Oh great. Now we’re supposed to stand there and gawk while courts give us legal incest. The intolerable alternative would be self-government plus moral clarity.
Citizen Editorial Pages Editor Leonard Stern wrote two weeks ago that “A few years ago it would have been unlikely to hear conversations in Canada about the decriminalization of incest. Now we find them on morning radio. What happened? Same-sex marriage happened. I supported same-sex marriage, and still do.” Stern then asked: ” … polygamy among consenting adults? There is no constitutional basis on which to make it illegal. The revulsion against incest is even more pronounced than that against polygamy, but unfortunately the same principles of autonomy and freedom apply.”
He admitted to sharing that revulsion but “I just don’t see how in a secular democracy we can insist” that incest be illegal.
Now, let’s see. In the first place, we can insist on it by an act of the legislature. In 1999 Canada’s justice minister told us it was a waste of time for Parliament to pass a Reform motion affirming the traditional definition of marriage because no one wanted to change it. In fact it was a waste of time because when a lower court foisted gay marriage on us five years later, MPs had neither the will nor, they claimed, the power to intervene. But Parliament has the power if citizens can summon the will.
For that we must address moral as well as institutional questions.
In his incest piece, Stern made the surprising assertion that “The gay rights movement, during the fight for same-sex marriage, shut down talk about slippery slopes.”
I agree that it tried, with the connivance of liberal-minded journalists. But I did not know any group of activists had the right to shut down free expression here. Certainly when the Citizen endorsed gay marriage, I wrote a dissenting column at the editor’s invitation that talked of slippery slopes.
The one that concerned me most was not sexual or behavioural. I said the whole argument about gay marriage was taking place on unsound intellectual foundations because marriage as a legal institution is not about love or about sex. It is, as Robert Louis Stevenson said, “a friendship recognized by the police,” and unless you know why, you can’t say anything coherent about it. So I ended that column with a line from C.S. Lewis: “Beware: Those who call for nonsense will find that it comes.” And it has.
Stern admits that his “moral intuition is that incest is a grotesquerie and should be illegal even if participants are consenting adults”. But having said “If you are repulsed by sex between two men or women, that’s your problem … the state has no business pronouncing on what consenting adults do in their bedrooms,” he suggests that his revulsion at incest is his problem.
It’s not. His problem is that he denies the possibility of moral reasoning. As McGill university ethicist Margaret Somerville just wrote in the Globe and Mail, “Those making the case for legalization reject the idea that incestuous conduct might be inherently morally wrong. Rather, moral relativism governs … Ethics becomes nothing more than personal preferences.”
Disliking this position, she tried to construct a biological argument against it. But if it’s just our genes talking, why should we listen?
She wound up saying “Even some people who advocate decriminalizing incest admit to a ‘yuck factor’ response to it … We need to listen to our moral intuitions …” True, but we need to do more than listen. We need to reason about them.
There are things that are Wrong with a capital W just as there are things that are Right with a capital R. Normally the law only forbids things that are wrong because they involve force or fraud, and leave us to work out our salvation in fear and trembling on the other stuff. But once in a while we declare some behaviour such an affront to human dignity that we will not permit it even with consent. For instance cannibalism.
Our binding duty to defend human dignity is why we care about genocide and even why we have criminal law.
Doubtless it is inconvenient and tasteless to be ripped off or murdered. But we don’t forbid force and fraud because they are yucky.
We forbid them because intuition and logic reveal the absolute truth that they are wrong.
So is incest. You know it, I know it and Leonard Stern knows it. I don’t know where he gets the idea that we are a secular democracy. Our Constitution calls us a Constitutional monarchy under God. But either way it’s very simple what we can do.
Prohibit incest through an act of Parliament because we know it’s wrong, and invoke the notwithstanding clause if need be. What kind of society in terminal decay would find that statement perverse or incoherent?
[First published in the Ottawa Citizen]
No related posts.
I disagree. There should be a reason something is wrong before it is made illegal and cause the state to intervene. With the gay marriage debate, I voiced loudly in my school in support of it, but I didn’t shy away from the slippery slope argument. When I said that a conjugal relationship between consenting adults should be legal, I meant it. There is no slippery slope with respect to divorce, gay marriage, incest or polygamy laws, it is on a plane of sexual and legal questions.
Mind you, I don’t think the state recognizing marriage as a legal institution makes any sense. I don’t think the state should have anything to do with religion, the governing body shouldn’t control matters of faith.
