The aim of this paper is to take an in-depth look at the emotion of disgust, and explore what role (if any) it should play in morality. The issue of what role disgust should have in morality is disputed by advocates and skeptics. In what follows, I will outline this dispute and show the arguments each side makes. Following that, I will take a look into Kelly’s view which takes the skeptical stance, but differs in how he comes to take that stance. Next I will show how Kelly uses his view to disprove the disgust advocates’ arguments. Finally, I will illustrate a promising line of argument that may give hope to the disgust advocates, in light of Kelly’s powerful skeptical stance.
The question that causes division among many regards disgust’s role in morality. Those whom have opinions on the matter are making a prescriptive claim rather than a descriptive one. The question is not about what role disgust actually has in morality, rather, it is about what role disgust ought to have in morality. In addition to arguing why or why not disgust reactions are reliable in the moral spectrum, each side also appeals to a particular view of the nature of disgust itself.
On one side of the disagreement are the disgust advocates. These people maintain that disgust is an essential tool in human moral psychology. They argue that disgust reactions are sufficient to make moral judgments. The view that advocates appeal to about the nature of disgust most often is the Deep Wisdom Theory. This theory argues that disgust trumps reason’s ability to articulate and discern certain properties or boundaries that, ethically speaking, should not be crossed. Disgust advocates, argue that disgust has important role in morality, and that the Deep Wisdom Theory...
... middle of paper ...
... of the nature of disgust, it could be argued that the disgust response is a product of our deeply held judgments, that we have given sufficient thought to in the past. Therefore, the disgust response could be argued to be a product of well thought-out beliefs, that are available to be put into practice quickly by our intuitive reactions.
I have presented the dispute between advocates and skeptics regarding the disgust emotion and its place in morality. In presenting Kelly’s view, I have given explanation for why he takes the stance he does, and why believes his view to disprove the advocate’s arguments. In concluding, I offered a line of argument that I think may give support for the advocate stance, even in light of Kelly’s criticisms. However, ultimately, I side with Kelly’s arguments and maintain that disgust simply has no place in the realm of moral judgment.
Principles of Morality. Seattle: Ponster Printing, pp. 89-92. 2010. Print. The. Gevinson, Matilda.
However, even those with the strictest virtue of self-command may not be able to ignore the passions and remain completely objective. Smith writes, “It may be laid down as a general rule, that the passions which the spectator is most disposed to sympathize with…are those of which the immediate feeling or sensation is more or less agreeable to the person principally concerned” (TMS VI.III.14). From my understanding, this quote is saying that the spectator is more likely to sympathize with passions that the agent agrees with the most. It explains that the impartial spectator chooses the degree of sympathy, based on how the degree of approval or disapproval of an action. This can be considered biased of the man in the breast. Smith is saying that we would need extreme self-command in order to ignore our intense desires if we want our spectator to be completely impartial, however it is unlikely to have that amount of control over the
Thomas Sally's appeal to logic is the strongest persuasive proof to her argument. The motive for her use of reasoning is strong due to the explanation of suitable examples from her real-life experience on the subject. Thomas Sally explains, by reasoning, at the beginning paragraphs that a boy enjoys the warlike fascination of slashing & shooting and even punching if they do not find any tools or toys that shall fulfill their desire. Thomas Sally uses logos as, "We don't tell someone struggling with lust simply not to want sex; we don't tell a glutton that his problems will be solved if he stops being hungry” (Thomas 13). This clearly logical statement, provokes a matter of common sense among people which implies that restricting one from its problem is not the ultimate solution. The implication of her logical statement, makes us realize how being rough is in boy’s own nature as being sexually active is in someone with lust and being hungry is...
Morality is not something that should be easy to comprehend, and philosophers such as Mackie and McDowell are taking the wrong approach when trying to describe morality in natural terms. People need to understand that morality is something supernatural that we don’t have the capacity to comprehend. However, this does not mean that all moral judgments are false. There is a right choice in every scenario, however the variety of scenarios in this world is so grand that one cannot judge it by one code of
Haidt (1997) suggested that facial expressions used to reject physically disgusting things are also used to reject certain kinds of socially inappropriate people and behaviors. If the facial reactions are the same, then feelings towards rejecting a physically disgusting thing and a socially inappropriate person or behavior are related. The feeling that is elicited from physically disgusting things as well as socially inappropriate people can be attributed to the same source. Haidt’s research tied together how a disgusting stimulus can be connected and resonate the same cognitive processes that makes someone disgusted to a socially inappropriate person. If the same facial reactions are used then it is possible that a socially inappropriate person’s actions can come off as disgusting.
