Moral Harm, Moral Disgust

This month I want to look at some sexual ethics, including “hot buttons” like incest, pedophilia etc. But before I do, an interesting concept. Research shows humans have TWO distinct moral centres (there may of course be more): harm and disgust: (1) Torturing a cat is wrong because the cat experiences pain [harm]. (2) Eating a dead cat is wrong because it’s disgusting [disgust]. Here’s an excerpt from a great BloggingHeads talk with more:

(Won’t show in emails: click here)

The best part is an example of how ridiculous disgust can be — a study showed people would rather wear a jacket with dog poo on it than a jacket that belonged to a serial killer (alas, can’t find the link). The historical trend is to add to harm taboos and subtract from disgust taboos. Considering the pain experienced by an animal (or a black man, woman, Jew etc) was seen as laughable not long ago, but not today. On disgust there’s the video example: 2 generations ago almost everyone saw interracial marriage as disgusting — now it’s virtually nobody.

In deciding sexual ethics (especially the law), disgust simply does not belong. It can never be justified by anything other than the preference of someone not involved in the act — which ain’t argument in a society valuing freedom. Of course you can be harmed by being disgusted! But you’d need to have a heart attack from it before it becomes an argument. Bottom line: Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfill, An it harm none do what ye will

People might say: even if X is legalised, these people will never be accepted socially. Maybe. For some behaviours, there’s probably an immovable biological urge. But you’d be surprised how quickly “inborn” disgust can go away when you actually meet people who do X and find out they’re not monsters.

None of this is too controversial. But it gets more uncomfortable when applied to real life. Stay tuned!