The Nature And Moral Significance Of Disgust

The way the human mind operates is a mystery to all. Through thinking that the mind is something that can be comprehended humans have created the art of psychology and psychiatry, where the inner machinations of one’s mind are turned into nothing more than phrases and terms. Between every person there lies a sense of morality, no matter who. The sense of morality is not the same though, as children we learn to feel pain and suffering as others do, and to put the shoes of others on. In the end, it seems, that almost all people brought up well as children, turn out to be the people considered to have a strong sense of morality and can feel what pains some must endure. Though the way being brought up does not define a

A famous philosopher Socrates once said, 'the unexamined life is not worth living.' With that idea, the question 'Are Human Beings Intrinsically Evil?' has been asked by philosophers for many years. It is known as one of the unanswerable questions. Determinists have come to the conclusion that we are governed by the laws of science, that there is nothing we can do about ourselves being evil because we naturally are. Evil is simply the act of causing pain. In this essay I will argue that human beings are born with a natural reaction to 'fear and chaos' to be instinctively evil.

What is morality? Where does our sense of morality come from and why is it important for us to know? The cognitive scientist, psychologist, linguist, and scholar, Steven Pinker discusses this in his essay, “The Moral Instinct”. In this essay, Pinker claims that our morality sense is innate, it constantly changes, and it is universal among each culture. Pinker also explains that moral sense shapes our judgement as it is something that we value and seek in other people. The science of the moral sense is important since it shows how morality impacts our actions and it explains why we act in certain ways.

Each action we take as humans determines our personal character and ethical theories guide us and teach us right from wrong (Mosser, 2013).

I infer several conclusions from Smith’s definition and analysis of sympathy. First, sympathy is a mode of perception. The “eye of the mind” or the imagination perceives the situation witch elicits primary sentiments and secondary agreeable or disagreeable sentiments which are the basis of moral judgement. Secondly, I conclude from Smith’s propositions that the mind is a passive recipient, therefore moral knowledge is a by-product of external stimuli. In other words our external sense stimuli provoke a change in our minds, from which our imaginations produce sentiments by which we judge the propriety or merit of another’s conduct.

In one experiment, involving various bad smells, it was noted that the participants that had been exposed to a mild-stink or strong-stink smell were more severe in their moral judgements than participants exposed to no bad smell. In all four experiments, the same results were obtained, participants that felt disgust were likely to be more severe in their judgments. This paper concludes that participants who believe in their intuitions were often tricked by outside forces, such as a bad smell. Noting this phenomenon, the paper suggests that self-awareness of these outside factors can help mitigate their effect. However, they also suggest it is not wise to completely remove somatic markers. In one study, the patients were not able to incorporate feelings and sensations into their decision making; as a result, the patients were unable to come to conclusions on any simple subject matter. The paper concludes that it is ok to rely on these intuitions even if they can be easily influenced, but it also says we must be aware of factors that can distort our intuitions. By following this methodology, one can mitigate making biased decisions due to his or her

Rhetorical Analysis: Do the Right Thing In Do the Right Thing, author Rebecca Saxe examines what scientist claim to know about morality and investigates the possibility that a basic, fundamental part moral thinking is shared by all humans across a variety of cultures, beliefs, and principles. This morality is quite diverse, just as the people in this world, but Saxe uses ethos, pathos and logos to lead audiences to discover that even though our different cultures, beliefs and principles can define what we believe to be right and wrong, humans contain a “moral instinct”, that is shared by all peoples, even those unable to identify morals. Saxe does not simply start by throwing near meaningless psychological and neurocognitive jargon at the audience.

