Page 1 of 1

The Yuck Factor

Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2022 9:22 am
by Philosophy Now
Charles Fethe on the Wisdom of Repugnance.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/29/The_Yuck_Factor

Re: The Yuck Factor

Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2022 4:11 pm
by Gary Childress
Interesting article. Is there a firm foundation for taking the "yuck" factor credibly? Could one person's "yuck" just be another person's "hurray"?

Re: The Yuck Factor

Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2022 5:55 pm
by popeye1945
Philosophy Now wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 9:22 am Charles Fethe on the Wisdom of Repugnance.


I think a distinction of what is a learned Yuck factor and one that is a naturally occurring biological response, not the easiest of tasks. Perhaps all YUCK factors are learned?

Re: The Yuck Factor

Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2022 8:27 pm
by Gary Childress
popeye1945 wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 5:55 pm
Philosophy Now wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 9:22 am Charles Fethe on the Wisdom of Repugnance.


I think a distinction of what is a learned Yuck factor and one that is a naturally occurring biological response, not the easiest of tasks. Perhaps all YUCK factors are learned?
I think there are some things that would prompt an almost universal "yuck" from people. But I also think that things like the Golden Rule play a significant role as well in how we should approach ethics. For example, things like rape may seem desirable or "non-yucky" to a perpetrator, however, if the perpetrator asks himself if he'd like to be forced into sex against his will, then he would see why he is wrong to do that. So it would be a combination of the "yuck" factor and the golden rule. I think one without the other might not be enough.

Re: The Yuck Factor

Posted: Sun Feb 13, 2022 8:52 pm
by popeye1945
Gary Childress,

I think there are some things that would prompt an almost universal "yuck" from people. But I also think that things like the Golden Rule play a significant role as well in how we should approach ethics. For example, things like rape may seem desirable or "non-yucky" to a perpetrator, however, if the perpetrator asks himself if he'd like to be forced into sex against his will, then he would see why he is wrong to do that. So it would be a combination of the "yuck" factor and the golden rule. I think one without the other might not be enough.
[/quote]

Gary,
I agree for the most part, but I think if morality was based upon our common biology things would take on greater clarity as to what is moral and what is not. As it stands morality is based on different things for different people, a rather hodge-podge situation that generates chaos.

Re: The Yuck Factor

Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2022 1:21 am
by Age
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 4:11 pm Interesting article. Is there a firm foundation for taking the "yuck" factor credibly? Could one person's "yuck" just be another person's "hurray"?
Yes.

Re: The Yuck Factor

Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2022 1:26 am
by Age
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 8:27 pm
popeye1945 wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 5:55 pm
Philosophy Now wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 9:22 am Charles Fethe on the Wisdom of Repugnance.


I think a distinction of what is a learned Yuck factor and one that is a naturally occurring biological response, not the easiest of tasks. Perhaps all YUCK factors are learned?
I think there are some things that would prompt an almost universal "yuck" from people. But I also think that things like the Golden Rule play a significant role as well in how we should approach ethics. For example, things like rape may seem desirable or "non-yucky" to a perpetrator, however, if the perpetrator asks himself if he'd like to be forced into sex against his will, then he would see why he is wrong to do that.
But some people like to be so-called 'raped'. So, to them, 'rape' may also seem desirable or so-called 'non-yucky'.

What about if a perpetrator of 'rape' asks "herself" if "she" would like to be forced into sex against "her" will, then would "she" also see why "she" is wrong to do that?

Or, does this only work one way?
Gary Childress wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 8:27 pm So it would be a combination of the "yuck" factor and the golden rule. I think one without the other might not be enough.

Re: The Yuck Factor

Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2022 1:31 am
by Age
popeye1945 wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 8:52 pm Gary Childress,

I think there are some things that would prompt an almost universal "yuck" from people. But I also think that things like the Golden Rule play a significant role as well in how we should approach ethics. For example, things like rape may seem desirable or "non-yucky" to a perpetrator, however, if the perpetrator asks himself if he'd like to be forced into sex against his will, then he would see why he is wrong to do that. So it would be a combination of the "yuck" factor and the golden rule. I think one without the other might not be enough.
Gary,
I agree for the most part, but I think if morality was based upon our common biology things would take on greater clarity as to what is moral and what is not. [/quote]

But what is 'morally' Right and what is NOT (or 'morally' Wrong) is ALREADY KNOWN, and has ALREADY been CLARIFIED, IRREFUTABLY by the way.

But like with ALL knowledge it HAS TO COME TO BE KNOWN, which is just a continual PROCESS.

And, in the days when this was being written, 'you' have just NOT come across this knowledge, YET.

It is like with the knowledge that the earth actually revolves around the sun, (and NOT the other way around), the COMING-TO-LEARN and KNOW this 'knowledge' is just a gradual process.
popeye1945 wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 8:52 pm As it stands morality is based on different things for different people, a rather hodge-podge situation that generates chaos.
Now, in the days when this was being written, this was VERY True, and VERY OBVIOUS.

Re: The Yuck Factor

Posted: Mon Feb 14, 2022 3:28 am
by popeye1945
Age,

Are you inferring that morality is already established as a truth due to biblical scriptures ? The only rational foundation for morality is our common biology itself, and I do not believe this has been established anywhere in the past or in the present.