Prof. Blanchard's post on incest is of interest not only for what he says, which is interesting, but also for what it doesn't say. Prof. Blanchard maintains that there is a public interest in incestuous sexual unions as they are a danger to public health. This is true in two ways: by narrowing our genetic code it makes it easier for disease to run through the population and also because of the increased likelihood of birth defects.
Of course Prof. Blanchard's reasoning runs against the ideology of "reproductive freedom." Who are we to tell siblings that they cannot have sex? Sure, any children coming out of that union run a higher risk of birth defect, and sure that make us more succespible to to pathogens, but they can use contraception, right? They can use abortion, right? Even still, who are we to tell people what to do with their bodies, whether they can have children or can't?
Of course this is part of Prof. Blanchard's point. He shows that those who argue for a strictly private morality contradict their philosophy as few of them defend incest.
Prof. Blanchard's argument has its own shortcomings, though. Like the social scientist he is, he rests his argument purely on the ground of health. Incest is wrong because it is unhealthy. There are problems for making this the sole of our objection to incest. As I have suggested above, the health objection can be overcome by both ideology and by science itself. Contraception and abortion regulate "dangerous" births, and perhaps in the future genetic testing and genetic engineering will further reduce the dangers of incestously conceived children. Science can save us from science, so to speak. Coupled with an ideology of liberation from constraint the objection to incest is easily overcome. I notice it in my students who, when faced with the arguments I have just presented, can find no objection to incest other than "it's icky." Well, we are a few Hollywood movies and perhaps a television series away from making it "un-icky." For many students, the only sexual morality they are willing to defend is "safe sex" coupled with consent. As long as those are present, the sex is moral. Thus, no principled objection to incest.
Prof. Blanchard's argument starts from an assumption, it seems, that the only public concern is that of health. This is the same notion that says that the only morality in sex is "safe sex" and consent. This is the view of human sexuality through the lens of biology, namely that sex is simply animals rutting, an instinctual imperative with no rational basis for inhibition other than biology itself (ie, health).
But as Aristotle would have it, society begins with the need for mere life, but has as its end the good life. Thus Allan Bloom states that eros begins in sexual desire, but has as its end love. Thus we must think of the various manifestations of love, the impact of eros (one kind of love) on human relationships, and how incest is implicated in all of this.
From this point of view, the objection to incest is not that it damages our bodies (i.e., our corporate health) but that it damages our souls. To turn close family members into objects of sexual desire is to turn a love that is meant to be nurturing and supportive into one that is intimate and, literally, penetrating. The purpose of the family is to nuture and to raise children in a safe and protective environment. When mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers see each other as possible sexual conquests, it destroys the nurturing and protective fabric of the home. One can only imagine the inevitable jealousies or the manipulation and exploitation that is likely to occur when family members become sexual posibilities. Think of the damage to the psyche (Greek for "soul") caused when the safety of the home is invaded by sexual passion.
I happen to know that Prof. Blanchard is no fan of philosphical dualism, but his post is an outcome of what happens when we assume that what happens to the body has no bearing on the soul. Sex is no plaything. The great joys and the terrible saddness that it can cause us tell us that it isn't just our bodies that our at stake, but our souls.
Recent Comments