Moral Disgust

[Skeptical Greg]

I think most people would prefer their own or their child's circumcision to be performed by a human who is well trained in the procedure.

Just like piano playing; there was a time when no one was very good at it; everyone was practicing ..

 

[Piggy]

But why should someone reject a rational approach and follow their disgust when it comes to incest, but not homosexuality? What about back in the day when a lot of people thought interracial marriage was disgusting?

Yeah, that's how it works.

 

[Piggy]

Yet several people have said they were not disgusted by the scenario in the OP, so it wasn't that ridiculous, was it?

So... you're saying that the folks who aren't disgusted by that scenario would be disgusted by it if, say, someone had been injured?

 

[Piggy]

Are those that find it disgusting being irrational?

The answer to this is always "yes", no matter what the "it" is.

Disgust is an emotion. It is not rational.

 

[stilicho]

No I'm not. The principal reasons I would list have got nothing to do with morals or ickyness. They'd have to do with public perception, being hunted down by the law, the press, the neighborhood, with the lack of future in such a relationship, etc. Basically I'd inform them that it would ruin their lives in ways they can't possibly imagine, and that I'd rather they didn't.

The only moral arguments I'd have against it would be that any future handicapped children they would get would bear the burden of their decision, and that all that negative attention and perception could ruin more peoples' lives than their own. Mine for instance.

....

What you're describing is indeed a part of a moral decision cloaked in other terms. What is it about "public perception" that is not moralistic? If anything that's almost the dictionary definition of a moral argument. Maybe you're looking for some kind of absolute morality that's distinct from absolute rationality. The real world doesn't work that way. There are many many shades of grey and you've discovered one of them and seek to occlude it with words.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

The answer to this is always "yes", no matter what the "it" is.

Disgust is an emotion. It is not rational.

I thought someone might reply with that after I posted it. But the point of the question was related to the paper linked to in the OP, which is making the case for the feeling of disgust coming first and then rationalisations being thought up to try to justify that emotion.

However, it is possible that a person would not feel strongly about a behaviour until after reasoning about the consequences. Perhaps emotional reactions are rough and ready heuristics which are programmed in from birth and/or learned during childhood. When we encounter situations which we've already got heuristics to deal with, they get activated very quickly and we're left searching for reasons to validate them. On the other hand, if we encounter a novel situation that requires moral judgement then we may not feel much of anything until we've thought about the consequences for those involved.

 

[stilicho]

IMO male infant circumcision is an excellent act to consider for this topic because it's one which many posters will have no problem with but others will find disgusting.

What's the difference between the two groups? Are those that find it disgusting being irrational? How might we decide what to value when assessing the harmfulness of the procedure? Can the two groups agree on a common set of values to judge the morality of circumcision? Can the same values be transferred to other non-consensual acts performed on animals, infants or children?

I have yet to see a dispassionate public forum debate about male human infant circumcision. If you can direct me to one I'd like to see it. It's practically as inflammatory as the one you started the thread with. You already have one potentially inflammatory topic so why do you feel the need to introduce a second one?

You're concluding your statement above with some kind of generalisation that there must or might exist some kind of magical checklist that can be applied straight to a whole disparate clumping of individuals or creatures. That's why you're getting "joke replies" about grasshopper sex or whatever.

Whenever I encounter something like this topic, I prefer talking about morality and rationality with a far less purposely inflammatory example. The one that usually comes to mind is the "Late Night Red Light" scenario. You're driving along a seldom used road and come to an intersection where the light turns red. It's late at night, visibility is clear, you know there's no traffic camera, and a quick scan of the crossroad indicates there's no police cruiser in sight. (None in the rear-view mirror either).

Do you proceed through the intersection? Do you wait for the light to turn green? Did you just make a moral or a rational decision? Et cetera. You can have a pretty calm and reasonable debate with those terms and there's no recourse to heart-pounding pontification or silly equivalencies.

I hope that explains a little why your OP isn't going anywhere quickly and probably won't. Create a less controversial or ridiculous scenario and you'll probably attract fewer comments but nearly all of them will be focused and you might just accomplish or learn something.

 

[stilicho]

....

if we encounter a novel situation that requires moral judgement then we may not feel much of anything until we've thought about the consequences for those involved.

