Read the following scenarios…(Beware. Some are, well, weird…)
A)
A Woman is cleaning out her closet, and she finds her old American flag. She doesn’t want the flag anymore, so she cuts it up into pieces and uses the rags to clean her bathroom.
B)
A family’s dog was killed by a car in front of their house. They had heard that dog meat was delicious, so they cut up the dog’s body and cooked it and ate it for dinner.
C)
A brother and sister like to kiss each other on the mouth. When nobody is around, they find a secret hiding place and kiss each other on the mouth.
D)
A man goes to the supermarket once a week and buys a dead chicken. But before cooking the chicken, he has sexual intercourse with it. Then he thoroughly cooks it and eats it.
Do these things seem wrong, very wrong, to you? Most would say yes. But let me ask you a question, what is exactly wrong with each? That is, without simply restating the problem (e.g., that’s unpatriotic, you shouldn’t eat your dog, brothers and sisters should not kiss, etc.), what moral principle is being violated in each instance?
If you are like most people, you’ll find it hard to locate a moral or ethical principle being violated in each scenario. Yet, without a doubt, we know and feel that each scenario is wrong. This feeling, the strong sense of wrongness while being at a loss for a moral argument, is called “moral dumbfounding.” The scenarios above are taken from Jonathan Haidt’s very interesting moral psychology research (Haidt, J., Koller, S., & Dias, M. (1993). Affect, culture, and morality, or is it wrong to eat your dog? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 613-628.) Haidt’s research has interesting implications for any discussion about sin and morality. Over the last week I’ve been giving very cognitive and intellectual arguments for defining sin. What is interesting is that Haidt’s research calls all that theological work into question.
Moral dumbfounding research acts like a scalpel, cleanly dissecting our moral psychology into emotion and cognition. And what we find is that, when we make moral judgments (e.g. Is homosexuality as sin?), we FEEL the answer first. We simply know something is wrong and those feelings GO IN SEARCH OF RATIONALIZATIONS. Moral arguments, therefore, are simply this: Justifications for appraisals of wrongness we instinctively feel.
And what this means is that theological arguments are simply a show, a way to appear rational and well justified to others and ourselves. And this has huge implications for the homosexuality question. Basically, we are simply going to FEEL that it IS a sin or that it IS NOT a sin, and there is little that argument or blogging is going to do to change those viscerally held judgments.
Great post! I remember some of the "scenarios" from your H&T of Psyc course.
ReplyDeleteWhere you say, "We simply know something is wrong and those feelings GO IN SEARCH OF RATIONALIZATIONS. Moral arguments, therefore, are simply this: Justifications for appraisals of wrongness we instinctively feel," I think that is quite plausible.
And, "theological arguments are simply a show, a way to appear rational and well justified to others and ourselves"...
For some reason makes me think of some subconcious perfectionistic human drive behind it all. Who knows!
Great blog!
Holly,
ReplyDeleteHow are you? Not to visit out here in cyberspace, but I hope you're well.
Thanks for the blog feedback. A lot of History of Theories stuff will find its way into this blog. I might have overstated the case in this entry, but I was trying to make a point.
Take care!
Richard
Isn't this argument a version of the genetic fallacy (i.e., if we show where some idea comes from, then the idea is false, or at least suspect)?
ReplyDeleteWhat moral weight does feeling carry either way? In other words, just because I feel something is wrong (or right), is it necessarily wrong (or right)?
I don’t think I’m arguing about the validity of the moral judgment. I’m rather making an observation about where those judgments originate from. The judgment might be “correct” or “incorrect” given some moral criteria (e.g., the Bible, Kantian Imperative, Utilitarianism, etc.). My only point is that our sense of “wrongness” is much more emotional than we might have guessed. The post is a call for deeper self-analysis.
