The Kass essay on the Ethics of Repugnance, in my reading demonstrates that repugnance can be a valuable cue. If one finds a moral choice repugnant that doesn’t mean one must automatically find it to be ethically wrong. But, it is a cue that the advice of one’s instincts shouldn’t be ignored. Repugnance, it might be argued, largely is a demonstration of culturally ingrained notions of what is right, wrong, and well … icky. I would argue that the correct response to finding something repugnant is to consider that as advice and a cue that this is something which should be inspected in more detail.
Another ethical cue on the other side of repugnance is the relatively unformed instincts of the child. Children in my small experience for example are adamantly pro-life, infants believe in the soul, are very ego-centered, and tend toward consequentialism. My guess is almost everyone will find things to agree with and disagree with in that short list. However, I think the notion, just as with repugnance, that we use this as a cue of things on which we should reflect and have a reason for asserting as right or disagreeing is valid.
What other cues to you (or we in general) use to locate those decisions we make as moral choices which should be examined in detail?
0 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.