that “pure” DNA isn’t a thing. It’s just wrong, I don’t know what exactly to say.

I see.

I suspect by “pure DNA” the poster meant DNA without deleterious genes.

The likelihood of serious medical conditions rises when both parents carry a (possibly recessive) deleterious gene. Siblings are more likely to have commonality in their genes. Hence siblings ought not mate.

The poster postulates that there was a relative absence of deleterious genes at the time of Adam and Eve making the mating of siblings viable.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

I see. I suspect by “pure DNA” the poster meant DNA without deleterious genes.

Those genes would exist in all organisms throughout time. Mutations which result in such genes aren’t locked into a species.

This thread does ask a good question. I’m not sure why it’s not inherently immoral like other incestuous relationships.

 

[Rau]

Those genes would exist in all organisms throughout time. Mutations which result in such genes aren’t locked into a species.

Really? You assert that as fact? Or did you make that up?

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Really? You assert that as fact?

I mean, I’ve seen no evidence to the contrary, and it would make sense. Nothing about speciation “purifies” DNA. It’s a logical conclusion.

 

[Beryllos]

I’m not sure why you think it’s intrinsically evil.

Any genetic disorder that become likely with inbreeding can also appear by chance when an unrelated father and mother both have the gene associated with that disorder. That tells us that the evil of incest is not due to genetics.

If I recall correctly, incest also occurs in the case of intimate relations between siblings by marriage (step-siblings), or siblings by adoption, but may not apply to siblings separated at birth who meet later as adults.

Therefore I think incest is defined in terms of living circumstances. How do we get from that to intrinsic evil?

 

[goout]

Some people when trying to justify the incest that the children of Adam and Eve probably committed to continue humanity,

Big assumption there as to how God accomplished human flourishing.

 

[Rau]

I mean, I’ve seen no evidence to the contrary,

That’s no basis to hold a position. I’d suggest you have no information on the status of the DNA of Adam, Eve or their children. The other poster postulated something (a relative absence of deleterious genes). If you accept that Adam and Eve are the first parents of all true humans, then you accept God must have “arranged” that somehow. It required interbreeding of siblings.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Any genetic disorder that become likely with inbreeding can also appear by chance when an unrelated father and mother both have the gene associated with that disorder. That tells us that the evil of incest is not due to genetics.

True. I guess it’s just an unnecessary risk to take, though? You’re increasing your chances of a really bad outcome.

Would that just make it imprudent rather than evil?

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

It required interbreeding of siblings.

Or with the unensouled, and that the children of ensouled and unensouled humans have souls.

 

[Rau]

Or with the unensouled, and that the children of ensouled and unensouled humans have souls.

The Church rejects that as it says we have no first parents other than Adam and Eve.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

The Church rejects that as it says We have no first patents other than Adam and Eve.

It says that all are descended from them, but I’m pretty sure it doesn’t say we have no other ancestors than them.

 

[Rau]

It says that all are descended from them, but I’m pretty sure it doesn’t say we have no other ancestors than them.

To quote you (I’m getting lazy), “it doesn’t work like that.”

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

it doesn’t work like that.

So, where exactly does it say that Adam and Eve were the only first humans, and that there are no other ancestors but them among man? I’ve never seen that before.