The concept of the "wisdom of repugnance", a phrase first coined by bioethicist Leon Kass, has been much maligned recently. Many critics believe the idea that the "ick factor" should play a role in ethical debate is patently absurd and completely irrational. I disagree and in this three-part series I hope to show that the emotion of disgust not only has a valid role to play in moral decision-making but that human dignity is put in danger when we reject the "deep wisdom" of repugnance.
Relating an incident that occurred on an expedition to South America, Charles Darwin wrote:
"In Tierra del Fuego a native touched with his fingers some cold preserved meat which I was eating at our bivouac, and plainly showed utter disgust at its softness; whilst I felt utter disgust at my food being touched by a naked savage, though his hands did not appear dirty."
This anecdote helps illustrate that while we may differ about what evokes the response, disgust is one of the few universally shared human emotions. The native was expressing what psychologists call a 'core disgust." Unlike animals, who instinctively seek out certain foods, humans have to learn what to eat and are justifiably cautious about sampling new foods. Since the cold, soft piece of preserved meat had a tactile resemblance to animal feces, the native was understandably disgusted by the thought of eating it. The revulsion was triggered by the idea that 'like produces like'; since the preserved meat had many simliarities to feces it might contain be similarly contaminated.
Darwin's unease was also based on a variation of the same core disgust. While the native believed that an object (the meat) could be contaminated because of its similarity to another object (feces), Darwin believed the contagion could be spread by contact with the native.
Since this incident was published in 'The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals" four years before Robert Koch proved the germ theory of disease, its unlikely that Darwin understood the connection between dirty hands, microbes, and contamination. More likely he was simply reacting to a pre-rational intuition that belied his scientific understanding.
But where did this emotion come from? Is it possible then that the emotion of disgust was a result of natural selection? Can revulsion be classified as an adaptive mechanism that prevents us from coming into contact with contaminants? Not likely. Why? Because we all start out as babies.
Infants have no concept of disgust. They will, quite literally, put anything into their mouths. While most other animals instinctively avoid contact with certain items, human infants do not. Unable to make a distintion between a peice of food and the "gift" the puppy left on the carpet, they will attempt to eat both.
We can’t, therefore, automatically assume that disgust evolved as a means of biological survival. Since the full range of disgust triggers must be taught, the emotion must be learned. And as with any knowledge that is not inherently in our biological makeup, disgust can be culturally relative and passed on through successive generations.
By this we can conclude that there is such a thing as a 'wisdom of repugnance", at least as far as the 'core disgusts", and particularly as it relates to food. But does the concept have any meaning when applied to the 'social functions of disgust?" Before that question can be answered we must first examine the relation between 'core disgust" and a concept that psychologists classify as 'socio-moral disgust." That is the issue we will turn to next.
Part 2 - Disgust as a Form of Cognition
1
Joe,
Infants do have a sense of disgust, just a very immature one. Why else would they wail like a siren when they have crapped their diapers?
posted on 03.14.2004 5:11 PM2
Mike, it isn't disgust they feel, it is the discomfort of the soiled diaper. If left too long diaper rash develops. Maybe you were just kidding anyway. :)
posted on 03.14.2004 7:17 PM3
Disgust is good for you, study shows:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994563
4
Scott,
I was sorta joking. It is a form of disgust, as I said it is a very immature form. You're born with the instinct that wallowing in your excrement is very bad. When was the last time you saw a baby or small child playing with it?
My problem with the "Wisdom of Repugnance" is that it is an open-ended, post-modernist morality system based on what I've learned of post-modernism. It is not based in reason or divine revelation and therefore is purely subjective.
posted on 03.15.2004 11:30 AM5
Mike,
My problem with the "Wisdom of Repugnance" is that it is an open-ended, post-modernist morality system based on what I've learned of post-modernism. It is not based in reason or divine revelation and therefore is purely subjective.
Really? I think the WoR is the very opposite of post-modernist morality. I would argue that is essentially just an intuition understanding of natural law (which is itself a form of divine, albeit common or natural, revelation).
posted on 03.15.2004 12:06 PM6
Joe,
Some people find cloning to be repugnant, others do not. I am one of those who doesn't, because I believe that what defines a human being are their life experiences.
Many people find many different things repugnant for wholey different reasons. Most social conservatives find drug use to be extremely repugnant, but many other types on the right disagree. It's too subject to go by IMO.
As far as I am concerned this issue is nothing more than a manifestation of a greater tendency in America to think that advancements require no sacrifice.
posted on 03.15.2004 1:29 PM7
I came to this site off a goole search on the definition of repugnance. I wanted to look it up bcause it is a word used to define abhor ( to regard with extreme repugnance : LOATHE
synonym see HATE).
Abhor is the word Job uses (in the KJ version) to describe how he sees himself after he sees God for the first time. I would say that repugnance is a quite healthy "ethical" response in this context.
I understand that Mother Theresa and other godly people felt similarly about themselves.
posted on 03.28.2004 5:36 PM8
The Problem with WoR, among other things, is that it falls into the "naturalistic fallacy" of equating the "natural" with the "morally good." This is neither morality nor wisdom, but simple fatalism. What's more, no one who proposes this standard intends for it to be applied with any consistency (i.e. Plenty of "natural" things which no one would argue we should draw moral lessons from). Inevitably, anyone who proposes this standard will pick and choose which cases to apply it to, and which not. Just because some people (only some) find it subjectively displeasing for reasons they can't quite put their finger on, is a shakey legal foundation at best, even in a non-liberal society. WoR is just plain dumb!
posted on 04.04.2004 2:40 AM9
You guys need to read Paul Ekman, the guy who defined the six "basic" emotional facial expressions of happiness, sadness, fear, anger, surprise and disgust. It's been a while since I read him, but I believe he found that babies do indeed make the facial expression of disgust, including wrinking the nose and sticking out the tongue.
His website:
http://www.paulekman.com/