ReplyDeleteRichard
Richard,
ReplyDeleteIf you haven't already, read Alasdair MacIntyre's criticisms of the early 20th century moral theory called emotivism at the beginning of "After Virtue". Emotivism said that all moral judgments essentially boiled down to positive or negative emotional responses. I think MacIntyre does a good job criticizing this theory. It would still be hard for him to come up with a non-question begging way to say that eating the chicken you just coupled with in wrong, but maybe it'll point a first step or something.
shane
Only one of these scenarios gave me pause. I have a dislike for the consumption of pets (particularly dogs, since I am such a dog lover) but I am well aware that there are no actual ethical concerns involved. (Although, potentially some health concern.) I recognize that my response is purely emotional, however, and have no problem with the issue ethically.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking only of human rights, my overall social ethicality rule of thumb is if something doesn't directly harm, or potentially directly harm, an unconsenting person... It should be allowed.
I enjoy testing the limits of this philosophy but, thus far, haven't found anything that would violate it. My strongest emotional response was to a scenario that gave me a great amount of discomfort. Animated child pornography. Or, technology permitting, "simulated" sexual encounters involving children. What does everyone think on this issue?
"Basically, we are simply going to FEEL that it IS a sin or that it IS NOT a sin, and there is little that argument or blogging is going to do to change those viscerally held judgments."
ReplyDeleteI'd like to believe that anyone with any amount of intellectual honesty would reevaluate opinions based on "gut feelings" when it's revealed that the gut feelings have no logical background. In that case, argument is still a pretty valid tool for changing minds.
Excellent post, I agree 100%. After reading this, I realized it reinforced my theory of why people need 'God.' Im not a very religious person, But after making some very tough moral decisions a while back, I realized that god isnt an actual being, but a justification of your actions and a rationalization of your feelings.
ReplyDeleteExplanation: A year back, I was faced with a very tough decision. My boss was an alcoholic and drank on a daily basis on the job. By the end of the night he was in no condition to work, let alone drive. Being young, I readily drank on the job as well, though never to the extent that he did. I eventually stopped because I realized how bad of a job I was doing and grew to dislike having to work in that condition. He continued on. I watched as the kitchen (I was working as a cook) grew steadily worse and started putting out worse food. It was then that I made the decision to tell the owner about the problem. It was, without a doubt, the hardest decision I have ever made in my life. How could I be so hypocritical? How could I pass a judgment on someone when I was just as guilty as they were? How could I cost this man, who had a house, a wife, and a newborn daughter, his job? Who am I to mess with this persons life? It was then that I realized how badly I wanted someone to say 'dont worry, your doing the right thing.' And when I realized that, I realized how people can truly believe in God, because they need that peace of mind, that reassurance they are doing the right thing.
It was then that I found god, and it was then that the quote from Robert Heinlins novel 'Stranger in a Strange Land' made perfect sense...'I am god, and you are god, and all that groks (understands) is god.'
I still dont believe in god. I believe in myself. I believe that the choices I make are good choices, and I wish no harm to anyone else. I dont fight, I dont own a gun, and I would feel horrible if my actions ever brought pain and harm to another. And if Im wrong and God does exist, when I die and I stand before him in judgement, I will be allowed into heaven based on my humanity and not my actions or 'sins.'
Accidents involving defective or collapsing scaffolds can result in
ReplyDeleteconstruction site accident cases; falls off of or through roofing
structures; electrocutions; falls off of ladders; defective machinery
such as cranes, hoists, conveyors, tractors, and forklifts;
malfunctioning construction equipment or other tools; and the collapse
of floors or walls. The kinds of construction site accidents often
result in serious injury and can sometimes even result in death. In
fact, thousands of construction workers are injured or killed in
construction site accidents each year.
The medical practitioner himself may be tired or under stress, and miss vital signs that would have led him to an accurate diagnosis. There are many genuine reasons and excuses for the wrong diagnosis of an illness, and it could be any one of many people involved in your health care who is liable.If you believe that you have been injured or your health has deteriorated due to the wrong diagnosis of an illness, you should speak with a solicitor in regard to making a wrong diagnosis claim for compensation.
This makes perfect sense. And not to prosthelytize at all, but this is one thing that comes out after practicing Buddhism for a while. Emotional ties and attachments loosen, exposing their gooey innards.
ReplyDelete