Wednesday, December 10, 2008

A Moral Quandry.

Perhaps I've been reading John C. Wright's blog too much (why aren't you?), but a question of morality popped into my head yesterday and has been bugging me since. It concerns science fiction/fantasy.

If voluptuous space alien babes were to land on the planet Earth tomorrow, could I (assuming I'm single), morally wed one? The answer I devised for this question was based on the intercompatibility of the species. Since marriage is an institution designed to promote the family, and since we know through faith and reason that the sex act must be ordered towards procreation, I think the morality of that marriage would depend on if the voluptuous space alien babes (VSAB from here on in) are biologically similar enough to humans to be able to procreate.

(Note that the chances of some random ET landing on Earth and being able to produce offspring with humans are probably something in the order of one in the XKCD number, where the XKCD number is the Ackermann function, with Graham's number as both arguments. This is one problem with Star Trek, where people are always mating with other aliens. There is no way Spock, being half-human, half-vulcan, is even remotely biologically likely.)

So with the easy question out of the way, we come to the hard one. What if you don't know if you're biologically capable of producing offspring with VSABs?

Of course, with modern technology, we could probably answer this question just by examining the genetics of the two species. But suppose that technology is not available.

Perhaps I should go back to what inspired the question in the first place.

In World of Warcraft (those of you who didn't see that coming obviously don't know me very well), one of my main characters is a Draenei, while The Resident Murloc's is a Night Elf. We typically play these two characters together, and I began to wonder whether they could marry. (Note that I am presupposing, even though Christianity doesn't exist in the Warcraft universe, that sex is intended for procreation and any use if it that contradicts that purpose is illicit and contrary to the natural law, which is independent of religion.)

Within the lore, I don't know if it has been established if Night Elves and Draenei are biologically compatible enough to produce offspring with one another. (I know other races are compatible; Garona is a half-human, half-orc.) So, the question poses serious ramifications for Golyath, being an upstanding and noble Shaman who wishes to do what is right by Nevlonniel. How can he, morally, determine if he is biologically compatible with a night elf, and until that is known, how does that affect his prospects for marriage to this lovely night-elf?

(For all zero of you who are interested, I used to play another Night Elf, Legolamb, along with Nevlonniel. I imagine that Outland changed Lego, and he became cold and distant from his former love, until he finally left her (his change is manifested in his new haircut). In reality, I got tired of playing the most useless class in the game, and wanted to actually feel like I was contributing something in a raid.)

This question has plenty of other contexts aside from WoW, too. For instance, what if some humans were taken by Ra through the Stargate, where they lived separated from their Earth-living relatives for tens of thousands of years, before being reunited, only to discover that they have evolved along different paths and are not biologically compatible with each other? In this case, they might even still be considered the same species.

It does have interesting ramifications, too. We know that homosexuality is disordered because it involves the desire to use the sexual facilities in an unnatural way, that is, in a manner that is contrary to the nature of the sexual act (that nature being the unity of the spouses and procreation). But what about my heterosexual desire for the non-biologically-compatible VSABs? Even though that union is innately contradictory to the nature of sex, is my desire for the well-endowded female aliens also perverse? Suppose we take it one step further and say that they look like Earth-women, only hotter, how is my... how am I supposed to know the difference?

It would also make for an interesting science fiction story. Space Babe lands on earth. Earth man falls in love with, and weds, Space Babe. 193 pages of hot alien-tentacled love later, they determine their species are biologically incompatible. Action sequences ensue, perhaps involving Space Pirates. And of course the Space Babe is also a Space Princess, so it can be considered part of the New Space Princess movement of speculative fiction.

Someone call Mr. Wright. I would write it myself, but with 4 and 2/3 books left to go in my own series, it will be a while before I can get to it.

Why yes, it has been slow at work recently.

17 comments:

  1. I would think that beyond compatibility, there would also be an issue with the health of the offspring. I kind of consider the can't-marry-cousins part of the Christian faith to not be linked to any particular spiritual reasons, but simply that the result is not what God intended (ie healthy offspring). So if some VSAB and I (note: she's with me now) were to mate and produce some mule-ish offspring, I think it would be considered immoral.

    I'm not sure to what extent you can apply this part of morality. Consider a couple who carry genes that when combined can produce unhealthy children. If the issue was 90% likely that the children would be messed up like the most extreme examples of inbreeding, then I'd say that sexual relationship was far less moral than marrying your cousin (the premise being that everyone has full knowledge of these defects, genes, who has them, etc). Now if the likely hood was some smaller percentage, like 5%, then I'd guess the relationship was fine. Where do I draw the line? I don't know.

