I found this interesting. An article from the Boston Globe about the relationship between moral feelings and disgust.
This is the argument that some behavioral scientists have begun to make: That a significant slice of morality can be explained by our innate feelings of disgust. A growing number of provocative and clever studies appear to show that disgust has the power to shape our moral judgments.
Research has shown that people who are more easily disgusted by bugs are more likely to see gay marriage and abortion as wrong. Putting people in a foul-smelling room makes them stricter judges of a controversial film or of a person who doesn’t return a lost wallet. Washing their hands makes people feel less guilty about their own moral transgressions, and hypnotically priming them to feel disgust reliably induces them to see wrongdoing in utterly innocuous stories.
Some of the article reminds me of the book SuperSense by Bruce Hood. There he talks about the Killer’s Cardigan experiment, where he asked people if they would be willing to wear a non-descript jacket for money. Many people raised their hands, but when he suggested that the jacket had previously been worn by a serial killer, those hands automatically went down.
Hood suggests that we have an instinctive feeling of contamination, even when we know – rationally – that there is no justification. I like this idea, since it might explain things like the “purity codes” found in religions. Of course, those feelings may be carried by instinct, but they are shaped by culture:
But to David Pizarro, the most interesting — and perhaps most important — question to answer is how flexible disgust is, how much it can change. Fifty years ago, many white Americans freely admitted to being disgusted by the thought of drinking from the same drinking fountain as a black person. Today far fewer do. How did that change? Did their sense of disgust ebb as they spent more time in integrated restaurants and workplaces and buses, or did they find ways to actively suppress their feelings? Pizarro isn’t sure, but he’d like to find out.
So, disgust about what effectively amounts to the majority of the animal kingdom facilitates homophobia. “God made all those things for me to kill and eat, and what’s too yucky to eat was made by the Fall and so is your fault, and all sorts of sex that’s yucky is also what God doesn’t want you to do, so you gotta burn just like my steak.” BBQ – Good; Crawly and Sticky – Bad
It seems they took hundreds of pages to convey that idea because a few sentences would just not be heavy enough for a Divine Message (TM).
I think there is actually a lot of validity to the idea that there is an unconscious link between people’s aesthetic tastes and moral feelings. People who personally find something “disgusting” will often assume it is self evident that said thing is morally wrong without even thinking about the moral issues involved.
“Did their sense of disgust ebb as they spent more time in integrated restaurants and workplaces and buses, or did they find ways to actively suppress their feelings?”
I think both. Something that occurred to me during that whole “ground zero mosque” discussion, the beauty of places like New York City is that when you have to integrate, the old prejudices will almost always become weakened, and will often disappear entirely. This is something I saw living in Reno. Multicultural societies separate us from the things that separate us. And even if you’ve been taught that drinking from the same fountain as blacks (or jews or muslims or gays) is icky and thus immoral, once you’ve been drinking out of the desegregated fountain for awhile, you notice it isn’t that bad.
Something else somewhat related that popped into my head while reading this.
“”When I traveled in Flanders I thought of your excessively strict observation of Sunday, and that a man could hardly travel on that day among you upon his lawful occasions without hazard of punishment, while where I was everyone traveled, if he pleased, or diverted himself in any other way; and in the afternoon both high and low went to the play or the opera, where there was plenty of singing, fiddling, and dancing.
I looked around for God’s judgments, but saw no sign of them. The cities were well built and full of inhabitants, the markets filled with plenty, the people well favored and well clothed, the fields well tilled, the cattle fat and strong, the fences, houses, and windows all in repair, and no ‘old tenor’ anywhere in the country; which would make one almost suspect that the deity was not so angry at that offense as a New England justice.”
-Benjamin Franklin
-From a letter to Jared Ingersoll, 1762
I’m curious about why I have no problem dressing out a deer or cleaning a wound in reality, but can’t stand to see a doctor make an incision in a well-anesthetized patient on TV.
Perhaps on the TV show, you identify with the patient, whereas in the real life situation your roles is more that of the doctor. Just a thunk.
I, too, am disgusted by human blood… and I performed animal surgeries for 5 years (as part of a couple of research programs)!!!!
It might be an evolutionary advantage to prevent us from exposing ourselves to blood-born diseases.
