Is incest morally acceptable?

I’ve beenthinking, what is actually wrong with incest. When you read the word incest,some would presumably have thought “ew, gross”, and I am asking why. If a consentingbrother and sister were deeply in love and wished to do no harm upon anyone,why should they be denied the privilege of marriage? Why should they be labelledas criminals?
 
Perhaps I am missing something fundamentalhere.

Whilst it may be intuitively unappealing to many, including myself, I too believe that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with incest.

Sorry about the words joining. It is an issue which arises whilst hanging Microsoft words 

HOW

The fundamental problems with  some incest is consent

As you know a large and very important part of any romantic or sexual relationship is consent, it is a necessary concept that both parties must freely give. Due to the inherent power dynamic between parents and child, consent not influenced by the parent is impossible to accurately determine, therefore one ought not commit it.

"That's only some of them though!" You might interject, "What about cousins and other cousins, there isn't a power dynamic at all!"

  

I'm actually not sure, besides the obvious genetic problems with children produced from inbreeding, of course, relationships aren't maintained just to sire children. So I'm not sure for those parts, not that I'm gonna make the claim without evidence. 

So, some incest is, some incest isn't, at least according to what I know currently

Inbreeding is just as much of a problem for animals as it is for Humans. So much so that many species have evolved methods of avoiding it, such as males leaving the areas where they were born while their sisters stay closer to home. In endangered species, where populations may be very small, you often see signs of "inbreeding depression" - lowered survival and reproductive ability due to a lack of genetic diversity.
Inbreeding is also a huge concern for zoos, with their small captive populations. Zoos keep pedigrees for lot of species bred in captivity, so they can avoid breeding related individuals with each other.
You can see the consequences in pets if you think of purebred dogs, for example. Many dog breeds are likely to get specific medical issues, such as hip dysplasia in golden retrievers, due to many generations of inbreeding.

@Theweakeredge

I'd agree with consent and genetic problems being two reasons reasons.

@Juice

Why is 'anything morally acceptable or unacceptable?

Exactly, as long as there is consent, I don't see an issue to criminalise their actions. 

What's the issue?

Well, that's not a question about incest then, that's about human morality. You can use the same logic and murder. I personally believe that morality is not real, in the sense that there is no ultimate good or bad. I believe in emotivism, in that expressing your dislike for murder is subjective and simply personal. To say "killing is wrong" is neither true nor false, just like saying "boo killing". 

I then believe our laws are founded on the principle of intersubjectivism, in that things are wrong because your community claims it is, however, for personal reasons. 

Short answer that seems likely to me, is that incest is probable to be harmful in certain circumstances.

Now that I think about it, that's actually a fair point. What makes murder wrong? What is actually wrong about killing someone? What's your view. What makes murder and incest wrong. 

Sorry for the bio and long winded winding tangential rambling post, but feels easiest way to me, for me to explain my point of view.

And all just my opinion, even if I state it forcefully here or there.

I like attaching the labels Nihilist, Hedonist, Materialist to myself.

Third child of four, I grew up in a lower middle class household, was lightly raised as a Christian.

I'd characterize my mother as a devout Christian Neutral Good as she's the type of person to do what is seen by society as right simply because she believes it to be right. An odd type of person who if she found $100.00 on the ground in a store aisle would turn it into the stores lost and found (True story)

My father as more of a Chaotic Neutral in an odd circumstance where he was employed as a teacher for some 15ish years before becoming a prison guard. Yet despite belonging to lawful professions I'd call them, is the type of person to 'step on $100.00 so that other people can't see it, to show R rated magazines and movies to his kids when their mother wasn't around, to ignore Do Not Trespass signs, drive without a seatbelt, and so on.

As I said my Christian indoctrination was light, and so I came to decide atheism was more logical to me over time.

Though this had a problem.

I was 'terribly bothered over the idea of myself not existing someday.

I was somewhat bothered by the implications of ethics and morality.

Now I'm mostly calloused to both those implications.

But even with a nihilistic conclusion, I'm still human, still have my habits.

I follow and believe somewhat in my upbringings morality and ethics because it makes me happy, because it feels right, because certain logical paths follow by it's logic.

I don't think that murder or incest is objectively right or wrong, because I think the term objectively is in truth meaningless.

'But,

We we don't mean objectively when we 'say objective, we mean according to what we 'are.

What we are being the nature and nurture of humans.

We possess a capability to naturally come to appreciate empathy and logic,

We've formed a society that encourages such,

We speak by 'objectively, 'subjectively of our cultural norms.

When I say murder or incest is wrong, I am in a way preforming double speak.

For what might I become if I were rich and powerful,

Or even poor and weak,

If the 'justification came to mind?

Though they were books written 'against such thinking,

Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky

and

The Sea Wolf by Jack London

Had immense influence on me, because they were thoughts and opinions I had already formed, but in the books were given prose.

Anyway, the point being that to my mind, perhaps morality does not exist, only secular ethics.

Murder is wrong because I don't like murder.

It is wrong to society, because society does not like murder.

In a 'general sort of phrasing anyhow, let's not nitpick on exceptions.

Same with incest.

. . .

Ach, but this is again the same answer I gave before, circular, without actually making effort to explain 'why such logic is held.

. . .

. . .

Perhaps,

Perhaps,

Maslow's Hierarchy,

Physical Needs and Safety, are met by a functional society, where we encourage behavior and norms which either in practice or appearance 'cause this.

Mind you, nihilistic thinking aside, I 'still consider murder and incest to be wrong.

Justifying things just becomes complicated, because of context and tiny variables.

A tap to the shoulder, a punch, a touch to an area, a middle finger, an eye roll.

Depending on context are good, bad, somewhat this or other.

Seems to me so many variables and nuances in life, I'm not 'too concerned with dissecting it, so much, sometimes.

Age old wisdom, and an idea that I 'try to keep to mind in life, less I become too preachy or pretentious with what I think I know.

Still, I like talking at times.

That's not very convincing though, because you've essentially just said "it's wrong because it is". 

This is essentially the argument used by anti-gay protestors. In fact, the thinking of "it's wrong because I think it is" is what racists used.

Well, what type of argument/logic 'would you find convincing?

Dunno, that's why I'm asking. 

Well, I consider myself a nihilist, so I doubt you'll get one from me.

. . .

Though I suppose there are nihilists other than me, with more thought out explanations for their behavior and beliefs.

Morals are constructed by those that consider themselves to know better.

And incest refers to a sex act between closely related people.

At the end of the day one chooses what one considers to be OK,  irrespective of preordained morality.

Though we generally conform to social norms,  sometimes some people choose not to.

I believe a person should as much as possible strive to be non judgemental and refrain from insisting that everyone else must follow the rules decreed by society, at the same time as accepting that there is a reason that incest is considered taboo, with that reason being most consider it unnatural.

I am mostly of the opinion that what goes on in the bedroom between two consenting adults is to the greatest extent nobody else's business and two consenting adults should feel no obligation whatsoever to feel any requirement to divulge upon what goes on behind closed doors.

Having said all this. I personally cannot imagine how a male could be attracted to anyone else other than a fully grown female outside of ones own family, and I would imagine that to have a sexual relationship with a member of ones own family would be a recipe for disaster. What happens when one of the consenting adults wants out of the relationship to have a sexual relationship with someone else? Do they just go back to being brother and sister? Or is that the family unit split apart forever?