Where is the source of the revulsion when it comes to murder? It’s against Christian values, true, but it also poses a direct harm to the health of a state. Force? The same, it’s the application of an ability to attain an unfair amount of something rightfully owned by the person subjected to the force, this again causes harm. We want to stop genocide because we recognize that we want all communities to flourish if they can, and the elimination of entire populations is wrong because it’s a detriment to the world.
But then we have things like the legal framework of two people getting married. They want the stable framework provided for the state for taxation, employment benefits, social recognition, etc. etc. This conjugal union is, and hasn’t been for quite some time, based on the desire for children. Canada’s plunging birth rates are proof enough of that. It is, now, far more about the legal and social recognition of a commitment to live life as one as fully as the law is able to allow those adults to do. As for divorce… you know what? Marriage/Unions are a legal contract between two people, and it directly effects the dealings with the state. I could very easily see an argument for this contract not being able to be undone for a set period of time, or only parts of it could.
What I don’t see is turning to two men beside a man and a women and telling the men that their relationship does not deserve the same legal status as the man and the woman because of cultural values. There is no actual difference to the state and the community at large if those two men were, instead, marrying two women. The only offense lies in other people being offended at the sight/knowledge. This could be argued as a wrong it causes society, but that wrong itself is, again, not based on something that is actually a detriment to the overall health of the community.
Again, too, what is the effect of any two consenting adults having sex? How does a 29 year old woman and a 33 year old man having sex affect anybody else? If we saw that, could see it was consensual, most people would have no problems with that at all. But if we found out they were brother and sister? Suddenly it’s wrong based only on that fact. Them being related changes the circumstance and possible detriment to the community as a whole in no way whatsoever, except with regards to people taking offense at the idea of incest alone, which itself should not be a valid reason because that offense is based on something that causes no other potential harm.
Of sex itself, I mean. Of course there’s the biological concern… but where is that line drawn? Should first cousins be able to marry? In our society first cousins having relations is a little taboo, but legal in Canada. In many States it is not. Why? Biological reasons? The chances of having a deformed baby from first cousins as opposed to a typical couple increases by only 2%. 2% is bad, yes, but this risk has been shown to be much smaller or typical if the couple first passed genetic counseling. Between a brother and a sister it increased, I believe, by 25%. Much, much worse. But to ban sex between them based on this alone? Tell me, is it illegal for a woman to smoke or drink alcohol during her pregnancy? No. Perhaps it should be, I could see the argument for this, and see the argument for procreation being illegal between immediate family members… but the chance of becoming pregnant should not be a reason to make it illegal. Should women between the ages of 10 and 60 be banned from high-risk sports, drinking, flying, strong medications, smoking, etc. etc. for fears they might be unknowingly pregnant? No. We don’t ban activities that might result in the birth of a deformed child based on the possibility that she might become pregnant.
In terms of marriage between more than one person, where is the source of the moral outrage? I still don’t get it. It’s right there in Judaic scripture. Perhaps not all too favourably, but there. How can something be an affront to God if his chosen people endorsed it for so long? Was God willing to bend on that big of one of his moral absolutes for the sake of propagating the species a bit more quickly? I grant you that polygamous marriage has a potential different effect on economics and law, of course, but these are practical, empirical problems that can be fixed with appropriate definitions for how polygamous marriage would work in Canada. How do employee benefits pertain to additional spouses? How should property be divided in the event of a divorce? These are questions that would have to be dealt with, but why can’t people trying to live as one unit in our society be recognized as being family by law?
What was so harmful about society saying “Alright, you are legally family, and can share legal privileges/responsibilities with one another”?
Perhaps Mr Robson can explain for those of us who prefer his usual more libertarian views what the logic is that makes it so clear these things are wrong and why it is worthwhile having and enforcing laws against them.
History is full of folks who knew they were right persecuted wrong doers without more justification than their intuition.
If it is so clear to Mr Robson surely he can help those of us who can’t see it by explaining the wrongs. Who does it hurt? If those is does hurt have freedom to avoid it why does it matter to those not involved?
As for physical attack or theft being wrong because they are attacks on human dignity this ignores the other more obvious reason – no one wants to be attacked or robbed because it costs them in pain or financial and other loss. This argument just uses a vague term “human dignity” to create a false commonality and false rationale.
It may be that there are great reasons for the government to spend effort on this but the usual John Robson would want to see some more detailed rationale before the government rushes off on the basis of an opinion, popular or not.