I grew up in Israel in the 70′s and 80′s and I was probably the only one in my elementary school who’s family officially didn’t keep kosher. And as we got old enough I remember a lot of times when I was discussing it with my friends that their instinctive reaction was to assume pork is disgusting even though they have never tried it and in many cases have probably never even seen pork (back then shops that sold non-kosher products were rare).
I have a weird disgust of looking at pregnant women. I love kids, and I don’t mind babies, but I hate seeing a woman with a bump on her. So in a way, I hate seeing magazine covers or tv shows parading pregnant women. I hate seeing mothers walking about looking happy whilst with a bump. I even get a little cynical whilst pregnant women are around. Although the minute the child is born I get over it. Totally.
Yeah, I know it has no moral justification, but it just freaks me out.
Seen Alien one too many times?
That is actually part of the reason. A friggin living thing is growing inside of someone! How can you not be freaked out by it?!
I find pregnancy gross too, and I’m not sure why. I could never ever in a million years have sex with a pregnant woman. And I know that is totally irrational and frankly, stupid. But I still couldn’t do it.
When you put it that way, yeah, it’s freaky. Wonderful, beautiful, “miraculous”, and downright FREAKY.
Makes sense to me. Certainly many homophobes justify their prejudice by focusing strongly on the sexual part of a homosexual relationship, never really considering that there (usually) is more to a relationship than that. This also nicely explains why lesbians are more accepted than gay guys – less icky butt sex going on.
When I was religious and therefore required to hate TEH GAYZ, I know that I focused in on my distaste at the idea of receiving anal sex as a way of sustaining my righteous indignation.
Once I abandoned religion, it was very easy to ditch that attitude. Now I have quite a number of close gay friends, and I never even think about their sex lives at all. Much in the same way I assume they never think about mine.
So much better when no one is worried about what everyone else is doing with their naughty bits.
Holy fuck, I’ve never thought about that. I’ve always thought lesbians were awesome and attractive, but I’ve always hated, and been disgusted by, gays.
I am scared of bugs, with the exception of spiders. While I support gay marriage, abortion has always been hard for me. I want to be pro-choice, but I know how abortions are done, and I’ve seen them done. I really believe abortion is murder.
Of course, I know that we all die eventually. “Murder” is merely the shortening on someone’s lifespan. Its better for the baby to die in his mother’s womb than for him to grow up to be a criminal and die in prison, after no doubt raping, killing, stealing, and doing all the other things that spawn as a result from an abusive parent. No child should be born unwanted. It’s better for the whole world if he dies.
Still, It gives me a bad feeling that I’ve been trying hard to get rid of. I’ve watched some beheadings and other execution videos to desensitize myself, and they’ve helped a little.
Still, it gives me a bad feeling. I don’t guess it really matters if I’m able to support it where it counts.
Goddamnit, sorry for the end being redundant. I tried to re-write it, but forgot to erase one of the “bad feeling” parts.
“Of course, I know that we all die eventually. “Murder” is merely the shortening on someone’s lifespan. Its better for the baby to die in his mother’s womb than for him to grow up to be a criminal and die in prison, after no doubt raping, killing, stealing, and doing all the other things that spawn as a result from an abusive parent. No child should be born unwanted. It’s better for the whole world if he dies. ”
What on earth are you talking about?
Is this some weird, “lying for Jesus to make a point” kind of post?
Or are you really this dumb?
No, can you tell me how I am dumb? Do you really think that killing is wrong if it helps the survivors live better? If you actually read instead of taking it for the shock value, I made a compelling argument FOR pro-choice.
If I’d have done a “lieing for Jesus” post, I would have said something like “LOL yeah, I’m totally for killing babies, fuck the little shits!” It is with the utmost gravity and sincerity do I support abortion. When I was 14 years old, my favorite dog got bitten by a racoon. I put it in a cage, to make sure it didn’t have rabies. A few days later, it started getting skiddish. Days after that, it started showing more symptoms. I did the greatest, most benevolent thing I could do for that dog. I shot him in the head and severed his spine with an axe, because I’d heard that people could still feel pain after a headshot, because their brain hadn’t fully died yet. Then I buried him underneath a willow tree and thought about all the wonderful times we had together during his life. I cried, but I knew death was the best thing for him, and for everyone. If allowed to live, he would have hurt people and spread his infection to other animals.
