# Wisdom of repugnance > Mediated Wiki article. Canonical URL: https://mediated.wiki/source/Wisdom_of_repugnance > Markdown URL: https://mediated.wiki/source/Wisdom_of_repugnance.md > Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_repugnance > Source revision: 1314642129 > License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/) {{Short description|Concept asserting that feelings of disgust can indicate moral truth or wisdom}} The '''wisdom of repugnance''' or '''appeal to disgust''',{{cite interview |first = Martha |last = Nussbaum |author-link = Martha Nussbaum |interviewer = [Reason](/source/Reason_(magazine)) |title = Discussing Disgust |url = http://reason.com/archives/2004/07/15/discussing-disgust |date = July 15, 2004 |access-date = September 5, 2012}} also known informally as the '''yuck factor''',{{Cite news|author=Cohen, Patricia|title=Economists Dissect the 'Yuck' Factor|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/arts/31gross.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin |work=[The New York Times](/source/The_New_York_Times)|date=Jan 31, 2008}} is the belief that an [intuitive](/source/Intuition_(knowledge)) (or "deep-seated") negative response to some thing, idea, or practice should be interpreted as [evidence](/source/evidence) for the [intrinsic](/source/intrinsic)ally harmful or [evil](/source/evil) character of that thing. Furthermore, it refers to the notion that [wisdom](/source/wisdom) may manifest itself in feelings of [disgust](/source/disgust) towards anything which lacks [goodness](/source/Goodness_and_value_theory) or wisdom, though the feelings or the reasoning of such 'wisdom' may not be immediately explicable through [reason](/source/reason). ==Origin and usage== {{Quote box|quote="Revulsion is not an argument; and some of yesterday's abhorrences are today calmly accepted—not always for the better. In some crucial cases, however, repugnance is the emotional expression of deep wisdom, beyond reason's power completely to articulate it. [...] [W]e intuit and we feel, immediately and without argument, the violation of things that we rightfully hold dear. [...] [R]evulsion may be the only voice left that speaks up to defend the central core of our humanity. Shallow are the souls that have forgotten how to shudder."|author = Leon Kass{{Cite book|last=Kass|first=Leon R.|title=Life, Liberty, and the Defense of Dignity: The Challenge for Bioethics|year=2002|publisher=Encounter Books|location = San Francisco|isbn=1-893554-55-4|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/lifelibertydefen00leon}}, p. 150|bgcolor=Cornsilk|width=30%|align=right|salign=right}} The term "[wisdom of repugnance](/source/%3C%2Fincludeonly%3Ewisdom_of_repugnance%3Cincludeonly%3E)" was coined in 1997 by [Leon Kass](/source/Leon_Kass), chairman (2001–2005) of the [President's Council on Bioethics](/source/President's_Council_on_Bioethics), in an article in ''[The New Republic](/source/The_New_Republic)'',{{Cite magazine|author=Kass, Leon R.|title=The Wisdom of Repugnance|magazine=[The New Republic](/source/The_New_Republic)|volume=216|issue=22 |date=June 2, 1997 |pages=17–26|publisher=[CanWest](/source/CanWest)|location=[Washington, DC](/source/Washington%2C_DC)|author-link=Leon Kass}} which was later expanded into a further (2001) article in the same magazine,{{Cite magazine|last=Kass|first=Leon R|title=Preventing a Brave New World: Why We Should Ban Human Cloning Now|magazine=The New Republic|date=May 21, 2001|volume=224|issue=21|pages=30–39}} and also incorporated into his 2002 book ''Life, Liberty, and the Defense of Dignity''. The term originated in discussions of [bioethics](/source/bioethics). It is often used by those who accept its underlying premise; i.e., that repugnance does, in fact, indicate wisdom. It is thus often viewed as [loaded language](/source/loaded_language), and is primarily used by certain [bioconservatives](/source/Bioconservatism) to justify their position. The concept is also used in the study