The hosts discuss the concept of repugnance and its relation to their podcast, explore the reasons behind the success of Trump's campaign, talk about their struggle with distractions and a new app to prevent procrastination, delve into the association between human cloning, disgust, and moral judgment, explore the role of repugnance in ethical and moral decisions, discuss the nature of disgust and its influence on emotions and beliefs, and explore cultural differences in psychological research.
Read more
AI Summary
AI Chapters
Episode notes
auto_awesome
Podcast summary created with Snipd AI
Quick takeaways
Repugnance towards human cloning should not be ignored as it offers moral insight.
The emotion of disgust evolved for pathogen avoidance and is not a reliable indicator of morality.
Using disgust as a basis for moral arguments is flawed and unreliable.
Deep dives
The Argument of Leon Cass: The Wisdom of Repugnance
Leon Cass argues that the feeling of repugnance towards human cloning should not be ignored, as it is an important moral consideration. He suggests that this feeling is a form of moral insight, indicating that human cloning goes against natural processes and violates concepts of individual identity and family. However, his arguments are weak, as they can be applied to other practices that are widely accepted, and the feeling of repugnance is not widely experienced towards human cloning.
The Relationship Between Disgust and Morality
The emotion of disgust evolved as a way to avoid pathogens and has been co-opted to enforce societal norms. However, the emotion of disgust does not provide moral insight, as it is a reflexive and inflexible emotion. It is not a reliable indicator of what is morally right or wrong, as it can be triggered by factors that are unrelated to morality.
The Role of Disgust in Moral Reasoning
Disgust is a powerful emotion that can be used rhetorically to associate negative attributes with certain individuals or groups. However, using disgust as a basis for moral arguments is flawed, as it relies on superficial and associative qualities rather than reasoned moral principles. Disgust alone is not a sufficient or reliable guide for making moral judgments.
The Limitations of Disgust as a Moral Guide
While disgust may play a role in shaping societal norms and moral judgments, it is not a reliable or objective measure of moral rightness or wrongness. The emotion of disgust is inflexible and can be influenced by cultural and personal biases. It is important to consider other moral principles and rational deliberation when making moral judgments, rather than relying solely on feelings of disgust.
The Limitations of Disgust as a Norm-Enforcing Emotion
Disgust is an emotion that evolved to keep us away from bodily fluids and potentially harmful substances, but it is not a reliable emotion for enforcing social norms or making moral judgments. While disgust may play a role in norm enforcement, it is a flawed and subjective emotion that varies from person to person. Disgust is easily triggered by personal preferences rather than objective moral standards. It misfires and can be influenced by cultural, contextual, and individual factors. Therefore, it is not a trustworthy source of moral information.
Disagreements on the Co-opting of Disgust for Norm Enforcement
There is a debate regarding whether disgust has been co-opted by natural selection to serve as a means of norm enforcement. Some argue that disgust has been repurposed to signal moral violations, similar to how it signals the presence of germs. However, this argument is not universally accepted, and there are doubts about the reliability and validity of using disgust as an indicator of moral wrongdoing. Furthermore, cross-cultural research suggests that disgust may not universally represent moral violations. The existence of cultural variations in the language and expression of disgust raises questions about its universal applicability as a moral guide.
We all remember the famous iTunes review calling David and Tamler "repugnant." (And the T-shirt/mugs are coming soon, we promise!) But what did the reviewer mean by that? Was he calling us "immoral"? Did he actually feel disgust when he listened to the podcast? And if so, was there wisdom in his repugnance--did the feeling offer any moral insight about the podcast's value? How did an emotion that originally evolved for pathogen avoidance get into moralizing business anyway? And why do white people kiss their dogs? Plus, an illuminating two week old discussion about the election, and Tamler finally comes around to defending a Kantian position—“the cart-egorical imperative”