    (the above post was deleted because of proofreading failure)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wellll, according to the Code of Canon Law (what? doesn't everyone have a copy on their bookshelf right next to the Summa of the Summa?) can. 1084, para. 1: "Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or of the [Space Alien Babe], which is either absolute or relative, of its very nature invalidates marriage." (so basically if you don't have the necessary compatible hardware, no go.) On the other hand, para. 3 states: "Sterility neither prohibits nor invalidates marriage, with due regard for the prescription of can. 1098." (which forbids willfully deceiving someone to get them to marry you.) For example, a woman born without a uterus can still enter a valid marriage, so long as her future husband is aware that she can never have children. So it seems that as far as the requirements for physical compatibility are met, a union between a human male and a VSAB could be considered valid (as well as a union between two humans who had evolved separately for millenia).
    The next question would seem to be about the fact that it would be a mixed marriage, assuming the VSAB is not a Christian. If she becomes one, well and good -- all complications are removed and you can enter into alien wedded bliss. Otherwise you would have to observe the requirements specified in Chapter VI of Canon Law on Mixed Marriages, particularly that the VSAB understands that you would remain a practicing Catholic, and that the potential children of such a union would be raised to be good little Catholics.
    Thus the Krenken, despite their conversion, could never enter into a valid marriage with a human, due to physical incompatibility. (What?? You haven't read Eifelheim yet?)
    God truly desires all men to be saved, and gave us His Church not to impede us but help us to become holy. So long as a potential union meets the basic requirements, I say go for it! (I always knew there was something SPECIAL about the Pregnant Murloc anyway...)

    ReplyDelete
  3. So what you're saying is, "if the [shoe] fits..."?

    ReplyDelete
  4. PLEASE DO NOT REFER TO ME AS 'PRENGANT MURLOC'. I PREFER 'RESIDENT MURLOC'. THANK YOU.

    ~ The Resident Murloc

    ReplyDelete
  5. You people are all nuts!

    (Signed)
    Zork Argh from planet Gnyxl

    ReplyDelete
  6. Suppose someone is really kinky and WANTS to marry a Krenken?

    - Fr. Dietrich

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh, well, if you really WANT to, then go ahead, I mean, why didn't you just say so? That's all marriage is, just something that people WANT to do. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go liberate a Porsche from the dealership. I WANT it so much, plus I have a right to one. How dare you question my inalienable right to a free Porsche, you bigot!

    ReplyDelete
  8. I take it back. After wrestling with the idea in my head for a while, Cari inadvertently gave me the answer. It’s not immoral for the couple with the messed up genes for it is not by the nature of their being that they are that way anymore than the nature of the woman without a uterus is to lack a uterus. Rather it is a more specific matter to themselves and not of the nature or who they are. Where in the case of cousins, it is the nature of being closely related that makes it immoral regardless of the particulars. So the answer to the question lies the nature of a marriage between a VSAB and whether that marriage naturally produces a healthy family. I think that what makes it an interesting moral question is that you are basically asking Adam to figure out without Divine revelation whether or not he should marry Eve. You wouldn’t have history or experience to fall back on since you would be the first to determine the nature of such a marriage. While it might very well be reckless, would it be immoral to try to find out?

    As far as trying to find out if your desire for VSABs is perverse, I’m not sure I see the point in determining whether or not a desire is perverse. If you desire something you can’t have, you just have to overrule that desire. I kind of fear that when we label desires as being perverse, we also tend to label people with bad desires as somehow being evil regardless of what their actual actions are. I’m not sure I see a point in it.

    To give an example: I desire all things female. I'd consider myself perverse if I actually followed through with my ridiculous desire, but I consider my desire quite natural for men my age.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ah, so Tom is distinguishing between the perverse and the disordered. Insofar as our passions are not under the control of the will (feeling that a woman, VSAB, or whatever else is attractive), they cannot be assigned a moral quality. This is, of course, why it's not wrong to be a homosexual.

    ReplyDelete
  10. In response to Tom's first comment, the Church doesn't forbid marriage between cousins because it's better for offspring. That way danger lies -- saying that the purpose of marital union is to produce perfect children. Holy Mother Church is not a eugenicist, like our modern culture is. Rather, the family bond is considered so sacred that marriage between close relatives (i.e., incest) is an offense against the dignity of the sacrament. It actually IS a spiritual matter. Of course, we now know that marriage between close relatives can eventually cause genetic problems later on. But that's the effect of the offense, not the reason for its prohibition.