of controversies such as [same-sex marriage](/source/same-sex_marriage),{{cite journal |title=Disgust: A predictor of social conservatism and prejudicial attitudes toward homosexuals. |journal=Personality and Individual Differences |year=2010 | last1=Terrizzi | first1=John A. Jr. |last2=Shook |first2=Natalie J. |last3=Ventis |first3=W. Larry |volume=49 |issue=6 |pages=587–592 |doi=10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.024 }}{{cite book | last=Smith | first=David | title=Less than human: why we demean, enslave, and exterminate others | url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780312532727 | url-access=registration | publisher=St. Martin's Press | location=New York | year=2011 | isbn=978-0-312-53272-7 | oclc=651912610 }}{{cite web | last=Frank | first=Nathaniel | title=How the Mind Rationalizes Homophobia | website=The Atlantic | date=2014-02-21 | url=https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/how-the-mind-rationalizes-homophobia/283998/ | access-date=2019-09-11}} [pornography](/source/pornography),{{cite journal | last1=Fleischman | first1=Diana S. | last2=Hamilton | first2=Lisa Dawn | last3=Fessler | first3=Daniel M. T. | last4=Meston | first4=Cindy M. | editor-last=Mazza | editor-first=Marianna | title=Disgust versus Lust: Exploring the Interactions of Disgust and Fear with Sexual Arousal in Women | journal=PLOS ONE | publisher=Public Library of Science (PLoS) | volume=10 | issue=6 | date=2015-06-24 | issn=1932-6203 | pmid=26106894 | pmc=4479551 | doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0118151 | article-number=e0118151| bibcode=2015PLoSO..1018151F | doi-access=free }} [marijuana legalization](/source/marijuana_legalization),{{cite journal | last=Bostwick | first=J. Michael | title=Blurred Boundaries: The Therapeutics and Politics of Medical Marijuana | journal=Mayo Clinic Proceedings | publisher=Elsevier BV | volume=87 | issue=2 | year=2012 | issn=0025-6196 | pmid=22305029 | pmc=3538401 | doi=10.1016/j.mayocp.2011.10.003 | pages=172–186}} [alternative sexualities](/source/alternative_sexuality){{cite journal | last1=Brown | first1=Nadia | last2=Gershon | first2=Sarah Allen | title=Body politics | journal=Politics, Groups, and Identities | publisher=Informa UK Limited | volume=5 | issue=1 | date=2017-01-02 | issn=2156-5503 | doi=10.1080/21565503.2016.1276022 | pages=1–3| doi-access=free }} and legalization of [abortion](/source/abortion).{{cite journal |title=Abortion and disgust |journal=Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review |year=2013 |last=Cahill |first=Courtney Megan |s2cid=29966755 |url=http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ff20/4715b679252c5c6aef6f8e4867be389ef76c.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190307192446/http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ff20/4715b679252c5c6aef6f8e4867be389ef76c.pdf |archive-date=2019-03-07 |access-date=2019-09-11 }} In all cases, it expresses the view that one's "[gut reaction](/source/Feeling)" might justify objecting to some practice even in the absence of a persuasive rational (e.g., [utilitarian](/source/Utilitarianism)) case against that practice. ==Reactions and criticism== {{Human enhancement sidebar|opposition}} The wisdom of repugnance has been criticized, both as an example of a [fallacious](/source/Fallacy) [appeal to emotion](/source/appeal_to_emotion) and for an underlying premise which seems to reject [rationalism](/source/rationalism). Although mainstream science concedes that a sense of [disgust](/source/disgust) most likely [evolved](/source/Evolution) as a useful [defense mechanism](/source/defence_mechanisms) (e.g. in that it tends to prevent or prohibit potentially harmful behaviour such as [inbreeding](/source/inbreeding), [cuckoldry](/source/Cuckold), [cannibalism](/source/Human_cannibalism), and [coprophagia](/source/coprophagia)), social psychologists question whether the instinct can serve any moral or logical value when removed from the context in