David Hume sought out to express his opinion in which sentiment is seen as the grounding basis for morality. This sentiment is acting as the causal reasoning for why we have morality or act in a moral way. David Hume, as well as Kant, believe that causal necessity governs humans lives and actions. In this essay, I will show how Hume, provides an argument in favor of sentiment being the foundation of our morality, rather than his predecessors who favored reason. To do this, I will begin to outline Hume’s theories, highlighting his main ideas for grounding morality on sentiment and bring up some possible counterarguments one of which being Immanuel Kant's theories and how that might potentially weaken his argument and how the roots of morality
Delany, Samuel. "Aversion/Perversion/Diversion." Longer Views: Extended Essays. Hanover, New Hampshire: University Press of New England, 1996
We all have cravings, be it for snacks or sweets, there is always something we desire. We crave horror in the same way. In Stephen King’s essay, “Why We Crave Horror Movies,” he argues that people need to watch horror films in order to release the negative emotions within us. King believes that people feel enjoyment while watching others be terrorized or killed in horror movies. King’s argument has elements that are both agreeable and disagreeable. On one hand he is acceptable when claiming we like the thrill and excitement that comes from watching horror movies; however, his views regarding that the fun comes from seeing others suffer cannot be agreed with because the human condition is not as immoral as he claims it to be.
BANTINAKI, KATERINA. "The Paradox Of Horror: Fear As A Positive Emotion." Journal Of Aesthetics & Art Criticism 70.4 (2012): 383-392. Academic Search Complete. Web. 23 Jan. 2014.
Why is incest deplorable amongst humans, but not for dogs? What makes it acceptable for a man to kill a deer, but wrong if he kills another man? Why do these lines get drawn between humans and animals? David Hume has an answer to these questions. Though many philosophers, like Saint Augustine, argue that humans are morally different from animals because of their capability to reason, Hume states that it is passion and sentiment that determines morality. In his book, Treatise with Human Nature, Hume claims that vice and virtue stems from the pleasure or pain we, mankind, feel in response to an action not from the facts that we observe (Hume, 218). Hume uses logic to separate morality into a dichotomy of fact and value, making it clear that the only reasonable way to think of the ethics of morality is to understand that it is driven by passion, as opposed to reason (Angeles, 95). In this essay I will layout Hume's position on morality and defining ambiguous terms on the way. After Hume's argument is well established, I will then precede to illustrate why it is convincing and defend his thesis against some common objections.
Sentiments such as beauty, revenge, pleasure, pain, create moral motivation, and action, and are immune to falsity and truth. They are the foundation for which morals are built, and exist apart from any reasoning. Thesis: In moral motivation, the role of sentiment is to drive an intrinsically instilled presence within us to examine what we would deem a moral act or an immoral act, and act accordingly, and accurately upon the sentiments that apply. These sentiments may be assisted by reasons, but the reason alone does not drive us to do what we feel is necessary.
An ethical judgment will be defined as an active condemnation on the grounds of ethics/morality. The difference between ethical judgments in the arts and the natural sciences is that ethical judgments in the arts are mostly based on emotions and in the natural sciences it’s mostly based on reason. A theory about the purpose of art is that “the arts are a way of expressing emotion” (Alchin). The art triggers emotion in the audience, so, if a painting shows a person crying over her dead baby and tries to eat it so she could get over it, the audience may experience a wave of emotions: sad, repulsed and disgusted. This may make the audience to feel that the painting is unethical, thus the painting might be removed. On the other hand, in the natural sciences, scientists are likely to use reason and decide whether experimenting something or about it would be ethically correct. If the scientist has to choose between experimenting on humans or rats, the scientist, using inductive reasoning, would choose to experiment on the rat, as it is more ethical than the former. The difference between both pro...
In Sigmund Freud’s Beyond The Pleasure Principle, he explains that each person makes the choices that they do, simply because they want pleasure. He states that there is no moral or emotional state that drives affairs, only the need for enjoyment and dislike for pain that makes people do what they do. He claims there i...
For years, the matter of morality has been a widespread topic of discussion, debating whether it is a product of our chemical composition or our free will. Before I get started, I will provide you with what I believe morality exactly is. Ethics is a “code of conduct,” much like a University’s student handbook, but applied to the expected morality of a larger group or society. Morals are how individuals choose to interpret and follow such code. Just as a student may not always act in complete obedience with the student handbook, humans also deviate from their ethical codes of conduct. Therefore, morals are the set of a person’s specific values and opinions formed by their interpretation of their society’s code of ethics. With this version of the meaning of morality, I believe that individual free-will and the neurological hardwiring in which we are born with both significantly influence the development of our mature human morality due to a variety of factors including: human brain development, differences in our upbringing and education, which give rise to disparities in matters such as what is considered right or wrong, decision-making processes, and our ultimate behavioral choices, and lastly, because morality cannot exist if based solely on human nature, it must also involve our own self-determination. My position that morality is not the product of one side of the debate or the other, but rather arises through the integration of both components, allows for a complete demonstration of morality in its entirety. In this system, the ambiguities present in the one-sided arguments are removed, making it easy to link any individual’s action to their personal moral accountability.
Art is limited in a very large number of ways by the ethical judgements we make, but it is also often brought into existence as a result of our morals and emotions. These judgements seem to handicap the production of knowledge of and through art, but they are also vital to it. This is a sign that abandoning our morals would be difficult, but impractical for the arts. For science, however, abandoning these morals to avoid the obstacle of ethical judgements would allow us to understand much more than we do today, and even more than we did hundreds of years ago; however, these judgements also keep our developments in check. They may prevent some good, but they definitely prevent irreversible harm as well. It is clear that ethics has many drawbacks, but it is a necessary element of our lives.