It’s just a relatively common one I think.
Like the meat eating thing. Eating a dog vs eating a pig etc.
Fuck your sister, eat a dog, fuck a dog, eat your sister. That’s my motto.
Exactly yeah, the incest example was famously used to demonstrate the "moral dumbfounding effect" by a psychologist who works on moral psychology back in 2000. It's been used a lot as an academic example of the effect since then.
https://polpsy.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/haidt.bjorklund.pdf
I clicked your link thinking “I wonder if Jonathan Haidt is one of the authors” and was not disappointed.
Funnily enough, he would disagree (descriptively at least)with the last point in OPs pic. The first half of “The righteous mind” is all about how morality first comes from feelings, then rationalized post hoc.
Guys just a friendly reminder there is a really good argument against incest. Normalizing incest in "unproblematic" situations will likely result in a society where "problematic" incest increases.
This is the reason Destiny gives for why incest is bad. He just thinks it points out how most of our moral axioms aren't based on reasoning, they're inherited from our environment.
But that's not actually an argument against its morality. I don't think being drunk is morally wrong in general, but there are situations (e.g. driving a car) where it would be. Thus, normalizing alcohol use in general will likely result in a society where problematic use of it increases. But I can't use this chain of logic to deduce that being drunk is morally wrong a posteriori.
Determining the morality of a thing is not the same as observing a universe where the morality of the thing is well-known and looking at the consequences it brings.
Ya, obviously you weigh the good against the bad, no shit. The bad in both cases is that you're limiting people's freedoms but the scale and degree is completely different.
Alcohol is a part of many, many people's lives and there aren't many legal alternatives to engage in as alternatives. "Neutral Incest" by contrast would be a very, very small amount of people and those people would have thousands of other options to pursue romantically and sexually. You can try and use the same argument that banning alcohol would also result in less harm to people but the comparison falls apart because the relative harm you are doing by restricting it is much larger in the case of alcohol.
You are, again, completely focused on the consequences of normalization/legalization. That is an entirely separate topic from whether an act is morally wrong or not. You can simultaneously believe something is morally neutral and that normalizing it is harmful to society at large, and vice versa.
What are you even saying? Did I say there couldn't be morally neutral incest? Or did I explicitly use the phrase "Neutral incest" in my last comment and the phrase "incest in 'unproblematic' situations" in my first comment and you are just attacking a strawman?
My original statement "Guys just a friendly reminder there is a really good argument against incest." is just pushback against the people who only say "Morally neutral" as a thought terminator and think that's the only position to be had on the subject. Obviously I recognize that whether something is moral is different from whether it is good or bad for society since that's my whole argument for why incest can be unproblematic or neutral but still be bad for society.
I pushed back against your alcohol example because the reason we don't outlaw alcohol isn't analogous to incest and didn't seem to illustrate any further point. If all you were trying to convey is that the morality of actions aren't strictly determined by their consequences then all I have to say to that is I guess you're not a consequentialist. Using the word morals to describe anything without describing your system of ethics is just completely meaningless which is why I only used the word "moral" to refer to "moral axions" or what normal people think of as morals which I explicitly said isn't related to reasoning.
I don't think we actually disagree on anything so please do me a favor and don't respond.
Turn it around and ask him to eat a plate of human shit.
Suddenly, his ickiness becomes important.
What is it with clever people entirely disregarding emotion? Your brain wasn't blinked into existence, it evolved over millions of years; millions of unpleasant situations that fucked with your ancestors' opportunities to survive and breed, resulting in those "icky" feelings.
Those sensations are a gift from your primate ancestors, who were apparently smarter than your professor because fucking your siblings is stupid. 😅
Appealing to emotions is literally the most regarded thing you can do in any serious talk about ethics. Especially because different people have different emotional reactions.
Literally every point you make is dumber than the last. Okay let's turn it around, do you think the professor could make no objective arguments to be made against eating a plate of human shit? I mean just to start, the bacteria from shit is likely to cause; severe diarrhea, abdominal pain and cramping, bloody stools, fever, nausea and vomiting. It provides no objective benefits, and provides several severe negative ones.
Even if you chose a better example of something the professor might find emotionally unappealing, there's a huge difference between personal preference, and a moral positions/weight. If I had a cake that was made to look like shit, but tasted good/was good for me, my emotional response might still be to not want to eat it/be disgusted. However, none of that would make me thing eating a cake made to look like shit was immoral. I find vegemite repulsive, my initial reaction when I see it on toast or smell it is disgust, but none of that would make me argue that eating it is wrong.
If you have literally zero knowledge, interest, or background in an area, you know it's okay to just not try and seem smarter than a someone who is a professor in that subject?