which it was originally acquired. [Martha Nussbaum](/source/Martha_Nussbaum) explicitly opposes the concept of a disgust-based [morality](/source/morality) as an appropriate guide for law and policy, instead siding with [John Stuart Mill](/source/John_Stuart_Mill)'s [harm principle](/source/harm_principle) as the proper basis for limiting individual liberties, which supports the legal ideas of [consent](/source/consent), the [age of majority](/source/age_of_majority), [privacy](/source/privacy), and bestows equal rights unto citizens. Nussbaum argues that the "politics of disgust" is misguided because we cannot escape the inherent animality and disgustingness of our bodies (nor the material world), and that disgust has, throughout history, led to [persecution](/source/persecution)—[racism](/source/racism), [antisemitism](/source/antisemitism), [sexism](/source/sexism), and [homophobia](/source/homophobia) have all been driven by popular repulsion.{{Cite web|author=Nussbaum, Martha C.|url= http://chronicle.com/free/v50/i48/48b00601.htm |title=Danger to Human Dignity: The Revival of Disgust and Shame in the Law|work=[The Chronicle of Higher Education](/source/The_Chronicle_of_Higher_Education)|date=August 6, 2004|access-date=2007-11-24|location=Washington, DC|author-link= Martha Nussbaum}} In an interview with ''[Reason](/source/Reason_(magazine))'' magazine, she elaborated: {{blockquote|Disgust and shame are inherently [hierarchical](/source/Hierarchy); they set up ranks and orders of human beings. They are also inherently connected to restrictions on [liberty](/source/liberty) in areas of non-harmful conduct. For both of these reasons, I believe, anyone who cherishes the key democratic values of [equality](/source/egalitarianism) and liberty should be deeply suspicious of the appeal to those emotions in the context of law and [public policy](/source/public_policy).{{cite web|url=http://www.reason.com/news/show/33316.html|title=Discussing Disgust|work=Reason.com|date=2004-07-15|access-date=February 22, 2008|archive-date=February 18, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080218040129/https://www.reason.com/news/show/33316.html|url-status=live}}}} [Stephen Jay Gould](/source/Stephen_Jay_Gould) has remarked that "our prejudices often overwhelm our limited information. [They] are so venerable, so reflexive, so much a part of our second nature, that we never stop to recognize their status as social decisions with radical alternatives—and we view them instead as given and obvious truths."{{Cite book|author=Gould, Stephen Jay|year=1997|title=Full House: The Spread of Excellence From Plato to Darwin|publisher=Harmony|isbn=0-517-70849-3|author-link=Stephen Jay Gould|title-link=Full House: The Spread of Excellence From Plato to Darwin}} British bioethicist [John Harris](/source/John_Harris_(bioethicist)) replied to Kass's view by arguing that, "there is no necessary connection between phenomena, attitudes, or actions that make us uneasy, or even those that disgust us, and those phenomena, attitudes, and actions that there are good reasons for judging unethical. Nor does it follow that those things we are confident are unethical must be prohibited by legislation or regulation."{{Cite book|author=Harris, John|title=Clones, Genes, and Immortality: Ethics and the Genetic Revolution|location=[Oxford](/source/Oxford%2C_England)|publisher=[Oxford University Press](/source/Oxford_University_Press)|year=1998|page=[https://archive.org/details/clonesgenesimmor0000harr/page/37 37]|isbn=0-19-288080-2|author-link=John Harris (bioethicist)|url=https://archive.org/details/clonesgenesimmor0000harr/page/37}} The word ''[squick](/source/wiktionary%3Asquick)'' was created within [BDSM](/source/BDSM) subculture in reaction to this sort of reasoning, and denotes a "gut reaction" of disgust without the implication of any sort of actual moral judgment.