A clear reason why something is wrong? No logical reason is possible, when one rejects the notion of absolute truth based on the reality of the way things are. It must of necessity become a matter of preference. Of some but not all. This is an iron law. Again, C.S. Lewis said it best: “For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious – such as digging up and mutilating the dead.” Furthermore, “the power of Man to make himself what he pleases means, as we have seen, the power of some men to make other men what THEY please.”
Let’s bring back gladiators then, with real, live mortal combat in the arena, instead of that lame fake stuff on T.V. Business profits will certainly cover the medical expenses of the survivors (if any), so no public health costs will be incurred. No harm will be done to any except some of the consenting adults involved, both women and men of course, who naturally accept the risks for the chance of becoming fabulously wealthy and famous. With modern technology and open-mindedness, just think of the mass entertainment opportunities! Talk about reality… Given the enormous popularity of violence in sports and the media today, this industry will be terrific for the economy. No pain, everything to gain – why not?
Surely not the yuck factor. It’s a question of having the right to do what you want with your own life. We already have hard-core porn as legal, taxed business. A little yucky perhaps, still a little shy, but more and more accepted with each passing day. Why not hard-core fights?
Speaking of rights and legality, obviously criminals should not be pushed into the arena, regardless of the benefits to the economy. But what about those who go beyond ordinary criminality and actually deliberately and continuously harm the health of the whole state in a very serious way? I’m speaking of those groups who persist in working to deny basic human rights to entire segments of the population. You know who I mean – those who relentlessly preach, even to their own children as well as in public, FOR NO ACCEPTABLE LOGICAL REASONS, that certain others do not have the rightful dignity to control their own bodies, to marry and form their own families. These people are neither able nor willing to reform, and they just never shut up, not even in jail. Surely they of all people have forfeited their rights in society, because unlike ordinary criminals their very lives are dedicated to promoting intolerance which can only harm all of society. Prominent voices (such as Perez Hilton) have already been questioning why should such persons remain? Certainly there is no question of human dignity here – we don’t believe in it absolutely. The only practical thing is to at least recover some economic benefit to help compensate for the grave damage inflicted on the state. And that’s why some time on the arena floor should sometimes be reserved for some additional invited guests.
Why not?
Why not? For one thing, a bunch of otherwise able-bodied people going off to kill themselves is detrimental to society itself. The right to kill one’s self is a different matter from making a choice that doesn’t cause you permanent harm. For one, it is not recognized by western civilization, and its effects on others is more felt than, say, incest.
People in our society don’t have the stomach for that level of violence. They like the fake stuff, not the real stuff. Even our news broadcasts have to censor themselves beyond what is required to keep people watching. People do not like to see gruesome deaths, even those of our enemies. Gladiator-like programming would not be as popular now as it was back then, not in this society.
And Stan, hats off to you.
Why? A. The able-bodied people will be killing each other, not themselves.
B. The loss of their lives will be more than compensated for by the economic benefits from the arena, therefore it will not be detrimental to society itself. (Or what do we really mean by “detrimental”?)
C. If it is detrimental, then so much more so is the killing of 100,000+ every year in Canada by abortion. Or were the unborn not able-bodied? But they certainly would almost all have become so had they been allowed to live. Perhaps we should therefore empty our nursing homes into the arena instead? (I’m glad to see you are against abortion, Kevin.)
D. There is no right to kill one’s self or make other wrong moral choices regardless of who is harmed. There is only the ability and will to do so. Permanent harm can and does arise from wrong choices, to the chooser as well as to others, to the soul as well as the body.
E. Western civilization has now become so unrecognizable that it hardly matters any more what is or is not recognized by it. It changes daily anyhow.
F. Finally, many people do indeed have the stomach for that level of violence. Gladiators are a popular theme in today’s films. People have watched and encouraged suicides on the internet, not to mention the crowds on the street taunting jumpers to jump. The viewer becomes the participant. If criminals today can make profits from “snuff movies”, how much more would the legalized industry? It doesn’t have to be extremely popular, just popular enough to make a profit. And that it will.
The point is, something like incest or a gladiator fight is wrong because it is wrong. We can discover other reasons why, but whether we do or not does not change the fact or the knowledge of it. And while we can choose to publicly declare a wrong to be a right for whatever reason we wish, and privately accept it, that declaration and acceptance is invalid… because that moral choice is wrong, too.