You need to look at some crime statistics. In places where abortions have gone up, crime goes down. Aren’t you familiar with the cycle of abuse? An abused, neglected child grows up to be an abusive, neglective parent, unless they get help or do some deep work on their minds. This is a fact.
Yes, murder is nothing more than shortening a person’s lifespan. We’re naturally against killing our own species because evolution made us that way. Its self destructive to go around killing valuable members of society. That’s why we object to killing. Not because some deity put it into our heads.
Am I making you not want to be an atheist? Well, I’m sorry but that’s the way it is. If there was god waiting to send you to hell the second you die, but compassionate enough to make provisions for you to go to heaven, then wouldn’t he have shown himself to you with more than an ancient, poorly translated book? Wouldn’t he have shown you an angel? Of course he would have. If a god was compassionate enough to supposedly send his son to die on a cross, then surely he could spare a couple of angels to prove his existence? But he hasn’t. You and I are both former Christians, and nothing has happened since we deconverted. If God is real, he doesn’t give enough of a shit to send you or I to anywhere when we die.
I’m not using some kind of”ooooo look how cold and bad atheists are” strategy to convert you. I tried to show that the best way I can that I am genuinely an atheist.
When someone points out that there is no evidence of an afterlife, and that all that is safe to assume happen when we die is rot, do you question them as well? I doubt it.
All I’m doing is saying that I believe abortion is murder, I struggle with that, but I still understand that murder can be justified, because I’ve deeply studied the issue of abortion.
I don’t need a coping mechanism. I don’t need to call it a fetus, and call the act of killing it termination. I don’t need karma to pretend that the people who fuck me over will get punished somehow, and when I go out of my way to help someone, I’ll get paid back. I don’t need reincarnation to lie to myself that I’ll live again after I die and begin to rot.
There’s nothing wrong with you needing one. Just don’t call me an evangelist when I point out how shitty atheism is. Its shitty, but at least its not trying to bullshit you.
I think you should to listen to this poem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ww7ZhBN6iIM
Yeah, you’re right, I was wrong.
You’re actually just an asshole.
You’re using the exact same immature tactics for when we were arguing about the use of “teabagger”. Mind elaborating on WHY I’m an asshole?
I’m guessing it’s the part about murder being okay if a person has high chances of being a future criminal.
No, but if a mother does not want her child, he’s going to get fucked up in the head, either through her raising him, or through going through our(currently) shitty childcare system. While it might be “wrong” to kill a six year old who fits the profile of a serial killer against his parents wishes, or even if his parents wanted him dead, or even if he was much younger, abortions are much easier procedures to perform.
Back to your original point, I don’t think you really believe what you are saying.
If we found some way to profile that had 99% accuracy, and where able to profile future rapists, wouldn’t we euthanize those rapists? Or at least put them into very controlled environments(assuming they couldn’t be helped psychiactrically, which I know isn’t accurate, but this is just a scenario). They would have to be luxury prisons. It isn’t very nice to throw people into 5X7 rooms for being born a certain way or into certain environments. Quick, painless, helium poisoning. They go to sleep and never wake up. Surely you wouldn’t oppose doing this in this unlikely, but nonetheless legitimate scenario?
Disregard my posts. After debating on another forum(4chan) pointed out that my views fit those of a sociopath, and that I was probably abused and/or neglected as a child. This is true(I won’t go into details), and I realize now that my views on murder are wrong and unnatural. I am going to go rethink my life and find a different pseudonym…my old name must die and rot away, like a grotesquely wounded appendage, and so must my views, as well as my old mind.
I am sorry for your moral discomfort. I bid you all farewell under my old name. I will rise again, like a phoenix, except I will be different. I will be….. healthy. I will become a productive member of modern society…
On a lighter note, I also realize I am a diversity generator! I find this to be exciting!
http://www.stanford.edu/class/symbsys205/global_brain.html
Wait… 4chan changed your mind?
Um, no. We wouldn’t. For one thing, the Anglo-American justice system is based on the idea that it’s better for a hundred guilty to go free than for one innocent to be punished unjustly.
