The overwhelming response to my defence of incest on GB News has been one of disgust: I’ve been called a pervert thousands of times over. It’s water off a duck’s back to me.
What is extraordinary is the absence of decent arguments against my liberal position. If reproductive and non-reproductive incest are so bad, why do people resort to personal attacks as opposed to moral arguments? There are two reasons: our evolution has predisposed us to viscerally reject incest; and the moral arguments against incest come unstuck because they risk dreadful consequences.
After stonewalling me at dinner last night, my mum gave the same response to the same question
I fear that the main objection mounted against reproductive incest could ultimately lead to dreadful outcomes, such as state enforced eugenics and even the sterilisation of disabled people.
When the social psychologist Jonathan Haidt asked focus groups about a hypothetical brother and sister who had doubly protected sex on holiday, he found their response to simply be that it was wrong, even if they couldn’t explain why.
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in