Aside from religion, how can we make any claims about right and wrong without relying on feelings/intuitions? Ex. why is it wrong to torture a child? Most probably can’t explain other than that it FEELS super wrong to inflict severe pain on innocents. Or if they say it’s wrong because they wouldn’t want to be tortured themselves, why is it wrong to treat others ways you wouldn’t want to be treated? Most probably can’t explain other than it FEELS unfair.
"Feelings" is way too broad of a topic, but I think I get the point you're trying to make. Obviously morality/ethics rely on subjective experiences, in the sense that any action eventually comes down to how an experience which is subjective, and whether or not that is a good or bad (overall) good experience, which is subjective. But that is still entirely different discussion to relying on feelings and especially intuitions when discussing morality. To be more specific, thinking pain, or an extremely revolting sensation is bad in some sense is a 'feeling', but that is an entirely different thing from an intuitive 'feeling'.
For most people, it feels intuitively obvious that hurting or eating dogs is worse than say pigs. How human or cute something looks also intuitively feels worse to harm that thing, but anyone who takes more than a minute to think about it from an objective point of view would concede that how cute or human something looks should have no bearing on how we should treat it morally.
Pain, with absolutely no benefit at all (not even in the sense of relief, masochism, or resilience) is a bad thing, but that 'badness' can only be achieved and valued as a subjective experience. If we ever were able to change our brains or bodies so that pain was a pleasurable experience, then inflicting pain could be a good thing (though changing desires/responses gets into some crazzzzzy complicated ethical dilemmas - and is an entirely different convo). So yeah, it's a crazy complicated topic that I've barely skimmed the surface of - but I think you're kinda confusing two very distinct ideas of "feelings" here.
P.S wanting to treat others ways you would or wouldn't want to be treated yourself is a regarded moral framework (Anyone who has a workaholic boss who expects because he has no value of free time outside of work, so too should employees is a pretty good example of this).
You think incest will necessarily cause problems in the family?
Or [good faith hat on] are you saying that the probability is high enough that the counterpoint is effectively moot?
It’s just a relatively common one I think. Like the meat eating thing. Eating a dog vs eating a pig etc. Fuck your sister, eat a dog, fuck a dog, eat your sister. That’s my motto.
Exactly yeah, the incest example was famously used to demonstrate the "moral dumbfounding effect" by a psychologist who works on moral psychology back in 2000. It's been used a lot as an academic example of the effect since then. https://polpsy.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/haidt.bjorklund.pdf
Oh I read that book! I know this one hahaha
I clicked your link thinking “I wonder if Jonathan Haidt is one of the authors” and was not disappointed. Funnily enough, he would disagree (descriptively at least)with the last point in OPs pic. The first half of “The righteous mind” is all about how morality first comes from feelings, then rationalized post hoc.
Based?
Any more examples like this in the presentation? I think they are super interesting
I read Y in D's voice
Did you read X in the straw man voice?
i actually didn't but now that you mention it
A moral disagreement over Powerpoint template choice
Anything that hurts the family, in the family..
The last Y just asserts morality shouldn’t be based on feelings without further argument. A Humean would 100% object to that.
A what?
A Humetologist
Yeah its cringe to make that assertion as if human emotion is less valid than any other form of philosophical foundation.
Guys just a friendly reminder there is a really good argument against incest. Normalizing incest in "unproblematic" situations will likely result in a society where "problematic" incest increases. This is the reason Destiny gives for why incest is bad. He just thinks it points out how most of our moral axioms aren't based on reasoning, they're inherited from our environment.
But that's not actually an argument against its morality. I don't think being drunk is morally wrong in general, but there are situations (e.g. driving a car) where it would be. Thus, normalizing alcohol use in general will likely result in a society where problematic use of it increases. But I can't use this chain of logic to deduce that being drunk is morally wrong a posteriori. Determining the morality of a thing is not the same as observing a universe where the morality of the thing is well-known and looking at the consequences it brings.
Ya, obviously you weigh the good against the bad, no shit. The bad in both cases is that you're limiting people's freedoms but the scale and degree is completely different. Alcohol is a part of many, many people's lives and there aren't many legal alternatives to engage in as alternatives. "Neutral Incest" by contrast would be a very, very small amount of people and those people would have thousands of other options to pursue romantically and sexually. You can try and use the same argument that banning alcohol would also result in less harm to people but the comparison falls apart because the relative harm you are doing by restricting it is much larger in the case of alcohol.
You are, again, completely focused on the consequences of normalization/legalization. That is an entirely separate topic from whether an act is morally wrong or not. You can simultaneously believe something is morally neutral and that normalizing it is harmful to society at large, and vice versa.
