Why it's hard to say incest is wrong | Alex O'Connor

Key Concepts

• Emotivism: A meta-ethical view that moral statements are expressions of emotion or attitude, rather than factual assertions.
• Incest Taboo: A universal prohibition against sexual relations between close family members.
• Evolutionary Explanation: An attempt to explain a trait or behavior through the process of natural selection.
• Meta-ethics: The branch of ethics that explores the nature of moral judgment.

The Incest Taboo as an Example of Emotivism

The video uses the near-universal incest taboo as a prime illustration of the philosophical position of emotivism. The speaker argues that while explanations for why the taboo exists are readily available – primarily evolutionary ones relating to the detrimental effects of inbreeding and potential power imbalances within families – these explanations do not constitute a justification for the taboo itself. The evolutionary argument, detailing the genetic risks associated with inbreeding and the potential for exploitation within family structures, is presented as descriptive, not prescriptive. Simply removing the evolutionary or social concerns (controlling for power dynamics, for example) doesn’t necessarily resolve the deeply felt aversion many people experience.

The Limits of Rational Justification & Religious Belief

The speaker anticipates a rationalist response: that if power imbalances are removed, incest is no longer morally wrong. However, the point is made that even those who intellectually arrive at this conclusion often still experience a visceral, emotional discomfort. This discomfort, the speaker contends, isn’t based on reasoned argument but on a fundamental feeling of disgust.

Furthermore, the video addresses the common religious justification for the taboo – the idea that a divine power has decreed it morally wrong. The speaker points out that even with this belief, the reason for the wrongness remains unexplained. Religious conviction provides assurance of wrongness, but not a rationale. As the speaker states, it “just gives you confidence that it’s wrong.”

Moral Statements as Expressions of Attitude

The core argument centers on the idea that the ultimate basis for the feeling of wrongness surrounding incest isn’t a logical deduction or divine command, but a direct emotional response. The speaker proposes that isolating the core of the moral judgment reveals it to be fundamentally an “attitude” – an expression of feeling. The feeling is described as a deeply ingrained aversion, triggered by the familial relationship itself: “that’s your brother, that’s your sister, that’s your mother.” This suggests that the moral judgment isn’t about a violation of a principle, but a direct emotional reaction to the act itself.

Logical Flow & Synthesis

The video progresses logically from identifying a universal taboo (incest) to dismantling common justifications (evolutionary, rationalist, religious). Each attempted justification is shown to be insufficient in explaining the source of the moral feeling. This leads to the central claim that the feeling itself is the moral judgment, aligning with the principles of emotivism. The video doesn’t attempt to defend emotivism as a complete moral system, but rather uses the incest taboo as a compelling example of how moral statements can function as expressions of emotion rather than objective truths. The takeaway is that much of what we perceive as moral reasoning may be post-hoc rationalization of pre-existing emotional responses.