Moral Disgust

[Skwinty]

My feelings about this subject are as follows.

Sexual intercourse with children, animals and siblings etc is morally despicable.

However, the problem will never be resolved by keeping silent about it.

The more these despicable acts are openly and rationally discussed, the more chance that fewer people and animals will be affected.

Why should these issues be brushed under the carpet and not spoken about?

Just my opinion.

 

[lionking]

Edit

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

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.

In what way would it be illuminating? Can people not express their thoughts on the issue without me expressing my point of view beforehand and risk biasing their thinking one way or the other?

 

[angrysoba]

My feelings about this subject are as follows.

Sexual intercourse with children, animals and siblings etc is morally despicable.

However, the problem will never be resolved by keeping silent about it.

The more these despicable acts are openly and rationally discussed, the more chance that fewer people and animals will be affected.

Why should these issues be brushed under the carpet and not spoken about?

Just my opinion.

I think the point is that there is no reason for thinking these two are in any way likely to be harmed by their actions but we instinctively think there is something wrong about their actions. When asked why we'll try and come up with some reasons but basically we'll only be trying to justify, rationally, our disgust at these actions (which may be our only real basis for disapproval).

So, is there a rational basis for saying these actions are despicable and if not should we allow these actions to be called despicable purely on how we feel about them?

At least, I think that's what the paper Ivor linked to and/or Ivor himself are saying.

 

[Manopolus]

You were a participant in that other, sad, thread, right? I'm just asking questions. Sauce for the goose.......

Also known as poisoning the well. You're making a total ass of yourself in this thread, regardless of what Ivor's intent is.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

As one of the token religious persons who post here at JREF, I'm going to do the skeptical community the favor of assuming that the views expressed in the OP do not represent them.

 

[H'ethetheth]

As one of the token religious persons who post here at JREF, I'm going to do the skeptical community the favor of assuming that the views expressed in the OP do not represent them.

What are the views expressed in the OP?

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

As one of the token religious persons who post here at JREF, I'm going to do the skeptical community the favor of assuming that the views expressed in the OP do not represent them.

Or you could offer something useful to the discussion?

In answer to the OP, no our sense of disgust is not a good guide to whether something should be condemned.

I find the concept of two hairy blokes having intercourse pretty icky, for example.

 

[JJM 777]

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?

The story quoted in the OP did not trigger moral disgust in me.

What about playing the doctor in early childhood, children examining hte genitals of their friends, should it also trigger moral disgust?

 

[angrysoba]

I find the concept of two hairy blokes having intercourse pretty icky, for example.

Or Barbara and George H W Bush...

Or Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall...

It probably shouldn't be ruled as immoral that they do have intercourse.

 

[Skwinty]

So, is there a rational basis for saying these actions are despicable and if not should we allow these actions to be called despicable purely on how we feel about them?

How can there be a rational basis for these acts?

I am a father of two daughters and I did not need a rational basis to prevent myself from sexually abusing them.

It just is common human decency to not have have sex with your kids, siblings and your pets.

Unless the desire is to return to the days of the caveman.

Once again just my opinion.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

At least, I think that's what the paper Ivor linked to and/or Ivor himself are saying.

I think the paper is making an argument that moral reasoning comes after moral intuition and is used more often than not to justify the moral intuition than test it's validity in a particular case. It stays pretty quiet on whether this is a good or bad thing in general.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

How can there be a rational basis for these acts?

I am a father of two daughters and I did not need a rational basis to prevent myself from sexually abusing them.

It just is common human decency to not have have sex with your kids, siblings and your pets.

Unless the desire is to return to the days of the caveman.

Once again just my opinion.

Well, I'm not really happy with the conclusion that I have an irrational desire for not sexually abuse my daughter, so I think having a rational basis for these things is important - at least for me.

Having sex with your kid has the potential to cause a lot of harm - physical and emotional - so that's pretty well covered.

Animals - I'm pretty non-commital on that. I don't have animals and don't have any desire to have sex with them. On the other hand I'm not that bothered if other people do, but I'd tend to steer clear of anyone I knew was doing it.

Siblings - can do what they like as far as I am concerned though again I'd tend to steer clear of them.

 

[H'ethetheth]

How can there be a rational basis for these acts?

I am a father of two daughters and I did not need a rational basis to prevent myself from sexually abusing them.

It just is common human decency to not have have sex with your kids, siblings and your pets.

Unless the desire is to return to the days of the caveman.

Once again just my opinion.

First of all, it's about a rational basis for condemning these actions, not for the actions themselves.

Secondly: What is common human decency? What does it mean? Who defines it, and how did it become whatever you answered to the first of these questions?

I can think of rational arguments against all three things you listed, but the ones against informed, consensual, safe sex between adult siblings aren't all that strong.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

I can think of rational arguments against all three things you listed, but the ones against informed, consensual, safe sex between adult siblings aren't all that strong.

Do such arguments take into account the actual circumstances and outcomes of specific acts?

For example, in the UK it is illegal to kill another person, yet few people are now being convicted and sent to prison for assisting a close relative to die. In this case the actual circumstances are being taken into account rather than unthinkingly applying the blanket rule that killing other people is wrong.

 

[Skwinty]

First of all, it's about a rational basis for condemning these actions, not for the actions themselves..

Could there possibly be a rational basis for not condemming these acts?

Secondly: What is common human decency? What does it mean? Who defines it, and how did it become whatever you answered to the first of these questions?.

I don't know, but every fibre of my being screams out against these acts.

I can think of rational arguments against all three things you listed, but the ones against informed, consensual, safe sex between adult siblings aren't all that strong.

Informed, consensual and safe applies to people who have the capacity to understand these concepts. Animals and young children do not have that capacity.

Can you think of any rational argument for these acts?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Informed, consensual and safe applies to people who have the capacity to understand these concepts. Animals and young children do not have that capacity.

Can you think of any rational argument for these acts?

Do you drink milk?

Why is exploiting animals considered okay except in cases when humans extract sexual pleasure from it?

 

[Manopolus]

Can you think of any rational argument for these acts?

Well, I suppose you could rape your children to get them over their fear of sex... seems rational, in a way -- it actually does have the desired outcome if done repeatedly -- but I wouldn't recommend it.

That's just it, you can rationalize anything... it doesn't mean that you're taking the moral high road by any means.

(and yes, I'm sure I've probably triggered moral disgust by even going there)

 

[H'ethetheth]

Do such arguments take into account the actual circumstances and outcomes of specific acts?

[snip...]

Certainly.

For instance, as a blanket rule, I would say incest is not a good thing, but there are circumstances that would make me say it's a bad thing or inadvisable or, conversely, perfectly okay.
Such circumstances would be:

informedness
age or age difference
consent
desire to have children
etc.

 

[Skwinty]

Do you drink milk?

Why is exploiting animals considered okay except in cases when humans extract sexual pleasure from it?

Yes I drink milk. I don't have sexual intercourse with cows though.

There is a big difference.

By drinking milk you relieve the pressure in the cows udders.

When a cow produces milk for it's calf, it will do so as long as there is a suckling calf, so where is the commonality between the two scenarios?

By having sex with cows you relieve your own disgusting desires.
The cow derives no benefit.