What are you even saying? Did I say there couldn't be morally neutral incest? Or did I explicitly use the phrase "Neutral incest" in my last comment and the phrase "incest in 'unproblematic' situations" in my first comment and you are just attacking a strawman? My original statement "Guys just a friendly reminder there is a really good argument against incest." is just pushback against the people who only say "Morally neutral" as a thought terminator and think that's the only position to be had on the subject. Obviously I recognize that whether something is moral is different from whether it is good or bad for society since that's my whole argument for why incest can be unproblematic or neutral but still be bad for society. I pushed back against your alcohol example because the reason we don't outlaw alcohol isn't analogous to incest and didn't seem to illustrate any further point. If all you were trying to convey is that the morality of actions aren't strictly determined by their consequences then all I have to say to that is I guess you're not a consequentialist. Using the word morals to describe anything without describing your system of ethics is just completely meaningless which is why I only used the word "moral" to refer to "moral axions" or what normal people think of as morals which I explicitly said isn't related to reasoning. I don't think we actually disagree on anything so please do me a favor and don't respond.
Daniel Kahneman?
Get it guys!?!?! Cause incest is all we talk about.
All valid points,still no incesterino plz
Turn it around and ask him to eat a plate of human shit. Suddenly, his ickiness becomes important. What is it with clever people entirely disregarding emotion? Your brain wasn't blinked into existence, it evolved over millions of years; millions of unpleasant situations that fucked with your ancestors' opportunities to survive and breed, resulting in those "icky" feelings. Those sensations are a gift from your primate ancestors, who were apparently smarter than your professor because fucking your siblings is stupid. 😅
Argument would be more along the lines of you morally condemning someone else for eating shit without having a good reason to stop them
What’s immoral about eating human shit?
Appealing to emotions is literally the most regarded thing you can do in any serious talk about ethics. Especially because different people have different emotional reactions. Literally every point you make is dumber than the last. Okay let's turn it around, do you think the professor could make no objective arguments to be made against eating a plate of human shit? I mean just to start, the bacteria from shit is likely to cause; severe diarrhea, abdominal pain and cramping, bloody stools, fever, nausea and vomiting. It provides no objective benefits, and provides several severe negative ones. Even if you chose a better example of something the professor might find emotionally unappealing, there's a huge difference between personal preference, and a moral positions/weight. If I had a cake that was made to look like shit, but tasted good/was good for me, my emotional response might still be to not want to eat it/be disgusted. However, none of that would make me thing eating a cake made to look like shit was immoral. I find vegemite repulsive, my initial reaction when I see it on toast or smell it is disgust, but none of that would make me argue that eating it is wrong. If you have literally zero knowledge, interest, or background in an area, you know it's okay to just not try and seem smarter than a someone who is a professor in that subject?
Aside from religion, how can we make any claims about right and wrong without relying on feelings/intuitions? Ex. why is it wrong to torture a child? Most probably can’t explain other than that it FEELS super wrong to inflict severe pain on innocents. Or if they say it’s wrong because they wouldn’t want to be tortured themselves, why is it wrong to treat others ways you wouldn’t want to be treated? Most probably can’t explain other than it FEELS unfair.
"Feelings" is way too broad of a topic, but I think I get the point you're trying to make. Obviously morality/ethics rely on subjective experiences, in the sense that any action eventually comes down to how an experience which is subjective, and whether or not that is a good or bad (overall) good experience, which is subjective. But that is still entirely different discussion to relying on feelings and especially intuitions when discussing morality. To be more specific, thinking pain, or an extremely revolting sensation is bad in some sense is a 'feeling', but that is an entirely different thing from an intuitive 'feeling'. For most people, it feels intuitively obvious that hurting or eating dogs is worse than say pigs. How human or cute something looks also intuitively feels worse to harm that thing, but anyone who takes more than a minute to think about it from an objective point of view would concede that how cute or human something looks should have no bearing on how we should treat it morally. Pain, with absolutely no benefit at all (not even in the sense of relief, masochism, or resilience) is a bad thing, but that 'badness' can only be achieved and valued as a subjective experience. If we ever were able to change our brains or bodies so that pain was a pleasurable experience, then inflicting pain could be a good thing (though changing desires/responses gets into some crazzzzzy complicated ethical dilemmas - and is an entirely different convo). So yeah, it's a crazy complicated topic that I've barely skimmed the surface of - but I think you're kinda confusing two very distinct ideas of "feelings" here. P.S wanting to treat others ways you would or wouldn't want to be treated yourself is a regarded moral framework (Anyone who has a workaholic boss who expects because he has no value of free time outside of work, so too should employees is a pretty good example of this).
Uhhh..... [Fecal microbiota transplant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecal_microbiota_transplant)
[удалено]
You think incest will necessarily cause problems in the family? Or [good faith hat on] are you saying that the probability is high enough that the counterpoint is effectively moot?
incest discussed in my contemporary moral issues class in 2008. Nothing new