And, in your scenario, you’re talking about everyone while they’re still innocent of any crime.
Quite horrific.
@Wintermute
The problem is even worse than that; if you make a mistake even 1 in 100 times the group you end up selecting would contain far more non-rapists than rapists. Something that is 99% accurate sounds good until you scale it up yo what amounts to “fishing trips” across whole populations. Then things go, dreadfuly wrong.
Daniel (Florien), do not feed the trolls. Move along. If you want to get at them for crapping up your comments, just say ‘you lost the game’ early on next time. Inside joke, don’t worry about the meme. But they will suffer a mild freak-out and go away.
Seriously, failchan. Get out of the pool, you beekeepers. Not every chan is like that. Do you even realize that admitting to visiting 4ch is like an instant ban on every other chan?
The game is something newfags do. I’ve never cared, nor should anyone.
Yes, I realize that admiting to visiting 4chan is pretty frowned upon pretty much everywhere. Do I care? No. Fuck rules 1 and 2. I’m making an exception for this unique situation. Hell, I don’t even know If I will visit /b/ again.
I guarantee I am not a troll. I swear on everything that I know. Nothing I said was inflammatory; I was calm the whole time. I was not trolling. Now, looking back, I could use snippets of my paragraph got trolling, however, that would go against my newfound morality.
If I was trolling, I wouldn’t troll it under Daniel CB, the name that I’ve used on this site as well as Thefriendlyatheist’s site. I would use a fake name, and I wouldn’t use such a long original post. I certainly wouldn’t use so many long responses. Part of trolling is being very brief with responses. It makes the person angry, and they sink to your level, thus humiliating themselves in front of their peers and generating “lulz”.
But I’m past all of that now. I’ve renounced my old life. I love peace and kindness. Now, have a nice day, friend.
I visited 4chan once, just to see what the big deal was.
Never. Again.
I’m glad that you are ‘past that now.’
I’m glad that you have redefined your entire concept of morality just now.
I’m glad that you renounced your old life tonight.
I’m utterly convinced. :P
Just to clarify, when I said my dog’s death was best for everyone, I meant that HIS death was best for everyone, not that everyone is benefited by their own death.
I just noticed that the icon beside my name was different for different. My apologies, this was because I used a different email for my recanting.
Kind of strange. I find the idea of two men having sex is disgusting yet I hold no moral objection to homosexuality. I can somehow separate morality with aesthetics. Just like some parts of the meat industry (especially sausages) is not pleasant to see, I have no problem with this industry as a whole. I always try to separate the two to try and stay objective.
I know this is sorta related but a little off topic…
I was a very very picky eater as a young child, and come to find out, there may have been an evolutionary advantage to that. When a pregnant woman experiences morning sickness/weird cravings, it may be because her fetus is growing and making lots of DNA at that time, and certain plants and herbs carry molecules that are potentially (and this is potentially low!) damaging to DNA. Same thing with a growing child. I think it is left over from when we were foragers and had to eat what was available.
Anyway, studies show that introducing a new food to a child my take up to 20 introductions before they will integrate it into their palates. I’d rather do that than force a child to eat something they find disgusting (as was done to me).
I think children should be kept in artificial comas in a metal box and fed through IV tubes until they are 25.
Hear, Hear.
I got some funny looks when I suggested something less extreme. All I said is that airlines should have a vet on duty at the gate to tranquilize anyone under 18 so they can be shipped as cargo rather then annoy actual humans (in my defense, I just got of a flight in which a bunch of the bloody things was sitting right behind me and screaming the whole time).
I love kids, but being locked in a flying tin can with screaming kids is absolute hell on earth!!!
The answer might be as simple as giving them something to chew on. My Daughter suffered a lot during the first few minutes of a flight but was ok once she got her ears to pop. I imagine for the tiny ones it’s like an ice pick in the head. Kids aren’t crying to annoy you, they’re in genuine pain or terrified of the new experience.