That's a broad generalisation too. How do you know whether a novel situation requires a moral judgement? How can you know that without having realised that there might be something wrong with the decision you make? How do you know that moral judgements that we already possess haven't already been dealt with in terms of their social (or medical, or whatever) consequences?

Do you think that "feeling" and "thinking" are entirely separate? If so, what is the physiological mechanism that separates them?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

stilicho,

The OP is about moral disgust. I doubt whether or not a driver crosses a red light at night when no one is around inspires a feeling of disgust in many people.

Few if any people on the forum will know anyone who has had sex with a sibling, or done so themselves. On the other hand, many people on the forum will have been circumcised as infants and/or had their children circumcised; they don't have to imagine a hypothetical scenario.

Did or does the disgust emotion get triggered in these people when they think about infant circumcision, as it does in many people who oppose the practice? If not, why not? What factors are important? For example, most people who don't feel disgusted by male infant circumcision are disgusted by female circumcision, even when it is made explicitly clear that the extent of the cutting would be comparable to or less severe than the male equivalent. So it seems the amount of physical damage to the genitals of the child is not directly relevant in whether or not the procedure is considered disgusting.

 

[Furcifer]

stilicho,

The OP is about moral disgust. I doubt whether or not a driver crosses a red light at night when no one is around inspires a feeling of disgust in many people.

There's a hot transvestite hooker offering free blow jobs at the stop light

I have to object to the notion that "disgust" is always an emotion. There's a component, revulsion maybe, that seems more universal to all humans when we see something "truly" disgusting, say a famine stricken infant in Africa. Then there's the disgust at seeing a kid eat a booger. The one is an actual physical response and the other an expression of disdain.

 

[catsmate]

I accept your 3 additions without reservation.

OK.

 

[catsmate]

IMO male infant circumcision is an excellent act to consider for this topic because it's one which many posters will have no problem with but others will find disgusting.

What's the difference between the two groups? Are those that find it disgusting being irrational? How might we decide what to value when assessing the harmfulness of the procedure? Can the two groups agree on a common set of values to judge the morality of circumcision? Can the same values be transferred to other non-consensual acts performed on animals, infants or children?

In the last thread dedicated to circumcision many arguments were made, generally they were based on reason and logic or tradition rather than "disgust". Perhaps you could try using that same methodology?

 

[slingblade]

There's a hot transvestite hooker offering free blow jobs at the stop light

Or it's actually a nine-year-old behind the wheel.

Seriously, if the topic were better suited to something less...icky...wouldn't that be a good one? You and I had a pretty good time arguing it, didn't we?

I have to object to the notion that "disgust" is always an emotion. There's a component, revulsion maybe, that seems more universal to all humans when we see something "truly" disgusting, say a famine stricken infant in Africa. Then there's the disgust at seeing a kid eat a booger. The one is an actual physical response and the other an expression of disdain.

Etymologically speaking:

disgust (n.)
1590s, from M.Fr. desgoust "strong dislike, repugnance," lit. "distaste" (16c., Mod.Fr. dégoût), from desgouster "have a distaste for," from des- "opposite of" (see dis-) + gouster "taste," from L. gustare "to taste" (see gusto). The verb is c.1600,from M.Fr. desgouster. Sense has strengthened over time, and subject and object have been reversed: cf. "It is not very palatable, which makes some disgust it" (1660s). The reverse sense of "to excite nausea" is attested from 1640s. Related: Disgusted; disgusting.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Or it's actually a nine-year-old behind the wheel.

..

Or 99 ?

 

[Matthew Best]

So... you're saying that the folks who aren't disgusted by that scenario would be disgusted by it if, say, someone had been injured?

Am I?

 

[quadraginta]

I don't think it does much good to try and focus on the exact usage of a particular word in the thread title, Furcifer's creative interpretations notwithstanding. Although that was a good try, Sling.

The content as well as the intent of the OP was straightforward and unambiguous.

http://www.nd.edu/~wcarbona/Haidt%202001.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 example chosen was provocative, but I don't see why that makes it less relevant. It might even be better that it was provocative. That means it isn't as easily discounted as unimportant.

