Immoral propositions and the ineluctable modalities of incest

From: Paul H.Dillon (illonph@pacbell.net)
Date: Sun Feb 18 2001 - 23:08:55 PST


Phil,

since mike says you're reading xmca I'll post back.

1. Wittgenstein repudiated the Tractatus so I'm wondering how his
statement on moral propositions from the Tractatus stand up in terms of the
idea of "language games" from the Philosophical Investigations (the latter
being Toulmin's basis for indicating the affinity of activity theory and
Wittgenstein). Isn't it the case that the idea of disembodied propositions
defended in the Tractatus disappears entirely in the latter philosophy and
as such not only are there no "moral propositions" in the sense indicated in
the Tractatus, but there are no propositions at all, meaning is use, not
ultimate reference to logical atoms .

2. I was not writing about "theoretical immorality " but about the very
real fact that the incest taboo is a universal moral structure that grounds
classes of moral action. It isn't a "theory of morality" but rather the
moral "theory" that guides and orients peoples actions. Perhaps the term
theory is not appropriate since it manifests itself pre-reflectively (more
on this below) although most peoples do have secondary cultural elaborations
that justify the existence of the incest taboo.

 I think you missed the point I'm making. The point is that this isn't a
"theory of incest"; it is a framework for defining categories of moral and
immoral actions. It is not a theory in the same sense that any system of
classifications is not a theory, but in this case it is a system of
classification that defines what is and what isn't moral action, as such it
contains an imperative for action, not simply a framework of perception
(what kinds of animals belong together, what kinds of medicinal herbs there
are, etc. I recognize that this an almost Kantian distinction but I'm not
ready to get into the dissolution of is and ought that accompanies the move
to dialectical materialism; also importantly, incest defines who is and
who isn't FAMILY which -- in exalted philosophies as well as Hollywood
movies -- is widely recognized to be the framework within which moral
attitudes and behavior are inculcated.. The moral repugnance toward incest
is alive and well enough to be the theme of a soon-to-be-released Keanu
Reeves movie: Tell Me It Isn't So.

3. Your post confuses incest and rape but not all incest is rape
Nevertheless all incest is considered immoral. Consensual incest is even
more immoral insofar as both parties are guilty. . Linking incest to rape
is totally not at issue here since the form of incest that is found most
repugnant according to numerous studies is mother-son, the least repugnant
brother-sister. That is the least common is most repugnant, the more common
less repugnant, less morally offensive. Female rape of males, while being a
favorite fantasy of male adolescents, is not very common at all.

On the other hand, not all rape is considered immoral everywhere and some is
deemed socially appropriate. Among the Yanamomo and other lowland south
american tribes, gang rape of girls who do not take a boy friend is
considered to be a morally acceptable, i.e.., the people (including family
members) basically say:: "she had it coming", which is about as clear an
expression of what a people deems moral as one could make. So when you
say > My apologies if I have caused pain to anybody affected by incest< it
isn't all that clear what you mean. It sounds like you're addressing rape
victims. Incest doesn't really have "victims" in that sense. The issue has
nothing to do with rape.

I realize this point will raise a lot of hackles but the bottom line here
is: on what basis do you impose YOUR morality on other people? Is and ought
are constantly struggling with each other and there is a difference insofar
as ought is a lot more arbitrary than is. But discussions of incest should
not be confused with discussions of rape within the family

4. Marrying cousins (specifically certain categories of cousins) is most
definitely not incest for many people but marrying your sister always is
(unless you were a Pharoah, an Inca, or a Hawaiian king or queen), even if
you don't know about it (eg. siblings separated at birth--the theme of Keanu
Reeve's new movie mentioned above). All I pointed out was the tendency for
recessive genes to be dominant when the reproducing couple shares the
higher percentage of common genes found at the genetic distance of first
cousin. But this was related to Jay's discussion of his neo-utilitarian
moral imperative, not to do harm. I wasn't saying anything pro or con about
the morality of first cousin marriage (a fond tip of the hat to Jerry Lee
Lewis!)

5. Incest is at the boundary of the natural and the cultural. Incest
appears to be a normative framework that usually expresses itself as a lack
of physical attraction for the sibling of the opposite. This behavior is
closely related to being raised together as studies of marriage among the
kibbutz children and Skinner's (not B.F., but the geographer) studies of
child-brides in China have demonstrated. It most definitely isn't learned
formally as are the Ten Commandments or the Four Noble Truths.. Some
theories hold that it is sort of a biological trigger activated by growing
up together in the same living unit, ie, as brothers and sisters, or kibbutz
cohorts, inversely comparable to the inability of humans who have not
learned to speak by age 12 or so to learn afterwards. It is not hard to
verify this reality of pre-reflective physical neutrality/aversion.
Whenever I've taught kinship in anthro courses I always started by asking
the students how many have brothers or sisters and how many think they have
attractive, sexy brothers or sisters. Between 60 and 80 percent of the
students who have siblings usually respond that they find their siblings to
be physically attractive. Then I ask how many FEEL physically attracted to
their opposite sex sibling and this generally produces a variety of
exclamations of disgust, disbelief, horror, etc. I ask the students how
many had ever been specifically told that they shouldn't think about sex
with their siblings, the way they were told that they shouldn't take other
peoples belongings, and usually no one can remember having ever been told.
Once this 'phenomenological' dimension of the incest 'taboo' is made clear,
it becomes easier to discuss the kibbutz and china cases and to wonder about
the probable bases for theis most important NORMATIVE/MORAL dimension of all
human existence.

6. Curiously sexual relations with same sex siblings don't seem to come
under the incest taboo.

The incest taboo, humanity's oldest normative framework as far as anyone
knows, remains something of a mystery but demonstrates pretty convincingly
that morality cannot be reduced to, confined within, or explained by the
dimension of discourse (the domain of Bakhtin's "utterance") taken in
itself.

I'm still looking forward to reading Hicks article to see what she actually
said, how far she actually extended the Bakhtin's concept of anwerability
into the sub-linguistic space of morality.

Paul H. Dillon



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 01:01:16 PST