Moral Disgust

[Darat]

http://www.nd.edu/~wcarbona/Haidt 2001.pdf

Are our feelings and intuitions about particular behaviours a better guide for what acts we ought to prohibit or condemn than rationally evaluating whether there was any harm from those acts?

What are yours, you don't seem to have added any of your own views.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Oh Christ. Drinking milk equals ******* an animal. Right. Well done. Carry on.

No, drinking milk equals not being concerned about cows being sexually exploited by humans.

 

[lionking]

Maybe they are in some cases but obviously not everyone is disgusted by the same things.

If everyone was disgusted by the actions of Julie and Mark then Julie and Mark probably wouldn't have done it as they would have been disgusted.

For some reason I also don't feel disgusted by what they did. I take it they are of consenting age and neither was coerced.

Well then? What's the problem?

The problem is, as you can see from how this thread has developed, Ivor is very quick to extend this seemingly harmless example to behaviour well beyond the pale. All in the name of skepticism, of cours.

 

[Manopolus]

Okay, you were answering the questions in the quote in the OP.

Am I right in thinking that to the question "Are our feelings and intuitions about particular behaviours a better guide for what acts we ought to prohibit or condemn than rationally evaluating whether there was any harm from those acts?", you believe rationality is a better guide than our feelings and intuitions?

Unfortunately, rationality cannot be a guide, however. I have my doubts that we, as a species can rationally agree on what constitutes "harm." As such, we will continue to decide as a majority-led societies (with some bowing to the powers that be, admittedly) what is wrong and what is not arbitrarily. There really is no other option, as far as I can tell.

There are no easy or problem free answers.

 

[arthwollipot]

This question can equally apply to sex with children, right?

Well, in the ideal hypothetical situation where there is mutual informed consent, adequate protection against pregnancy and STDs, and a guarantee of privacy, then sure.

So in fact, no, because society has decided that children cannot give informed consent. But this thread is about incest, not paedophilia.

 

[angrysoba]

Ah! I see where you took this from. It's a famous paper, I believe, although I haven't read it yet. I'm thinking of printing it out now.

Does that offend you, morally?

 

[DrDave]

How hot is this sister?

 

[lionking]

Well, in the ideal hypothetical situation where there is mutual informed consent, adequate protection against pregnancy and STDs, and a guarantee of privacy, then sure.

So in fact, no, because society has decided that children cannot give informed consent. But this thread is about incest, not paedophilia.

And society has decided, in the main, that incest is inappropriate. This thread will not remain about incest for long.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

This thread is proof positive that is indeed possible to be so open minded that your brains have fallen out.

 

[Matthew Best]

The topic of the thread is actually "moral disgust" (whatever that is), not incest.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

What are yours, you don't seem to have added any of your own views.

Are they important? Most people who care about what they might be seem more content to decide for themselves what my views are and ignore any clear statements I make to correct any errors they have made.

With respect to the scenario in the OP, I find it icky, but can't think of any rational reason to morally condemn it. However, I think such behaviour should still be discouraged because of the possible consequences if things don't go according to plan.

With respect to my question, I think reason is probably better than intuition, though unlikely to be an acceptable approach to many people.

 

[arthwollipot]

Okay, I'm done here. There's no way this ends well.

 

[Darat]

Are they important? ...snip...

You start a thread asking about "our" feelings and you wish to exclude yourself from that "our"? That seems rather strange since you obviously have some interest in this topic else you wouldn't have started it so it would be illuminating for you to give your opinions.

 

[Manopolus]

Are they important? Most people who care about what they might be seem more content to decide for themselves what my views are and ignore any clear statements I make to correct any errors they have made.

With respect to the scenario in the OP, I find it icky, but can't think of any rational reason to morally condemn it. However, I think such behaviour should still be discouraged because of the possible consequences if things don't go according to plan.

With respect to my question, I think reason is probably better than intuition, though unlikely to be an acceptable approach to many people.

Can you "reason" whether pain is harmful? In some cases, such as lifting weights, it doesn't seem to be. It sometimes has to do with a desired outcome, not a thing unto itself, but then we ask: "Does the end justify the means?"

You cannot reason morals, only outcomes... and even then, you can only find tendencies and trends, ignoring the exceptions. There is a form of denial called "intellectualization" which illustrates this. You can truly believe something is wrong, and yet convince yourself through silly reasoning that it's OK to do it because you are unable to stop doing it in the first place. It happens frequently with alcoholism and other addictions, for instance. It actually doesn't matter if your reasoning is correct... what matters is that it has nothing to do with whether you should do the thing or not.

 

[Matthew Best]

With respect to my question, I think reason is probably better than intuition, though unlikely to be an acceptable approach to many people.

Would you say, then, that drugs should be legal or illegal based on the harm they do, rather than our personal views of whether taking drugs is "icky" or unnecessary or stupid or whatever?

 

[jiggeryqua]

This is on topic, honestly...I'm 'morally disgusted' by this:

The problem is, as you can see from how this thread has developed, Ivor is very quick to extend this seemingly harmless example to behaviour well beyond the pale. All in the name of skepticism, of cours.

From how this thread has developed? Ivor went on to highlight the 'abuse' of dairy cows to provide milk for humans (it involves enforced pregnancy and the early removal of the offspring). Are you really suggesting that's "well beyond the pale?"

This question can equally apply to sex with children, right?

Ah, it wasn't Ivor who tried to turn the topic "well beyond the pale". It was you all along.

And society has decided, in the main, that incest is inappropriate. This thread will not remain about incest for long.

It didn't remain about incest for long (see above) and you seem determined to keep steering it.

the games you are playing are antithetical to this whole forum.

He's asking for critical thinking and discussion, you're looking to shut out some areas of thinking based on bronze-age 'taboos'. One of those attitudes is antithetical to this whole forum.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

The topic of the thread is actually "moral disgust" (whatever that is), not incest.

Correct.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0150pj1/The_Philosophers_Arms_Moral_Disgust/

 

[angrysoba]

And society has decided, in the main, that incest is inappropriate. This thread will not remain about incest for long.

At the moment it is fraternal incest. It could get worse (and I think inter-generational incest is worse). Or it could get better. Between cousins, for example, taboos of which have not been as consistently strong as the Mark and Julie scenario.

This thread is proof positive that is indeed possible to be so open minded that your brains have fallen out.

In what way has this been proved?

The topic of the thread is actually "moral disgust" (whatever that is), not incest.

Digusted with morals?

Are they important? Most people who care about what they might be seem more content to decide for themselves what my views are and ignore any clear statements I make to correct any errors they have made.

With respect to the scenario in the OP, I find it icky, but can't think of any rational reason to morally condemn it. However, I think such behaviour should still be discouraged because of the possible consequences if things don't go according to plan.

With respect to my question, I think reason is probably better than intuition, though unlikely to be an acceptable approach to many people.

Well, let's face it, there's lots of ways that sex can go "wrong". Premature ejaculation, fanny farts, mum calls in the middle of it and you roll over on to your cell phone.

Okay, I'm done here. There's no way this ends well.

This is your emotional dog escaping with its rational tail between its legs.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Would you say, then, that drugs should be legal or illegal based on the harm they do, rather than our personal views of whether taking drugs is "icky" or unnecessary or stupid or whatever?

Yes.

 

[Ryokan]

Are our feelings and intuitions about particular behaviours a better guide for what acts we ought to prohibit or condemn than rationally evaluating whether there was any harm from those acts?

No.