I know, right! I wish parents would give them something to drink or chew on to help them get their ears fixed. I don’t blame the kiddos, I get mad at the parents for not comforting their child. The irritation I feel is because I want to comfort the child, but I’m not allowed to (that would be creepy!) I’ve worked with children for a long time, and I can distinguish a “mad” cry from a “pain” cry and I can’t stand to listen to either one, especially for HOURS at a time!!! There was one time that I got so mad that I turned to the parent and yelled “COMFORT YOUR CHILD!!!! DO SOMETHING!!!” And the parent looked utterly horrified, but got up and walked the aisle with the child until she settled down.
Haha! I guess I proved the point of the post a little. My agitation=moral judgment on the parents of the screaming child.
Kid-hating bastards. I agree with the airline thing though. I actually think that kids should be chloroformed before the flight.
That’s enough out of you.
Back in your box.
Or at least given some benadryl or dramamine….
Or give the adults a valium.
Wine is available for $5. It helps.
We can go a tiny step further – the more miserable a person is, the more likely he/she would be judgemental towards others.
I see people get more cynical and judgemental once they are placed in miserable conditions. This could just be my prejudice as I’m sitting in my fully AC’ed office typing and waiting for the wife and kids to get ready for the beach in a balmy 75F friday. hahaha.
A bit off topic, but I wonder how much moral disgust is due to aesthetic disgust of others and how much is due to disgust at oneself. I tend to think these are both pretty significant factors.
I made a post on a debate forum a while ago arguing that the Christian sexual obsession was actually (in part) due to ego-dystonic sexual orientation. For example, if you think homosexuality is wrong and dangerous but are a homosexual, you are certainly more likely to be vocal about it. I argued this applied to Christianity’s obsession with sex in general.
But maybe it applies much more generally than that.
Something that just occurred to me, reading your post:
Perhaps self-loathing of homosexual attraction in Christians is a product of strict heteronormativity in a roundabout way; if people who are born with homosexual proclivities are raised to believe that homosexual behavior is wrong, they may leap to the assumption that everyone (not just them) struggles with the same urges, and that it is a normative, common “temptation” rather than an objectively uncommon “orientation”, thus justifying their view that it is fair to criticize and excoriate those people who give in to their urges, so to speak.
This occurred to me a while back when I heard a someone call Homosexuality a Choice, then they were caught doing drugs with a male prostitute. It seemed they were suppressing their natural predilections and were choosing Heterosexuality.
Nope, that is a really, really insightful and excellent point!!!!
:D
Reminds me of the Shakespeare quote “the lady doth protest too much, methinks”.
Yeah, I’ve long considered that those preachers that consider homosexuality the worst of all sins fall into three rough camps:
1) People who are daily tempted into lust by members of the same sex as themselves, and therefore assume their flock has the same temptations. They see this as an urgent message that people need to hear.
2) People who are not so tempted, and know that most of their flock is also not tempted. If they preach against greed or anger, that might hit too close to home, and reduce the size of their congregation, but homosexuality is a safe topic to rail against.
3) People who see all the people in groups 1 and 2, and figure they’d better get on the bandwagon, or their flock might wonder why they’re ignoring such a popular (and therefore obviously important) topic.
As an aside, I think it was CS Lewis who was once asked why he’d never written anything about the evils of homosexuality or gambling, and replied that he didn’t feel qualified to talk about sins he’d never indulged in (or maybe it was “had been tempted by”; I forget).
Why killing “God” takes so long and is so hard
Start with seemingly obvious notion of Democritus / Epicurus:
what is called “good” is physiologically attractive;
what is called “bad” is physiologically repellent (disgusting).
Disgust = unconscious human rejection mechanisms physiologically triggered by smell/taste or digestion — expelling the object/scent without conscious control e.g., vomiting food contaminated by bacteria, spitting out rotten milk.
Accepting sweetness is innate, we are pre-adapted to accept mom’s milk. Training is required to learn which sour/bitter/salty foods are culturally OK.
• “feelings” typically are not basic physiological events
They are more likely to be physiological events tied to childhood learning. Culture is the great buffer and barrier between ourselves, other selves, and nature. Most “feelings” follow an inverse causal logic.
Once we are taught an undefined concept of disgust through becoming equipped with a long list of disgusting things, our “educated” disgust comes first and induces the appropriate sensations and reactions afterward.