    On another note, Mr. Pickles also pointed out that the very use of the term "voluptuous" means that the VSAB in question must look human in order to arouse such a description, and is therefore probably compatible.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm a little surprised that I can't find anything that says "you can't marry cousins" in cannon law. I could swear that was more than a cultural prohibition.

    As far as the spiritual reasons, I haven't seen an argument that says that cousins have any kind of spiritual relationship the way a descendant has to their ancestor.

    So I'm not sure where anyone could make any moral claim on the issue of marrying cousins unless you approach the issue the same way you approach most other issues not directly addressed by divine revelation: you look at the results and decide if the results were good or bad (chugging drano = wrong).

    I didn't (try to) say that the Church was into eugenics, but if something was by its very nature (almost?) always producing a bad outcome, I'm fairly certain they could declare that thing immoral according to the natural law. And that was the only claim I was trying to make: that I was under the impression that the Church condemned marrying cousins (though now that I'm hip deep into my own argument I can’t seem to support that) and that it must be for natural law reasons if there is a reason at all since I don’t see a spiritual aspect there that warrants any condemnation.

    As it stands now, I guess we can marry our cousins… Yee haw! (at least until someone can set me straight by finding me where the church says we can’t, because I don’t know where that is)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Eugenicist! Eugenicist! Tom Adams is a eugenicist!

    God: "You can't marry your cousins!"
    humanity: "Why?"
    God: "Because I'm your Father and I SAID SO, that's why!"

    As any parent knows, that IS a valid argument.

    Oh, all right, for reals: the Catechism says "Incest designates intimate relations between relatives or in-laws within a degree that prohibits marriage between them," then directs us to Lev. 18, but doesn't say what exactly that degree is. Canon Law however states in can. 1091, para. 2: "In the collateral line of consanguinity, marriage is invalid up to and including the fourth degree."

    So there you are.

    (...um, anyone care to translate that for me?)

    Interesting points, Tom. I have to admit I never thought about the whys and wherefores much. I've ALWAYS been one to accept the "because I said so" argument from authority. Right, mom? (I can hear you laughing from over here!)

    ReplyDelete
  13. "marriage is invalid up to and including the fourth degree"

    Do they say that up to that degree is for the same spiritual reasons? Not that I'm advocating such a thing, but I'm not convinced that I have any kind of spiritual relationship with my cousins (I rarely if ever see/talk to them). Perhaps it'd mess with my parent's spiritual realtionship with their siblings? Or maybe I'm supposed to have a relationship with them and it is a failing on my part?

    I saw in the Catholic Encyclopedia (now that I know what keywords to search for):

    The prohibition became slowly more extensive till, in 1059, the eleventh canon of the Council of Rome recognizes the impediment of affinity as well as of consanguinity to extend to the seventh degree. This probably arose from the need of mingling the various barbarian races through marriage, an end that was effected by the extension of prohibitions of marriage between persons related. Innocent III in the Fourth Council of Lateran (1215) limited both affinity and consanguinity to the fourth degree. The Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV, c. iv, De Ref.) limited the juridical effect of the extra-matrimonial intercourse to the second degree of affinity.

    Sounds a little bit like it depends on the times. I don't say that intending any kind of moral relativistic conclusion. It just sounds like a decision not unlike the decision that priests should be unmarried (I believe that's just tradition and discipline, not some kind of core belief [but then again I may be opening up a whole new discussion with that one]).

    Since they could apply the law to the seventh degree, wouldn't that imply a natural law reason as opposed to a spiritual realtionship reason?

    Sure I accept the "Church told me so" explaination as far as my obedience is required. But as far as understanding, I prefer beliefs based on natural law arguments. Unless there is something really blatant and hard to be misinterpretted in the Bible, I don't particularily like the Divine Revelation explainations since I feel like I'm out of the loop on those. It kind of sounds like "Well there was this giant light and this sounds and, well... you just had to be there, man. Trust me." Kind of leaves me feeling put out (which I suppose is a failing on my part).

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well, this wonderfully unsourced website claims special dispensations are possible for first cousins, which, if true, indicates that it's a "don't do it" type of teaching rather than a "you can't do it" one.

    Another requirement is that your spouse has to be the opposite sex, which depending on the alien species could get complicated. What if the alien object of your desire was actually the male of their species? How would male/female be defined in a biologically different alien species? What if they're rational cyborgs with souls? This discussion is so stupid I can't believe we're even having it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I agree with Dave. A more interesting question is:
    If aliens exist, are they:
    a) fallen and redeemed
    b) unfallen
    c) fallen and unredeemed

    ??

    -Cari

    ReplyDelete
  16. If they are fallen but unredeemed, can we still sleep with them? :)

    ReplyDelete