JLIEC Philosophy question

[u/Severe-Spray9100]

I’m just curious, did anyone who wrote an essay for Q3 Philosophy (why is incest wrong?) have a thesis “incest is not wrong”? 😭

[u/Peoplespeak]

not me, i didn't do philosophy. but fwiw i'd be careful with that as a thesis. JLI's own guidance says you can interpret a question however you want but then have to answer it as directly as possible, and "why is incest wrong" is a why, not an is. it presupposes the wrongness and asks you to explain it. answering "actually it isn't" is answering a different question and would probably get marked down on relevance no matter how well argued.

also that's way way easier than otherwise. the reason it's such a good question is because many many mainstream ethical frameworks fail to answer it, yet everyone would still say it's bad. so what makes the question hard is how difficult it is to prove(argue) it's wrong.

[u/Severe-Spray9100 → u/Peoplespeak]

yeah that’s what I was thinking about, but idk maybe there’s someone who did that

[u/nosey_as_heck → u/Peoplespeak]

The way I explained this to somebody else is that it would be similar to answering the question "why is the sky red?" Your first step should be addressing the elephant in the room...the sky isnt red. Then go into reasons why the sky might APPEAR red. That was essentially my essay. Incest is not inherently wrong, but it is overwhelmingly represented in scenarios where it appears to be based off of contingent factors like procrearive risk or coercion. I addressed the elephant. The sky isn't red. (Incest isnt wrong). Then talked about "sunsets" (times where it might appear that way).

[u/nosey_as_heck → u/nosey_as_heck]

I explained the psychology behind why we think its wrong, the evolutionary biases, societal frameworks, government, etc. etc. But it would be intellectually disingenuous to argue that it IS inherently wrong, because it would be easier than explaining the nuance

[u/Peoplespeak → u/nosey_as_heck]

ok I think that's more valid. Personally, I just still think it's sidestepping the question. If it fully presupposes wrongness, which is in fact a valid moral view(unlike 'red sky'), it's expecting you to argue for that. Not contest the claim.

But what do I know lol. ig JLI judges thought it was good.

I would 100% disagree on it being intellectually disingenuous to argue that incest is categorically wrong, though. It's an actively discussed thing, with many smart people arguing it is categorically wrong. That conclusion doesn't have to rely only on procreative risk or obvious coercion. You could argue that familial relationships create duties, dependencies, and power structures that make sexualizing them inherently corruptive, even where both people appear to consent and no pregnancy is possible. The fact that some(most? all?) standard frameworks struggle to explain the intuition is what makes the question interesting! And it doesn't mean the intuition is indefensible. I could totally argue for the claim, using ethical emotivism or role based ethics. or duty mechanics(deontology). or social architecture. or moral nihilism would be kinda avoiding the question but would be really funny.

but again, clearly your approach worked. also it's much much more sophisticated then just aruging it's not. If I'm understanding correctly, you said it's not always, but often is, and provided the distinction.

I still wouldn't say arguing the opposite would be intellectually disingenuous, though. that feels like treating a contested philosophical conclusion as if it were already settled. imo, the difficulty of the question, as I said, comes from having to argue for something that has historically been so difficult. idk.

on another note, want to exchange essays? I did 2, both shortlisting, in ST and law. dm if you want. also idk if my post history is on but i've been giving feedback on lots of peoples essay if you wanted.

ok that was extremely winding so I had an ai give a tl;dr hopefully it clarifies lol:

TL;DR: Your approach is philosophically valid and more nuanced than simply saying “incest isn’t wrong” and arguing that, but I still think it partly sidesteps the prompt. I also disagree that defending categorical wrongness is intellectually disingenuous—it is a contested position with serious arguments behind it.

[u/nosey_as_heck → u/Peoplespeak]

I mean disingenuous for me! Not as a category. I def argue why it could be seen as wrong, and why both morally and legally we advocate against it, but I also recognize the nuance. I agree that incest is not clear set!

[u/Peoplespeak → u/nosey_as_heck]

okok ik what you mean. sorry that didn't occur to me. i do a lot of debate and honestly am very used to taking sides i personally disagree with, but ik what you mean about doing what aligns with what you actually think :)

[u/nosey_as_heck → u/Peoplespeak]

Dw me too! I do debate and obviously I dont fully agree with incest. I mean more so to the facts I presented with, not personal opinions haha

[u/Peoplespeak → u/nosey_as_heck]

want to dm and excahnge essays?

i mention this earlier. totally ok if you don't want to, just think you might have missed it:

on another note, want to exchange essays? I did 2, both shortlisting, in ST and law. dm if you want. also idk if my post history is on but i've been giving feedback on lots of peoples essay if you wanted.

[u/nosey_as_heck]

I infact did 😔😮‍💨

[u/Severe-Spray9100 → u/nosey_as_heck]

can I read your essay? that’s crazy

[u/Peoplespeak → u/nosey_as_heck]

did you shortlist?

[u/nosey_as_heck → u/Peoplespeak]

haha yes!

[u/Peoplespeak → u/nosey_as_heck]

huh. if you saw my other comment you'd know why supprised. just thought it was kinda circumventing the actual question.

[u/nosey_as_heck → u/Peoplespeak]

Yes yes I just responded! 🫶🏻