On the Opinion and Intervention of Society Into Personal Relationships
This is not supported by any study extended enough or any object or specific structure in mind and is only a random study that instigate me to do some research. It may be boring. And Beware of the Dog!
(The kin recognition ability concept that is related to this article, should be of Golabi's interest, kin being what she's written about recently.)
It'd be better if you could tell between me being a paedophile or being an occasional ethicist once you decide to read on.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Emotional incest is apparently the term that describes the situation in which "a parent relates to a child as a substitute for an adult partner. That child may become emotionally bonded to, and codependent with, the parent." I am not that stranger to such a stage; more or less I am aware, from real world, of the same relationship dynamics that is present here. --If you don't know that, watching Savage Grace should give you the right feeling. The film is an excellent portrayal of such a situation.
Understanding this situation, I also know, as any other thing ethical, once you are in the situation you have the privilege to comprehend how things are what they've become. This means you understand what's behind each action, given you are smart and cool enough to act as an observer as well as a participant. --Given you are mentally and physically strong enough,-- suddenly not only you are forgiving --because actually once you without presumption review any action, either find it an act of ignorance, disability or deprivation, or an act even agreeable*-- but you are also able to influence the way things are. You can either give in or you can manipulate or exit.
(*Incest of consenting adults, for example, could appear acceptable once you consider what irritates you about it could be a mere genetic preference for survival resulting from instinct. See Hypothesis of incest avoidance origins)
Then once I began to think about that, that reminded me I virtually always, and righteously, rejected extraordinarily dumb ideas of general regulations. We are talking ethics here. Classic example is the boat that is about to sink unless one jumps out. Every logician to answer that would start to add conditionals. Otherwise we cannot set a rule if the elder should jump out, etc. My point is it is hardly the equal place of the participants to judge, let alone people from the outside. So punishment that is ruled by government to something that happens in a family is outrageous. Or is it not?
Should society leave members of family be? If any family fails, it is their own fault? Actually I'd say no to the former. It is simple: once I find a person getting hurt I will try to help. Its why is out of the scope here but government has that function anyway because we want it to. But it's that what is actually harming, wrong, etc.? Illegal ? And what prescribed verdicts enforce actually help?
■
(The kin recognition ability concept that is related to this article, should be of Golabi's interest, kin being what she's written about recently.)
It'd be better if you could tell between me being a paedophile or being an occasional ethicist once you decide to read on.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Emotional incest is apparently the term that describes the situation in which "a parent relates to a child as a substitute for an adult partner. That child may become emotionally bonded to, and codependent with, the parent." I am not that stranger to such a stage; more or less I am aware, from real world, of the same relationship dynamics that is present here. --If you don't know that, watching Savage Grace should give you the right feeling. The film is an excellent portrayal of such a situation.
Understanding this situation, I also know, as any other thing ethical, once you are in the situation you have the privilege to comprehend how things are what they've become. This means you understand what's behind each action, given you are smart and cool enough to act as an observer as well as a participant. --Given you are mentally and physically strong enough,-- suddenly not only you are forgiving --because actually once you without presumption review any action, either find it an act of ignorance, disability or deprivation, or an act even agreeable*-- but you are also able to influence the way things are. You can either give in or you can manipulate or exit.
(*Incest of consenting adults, for example, could appear acceptable once you consider what irritates you about it could be a mere genetic preference for survival resulting from instinct. See Hypothesis of incest avoidance origins)
Then once I began to think about that, that reminded me I virtually always, and righteously, rejected extraordinarily dumb ideas of general regulations. We are talking ethics here. Classic example is the boat that is about to sink unless one jumps out. Every logician to answer that would start to add conditionals. Otherwise we cannot set a rule if the elder should jump out, etc. My point is it is hardly the equal place of the participants to judge, let alone people from the outside. So punishment that is ruled by government to something that happens in a family is outrageous. Or is it not?
Should society leave members of family be? If any family fails, it is their own fault? Actually I'd say no to the former. It is simple: once I find a person getting hurt I will try to help. Its why is out of the scope here but government has that function anyway because we want it to. But it's that what is actually harming, wrong, etc.? Illegal ? And what prescribed verdicts enforce actually help?
