Grog wrote:Just wanted to say that morality related to relatives (wow I see what I did there) is defined by languages... In other hands, if we ideally grow up in a society that doesn't have names for mother and father, there would be no problem to have sex with them. It is just a matter of language, it has nothing to do with religion or genetics.
You've over-stated and over-simplified considerably, and extended your conclusion beyond your data in a most unscientific way. Science is the discipline of publicly testing ideas by systematic observation and controlled experiment, and you've used the data to generate an idea (that societies with no named category for "parent/child" and "full sibling" would have no issues with sex between the same) and treated that idea--which is intriguing and plausible--as if was a conclusion rather than a hypothesis. Until you observe or experiment and test it, it remains a hypothesis.
Furthermore, this is important because we know of cases where people who were not full siblings but raised as such didn't have sex with each other: kids raised on the same kibbutz in Israel typically behave toward each other as full siblings.
Further-further-more: why do names for family
relations matter but not other kinds of relations? Although there's a counter-argument to be made that in at least some named non-familial relations (lawyer/client, doctor/patient) we do indeed have sexual restrictions...
In any case, fascinating observation, and thanks for the thoughts it has stimulated!