According to some, a “conscience is a stronger” power than the human instincts that stayed put over years of evolution (Anonymous, “... Powerful Motivator”). It is considered a “knowledge of ourselves, or awareness of moral principles… “ (Giubilini, “Conscience”). Allegedly, all humans are born with a sense of morality, or else how does the world turn ‘round? But the truth is that the conscience is not something that anyone is born with. Rather, “conscience will always require points of reference which can be acquired through education and moral training.” (Berg, “What is Moral Conscience?”). Inner integrity must be taught, for children do not know how the world functions. If a conscience is not taught, it may not exist at all. For Alfons Heck, Hitler Youth leader, his ethical side diminished under the weight of his high position in the ranks. “It was astonishing how fast these kids grew up under such tremendous pressure,” (Ayer et al. 113) says he. As the adolescents in the army bonded over wartime struggles and mass death, it could be said that members of the Hitler Youth had their morals worn away by those that reigned over them in an effort to further the Nazi cause. Furthermore, in the Nazi party, many felt that the conscience didn’t exist. Hitler himself said,”Conscience is a Jewish invention, it is a blemish...” (Rauschning et al.

When canvassing the barbarousness of the world through the media, with cameras fixated on wars, starving children, injustices, and violence, spectators are swindled into believing that evil is impetuous in today’s society. But what spectators fail to see, often as they remark to themselves, “that could never be me,” is that society as a whole is not evil. The divisor of this wickedness, however, is the misconception that evil is an external force. In reality, evil is an internal compulsion manifested in each and every person. The formulating component between this idea of “good and evil” is control, and lack thereof.

261). Within this moral identity, there are moral resources that include psychological responses such as sympathy or respect towards others that governs how an individual acts (Glover, 2012, p 22-23). The tendency for individuals to act on these responses signifies that humans have deeply rooted psychological disposition separate from any societal influence to act humanely (Gaspar, slide 2). The weakening of these psychological responses can result in the eradication of an individual's moral identity making them susceptible to acting inhumanely. Consequently, the erosion of one’s moral identity is precisely what happened during the twentieth century that lead to the carnality of war seen throughout the century.

Morality is defined as a system or code that we humans use to differentiate between right and wrong. This system could be derived from a number of factors: religion, culture, and upbringing. It is difficult enough to determine what an individual's morals are, but going further to determine how we came to possess those morals is even more ambitious. Still, regardless of its difficulty, this subject consumes many philosophers and psychologists. One such moral psychologists, Jonathan Haidt, is theorizing the possibility of evolution causing ones morality. Haidt is a moral psychologist at the Universtiy of Virgina further believes that complex social structures such as religion and politics as well as our need for social structures affect

From the moment they are born, humans have a naturally evil predisposition. Although the term ‘evil’ is difficult to define, there are various views on morality. The most commonly referenced one, Moral Objectivism, holds that moral standards are universally transcendent, and that certain acts are right or wrong independent of human subjectivity. It is by this unspoken moral code that humanity’s acts are judged. There is some debate whether a fundamental human nature exists, as social and environmental influences are present from the moment someone is born. But if we can define human nature, it is beyond doubt, naturally evil. The English philosopher Thomas

Chapter 3 explores the concept of universally shared basic emotions, an idea that was first advanced as a theory by Charles Darwin. Paul Ekman and Jakk Panksepp studied the concept of

For many people, they live their lives based on emotions. Emotions of happiness, love, success, and many more, could possibly be the most satisfying feelings. Except we commonly experience unpleasant emotions. There are emotions of anger, hatred, sadness, and disgrace. A very important question in the understanding of the human mind and highly related to cognitive science, is how do these emotions affect human cognition and the impact on our abilities to be rational? To tackle this question, we need to understand what emotions are, but not solely in the manner we are all familiar with, we need to understand them from a cognitive nature involving our physiology, psychology, and environment. Cognition, according to the Oxford definition

Morality is an important component of a human being because it helps shape the ethical foundation that every human being has. Whether to be good, evil, honest, or deceitful are just some of the traits morality helps us develop. Thus, it is evident that morality is a crucial component of a human being. However, what ultimately drives moral action? This question is debated and investigated against many philosophers, a few of them being Thomas Hobbes, Frans de Waal, and David Hume.