Sounds like a lot of unsound reasoning and bias in there to me. Human beings have always adapted the 'natural' path of things and can function very well in different situations and environments. My opinion is that if the drive to be together is strong enough and there is no physical harm to anyone involved including potential offspring, then there would be no moral issue, much like gay couples can adopt or have a surrogate, so could siblings. There is only really the social taboo which is born of older takes on societal / biological thinking and in the end is nobody else's business. As long as the environment is a loving and safe one then in my opinion it would be morally wrong to tell people they can't or shouldn't have these types of relationships, causing undue stress in the lives of people who could potentially be very happy. Also people eat dead dogs in other cultures, like people eat various meats! Not sure about the kitten thing though.
I think the bucket of harm would expand to capture any negative consequences you want to throw in there. If we use synonyms (rather than words heavily philosophised), this seems to become more obvious: damage for example. Unfairness is wrong because it's damaging, as is a lack of loyalty, or some purity violation. The dyadic template of a patient and a victim seems to be the right cognitive framework. Any violation must surely trigger a damage detector. We then use culturally-loaded language to convince ourselves that there's more going on than simple psychological or physical damage. There often is, of course. But all the other violations have to, by definition, rest atop harm. Haidt's framework is good anthropology. It's not good cognitive science or moral philosophy.
Sounds like a lot of unsound reasoning and bias in there to me. Human beings have always adapted the 'natural' path of things and can function very well in different situations and environments. My opinion is that if the drive to be together is strong enough and there is no physical harm to anyone involved including potential offspring, then there would be no moral issue, much like gay couples can adopt or have a surrogate, so could siblings. There is only really the social taboo which is born of older takes on societal / biological thinking and in the end is nobody else's business. As long as the environment is a loving and safe one then in my opinion it would be morally wrong to tell people they can't or shouldn't have these types of relationships, causing undue stress in the lives of people who could potentially be very happy. Also people eat dead dogs in other cultures, like people eat various meats! Not sure about the kitten thing though.
I think the bucket of harm would expand to capture any negative consequences you want to throw in there. If we use synonyms (rather than words heavily philosophised), this seems to become more obvious: damage for example. Unfairness is wrong because it's damaging, as is a lack of loyalty, or some purity violation. The dyadic template of a patient and a victim seems to be the right cognitive framework. Any violation must surely trigger a damage detector. We then use culturally-loaded language to convince ourselves that there's more going on than simple psychological or physical damage. There often is, of course. But all the other violations have to, by definition, rest atop harm. Haidt's framework is good anthropology. It's not good cognitive science or moral philosophy.