The critique is "Taboos probably have a use." I think it's a good faith point. It's not as strong of a critique as "Taboos have purpose {x}" [Maintain ethical standards, promote public safety] or to say "Taboos probably have a use because {y}" [They are in almost every society, some rules should be rules but not laws].

▲

LorenPechtel a day ago | parent [-]

The problem I see is taboos assume the act is always wrong, and preclude consideration for edge cases where it might be the lesser wrong. Consider the incest taboo--yeah, there are very good reasons for this. Should you enter a sexual relationship with a relative? I think society is better off prohibiting this. But what about "What, my wife is actually my sister????" Is forcing them to divorce actually the best answer? (And, yes, it happens. Bump into an unknown sibling, there's a substantial chance you'll fall for them.)

▲

kajaktum a day ago | parent [-]

The only thing wrong with incest is the child. We put a lot of focus on this but not other kinds of ‘bad’ genes like hereditary diseases.

To me taboos is just society taking shortcuts. This is fine, but lets admit that we are taking shortcuts.

	▲	LorenPechtel 11 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		In reality there's often issues of manipulation into "consent". And if the relationship goes bad you lose a family member, not just a lover. Is it always wrong? To me, unquestionably no (consider my example.) Is it risky? Yes.
	▲	eucyclos a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I'd agree- I think the analysis I was referring to believed that analyzing a taboo makes it no longer useful as a shortcut. Guess that didn't come across enough for anyone to offer a refutation.