• Moral sentiments = religious sentiments — as harmful cultural artifacts
Our so-called “higher sentiments” tell us nothing about their origins. “Feelings” are a cultural artifact. They also tell us nothing about reality. Religion and morality as cultural artifacts are parasitical on innate physiological pathways. But they invert cause/effect.
Subjective certainty based on “feelings” forms a huge component in the substructure of fundie religious ideology. Nothing like religion to reinforce pre-existing cultural prejudices and make them “holy” by claiming that the merely temporal is eternal, the merely cultural is universal, a merely reflexive conditioning (indoctrination) is the “voice of God.”
Subjective certainty kills — texting while driving. Not smart. Subjective certainty becomes a false proxy for truth. Talk to any fundie…there’s little more to their god-talk than socially reinforced cultural conditioning.Truth and subjective certainty are discourses totally distinct from one another.
Only those who can control their “feelings” (by building new neural pathways) and subordinate them to what Freud called ‘the reality principle’ have the power to kill gods. Learning how to kill “God” takes a long time.
Fundies harm their own brains by linking disgust to truth seeking (as in the sciences) and linking subjective certainty to “bliss.” They are intent on making the world safe for their “alien” form of life. They are a public (mental) health problem.
I think it is true that we humans often “feel” disgust then make moral judgments; if something sounds “gross” for whatever reason, is must be wrong – just as Anti-supernaturalist said. It may not have anything to do with reason; perhaps a residual irrelevant instinct, diluted by evolution and manipulated by social and religious norms.
The pregnancy thing was interesting – I have a genuine question along those lines: why won’t people (more men?) drink breast milk?
why won’t people (more men?) drink breast milk?
I’m not sure that there are that many women ready to provide it, even if it allow them to get a job in saudi arabia.
Well, let me clarify that I haven’t set up a sample counter at Sam’s or anything, or ever offered my own lactations to anyone, but I have simply heard discussions when some is available in the fridge that tasting it was not an option. So, the delivery devices are A-OK, but not so much the product…
Because body fluids are highly personal. I sample my partner’s saliva when I kiss him, but no one else wants to. In fact, people would find that gross. It’s the same with breast milk.
I wouldn’t say I find it disgusting, but I think the purpose is for babies, so why regress?
Some guys actually have a thing for that. Never tried it myself, but then again… My wife is pregnant with our first. I’ll get back to you in 5 months. I’m sure that curiosity will win out at least once. :)
Well, drinking your wife’s breast milk is fine. Drinking mine would be gross.
ps CONGRATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :D
But we drink milk that is intended for baby cows. Isn’t that even weirder?
when two men being married was mentioned to my 6 year old son he actually said “disgusting!” Why is that? I suspect there is some evolutionary instinct involved in gayness being repulsive. The reason being if everyone were gay the population would die out and become extinct. I think there is a natural inclination to be repulsed by gay behavior – for none other than the simple fact that it promotes procreation.
Skeptical. If it were truly instinctive, we wouldn’t have seen cultures pop up where homosexuality was considered acceptable or laudable – like in parts of ancient Greece.
“we wouldn’t have seen cultures pop up where homosexuality was considered acceptable or laudable – like in parts of ancient Greece.”
Really poor example. Like saying .000000001% of the population liked young boys at one brief time a very long time ago – thus not evolutionary. VorJack – does the smell of feces repulse you? If so why is that? It is perfectly acceptable to a dung beetle. Repulsion is evolutionary; it promotes survival of the species. As far as 6 year olds saying ‘disgusting’ to anything sexual in nature I have to agree although I still think there is innate repulsion to gay behavior. I think the repulsion is as much in our genes as the attraction to the same sex.
When I was younger I was never repulsed by homosexuality. When I got older and entered primary school, that’s when I became homophobic. No one is born homophobic. Your son has probably picked up on it from somewhere.
Keep in mind that most 6 year olds will say “Disgusting!” to any form of kissing or sexual behavior, straight or gay.
o o . . now I have my cootie shot
LOL!!! Circle, circle, dot, dot!!!!! I love it!
I just remembered a term frequently used online to make this distinction between “moral disgust” and “just plain ickiness.” According to Wiktionary, squick means “A source of psychological discomfort.” Urbandictionary points out that people often confuse immorality with squick, and thus think that, for example, gay sex must be wrong because it grosses them out.