To me the question seems to evoke a test of "ickyness" in some people, where reason and critical thinking are okay up to the "too icky" threshold, and quickly disregarded beyond that.

Then, when the same tests are applied in analogous situations with the same answers they are somehow magically 'different'.

Even the potential birth defect argument has some weaknesses. Is it moral to let someone with Huntington's disease reproduce? Their kid is going to have a 50/50 chance of dying from an incurable, slow, protracted and cruelly debilitating disease.

Of course, most of the time (at least until gene testing was developed), it would be too late, because the onset of Huntington's is usually in the mid thirties, so any kid(s) has probably already been born, also with a very high probability of passing on the disease.

Is it moral to let that one reproduce?

 

[Cainkane1]

If this really happened and and if it was their secret how would anyone know? It doesn't hurt anyone. I wouldn't do this but I really don't care that it happened.

 

[Furcifer]

Or it's actually a nine-year-old behind the wheel.

Seriously, if the topic were better suited to something less...icky...wouldn't that be a good one? You and I had a pretty good time arguing it, didn't we?

Same basic premise though, moral outrage and indignation vs. critical thinking and fact.

Incidentally the case was in court a couple weeks ago and the defense basically argued that no one was injured and the girl was driving OK. The judge ruled that it was "lucky" that she wasn't in an accident and no one hurt. The charges will stand and it's going to trial I guess.

The same could be said about the OP, neither the brother or the sister were hurt and the public wasn't harmed by the incident. If a judge said "Well it's lucky no one was hurt and you didn't end up having a child with horrible birth defects" would that make sense? Would people agree? Do they agree?

What does "lucky" mean exactly? Without the exact odds it's an emotionally loaded word isn't it? If we're going to destroy the lives of a 9 year old girl or some brother and sister shouldn't the harm they "avoided" be tangible and measurable?

Etymologically speaking:

disgust (n.)
1590s, from M.Fr. desgoust "strong dislike, repugnance," lit. "distaste" (16c., Mod.Fr. dégoût), from desgouster "have a distaste for," from des- "opposite of" (see dis-) + gouster "taste," from L. gustare "to taste" (see gusto). The verb is c.1600,from M.Fr. desgouster. Sense has strengthened over time, and subject and object have been reversed: cf. "It is not very palatable, which makes some disgust it" (1660s). The reverse sense of "to excite nausea" is attested from 1640s. Related: Disgusted; disgusting.

There you go.

 

[Piggy]

I thought someone might reply with that after I posted it. But the point of the question was related to the paper linked to in the OP, which is making the case for the feeling of disgust coming first and then rationalisations being thought up to try to justify that emotion.

However, it is possible that a person would not feel strongly about a behaviour until after reasoning about the consequences. Perhaps emotional reactions are rough and ready heuristics which are programmed in from birth and/or learned during childhood. When we encounter situations which we've already got heuristics to deal with, they get activated very quickly and we're left searching for reasons to validate them. On the other hand, if we encounter a novel situation that requires moral judgement then we may not feel much of anything until we've thought about the consequences for those involved.

The emotional response is part of the input to conscious awareness.

Very shortly after that, the coordination provided by conscious awareness makes a different level of choices possible.

Among these choices may be to end the disgust ("Oh, that's not what I thought it was!") or to agree with it ("Run away!") or to accept it ("I can't do anything about it" or "If I can't put up with this, I'm going to be a lot worse off!").

But the choice isn't really free, because it depends on what your brain decides you're looking at.

If you think that your conscious mind determines what you're looking at, try eating some zapoteca mushrooms and you'll quickly realize that it doesn't.

So although thinking "about the consequences for those involved" can come into play, it only does so after the emotional response, and after the brain has time to decide how you're going to see the situation (a fraction of a second).

It could make you change your mind, tho. Certainly.

 

[Arcade22]

Meh. I have a hard time finding any sort of action 'morally disgusting', simply since i rarely think in 'moral terms'.

Just disgusting? Sure. Corpophilia, zoophilia and so on i can find disgusting but morality doesn't come into it. It's just instinctual for me. Other people should of course feel free to waste time inventing all kinds of lofty ideals (morals) in order justify their instincts.