{{Cite web|url= http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/squick/ |title=Squick|work=Double-Tongued Dictionary|date=June 23, 2005|access-date=2007-11-24|editor=Barrett, Grant|location=[Brooklyn, NY](/source/Brooklyn%2C_NY)|publisher=Grant Barrett}} In ''[The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion](/source/The_Righteous_Mind)'', psychologist [Jonathan Haidt](/source/Jonathan_Haidt) cites Kass' essay as an argument against "moral degradation," which he contrasts with "[moral elevation](/source/Elevation_(emotion))". Haidt, drawing from research by [Emile Durkheim](/source/Emile_Durkheim), [Robert Putnam](/source/Robert_Putnam) and Richard Sosis, argues that humans' ability to unite around sacred beliefs and practices—even in the absence of immediate utilitarian benefits—is an essential component of human civilizations which facilitates social bonding and in-group cooperation. Without such "binding" moral and sacred values, individuals tend to draw inward and [exhibit fewer prosocial behaviours](/source/Anomie). Consequently, Haidt proposes that moral disgust may be justified in certain, culturally-specific cases wherein they can promote [social capital](/source/social_capital) without significantly negatively impacting the rights of many individuals, citing laws against incest (even with no risk of procreation), flag-burning, [bestiality](/source/Zoophilia) and [consensual cannibalism](/source/Armin_Meiwes) as examples:{{Cite book|author=Haidt, Jonathan|title=The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion|location=[New York](/source/New_York%2C_America)|publisher=[Pantheon Books](/source/Pantheon_Books)|year=2012}} {{blockquote|[In] [Lawrence v. Texas](/source/Lawrence_v._Texas), [Justice [Antonin Scalia](/source/Antonin_Scalia)'s] dissent was that: 'If we allow homosexuality, what's next? Incest, bestiality...' To which I would say: since 5% of people are gay, that's {{em|a lot}} of people, and we really need to try to [overcome the disgust]. The number of people who can't live a full and decent life unless they have sex with a sheep? Now, that's not very many people... If [repugnance] does some good to have a sense that there are still some morals we share, and there are few people out there who can't be happy, I'm willing to let them be unhappy.{{Cite web|url= https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmz10uQsTYE&ab_channel=ReasonTV |title=It's Hard to Gross Out a Libertarian: Jonathan Haidt on Sex, Politics, and Disgust|work=ReasonTV|date=February 26, 2013|access-date=2023-12-09}}}} ==See also== *[Appeal to emotion](/source/Appeal_to_emotion) *[Ethical intuitionism](/source/Ethical_intuitionism) *[Emotivism](/source/Emotivism), which claims that all statements like "X is morally wrong" only express repugnance, not moral facts *[Moral panic](/source/Moral_panic) *[Moralistic fallacy](/source/Moralistic_fallacy) *[Repugnancy costs](/source/Repugnancy_costs) *[Repugnant market](/source/Repugnant_market) *[Uncanny valley](/source/Uncanny_valley) *[Victimless crime](/source/Victimless_crime) ==References== {{Reflist}} ==General references== {{Refbegin}} *{{Cite web |title=Problems of Transhumanism: The Unsustainable Autonomy of Reason |last=Hughes |first=James J. |work=Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies |date=8 January 2010 |url=https://ieet.org/index.php/IEET2/more/hughes20100108/ |access-date=10 September 2019 |quote=...there is likewise no rational reason why society should reject taboos and superstition in favor of a transhuman future; value judgments in favor of tradition, faith, and taboo, or in favor of progress, reason, and liberty both stem from pre-rational premises...We need to learn the courage to acknowledge that...Reason is a good tool but that our values and moral codes are not grounded in Reason. |author-link=James Hughes (sociologist) }} *{{Cite book|last=McGee|first=Glenn|title=The Perfect Baby: A Pragmatic Approach to Genetics|edition=2nd|isbn=0-8476-9759-2|year=2000|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield|location=[New York, NY](/source/New_York%2C_NY)|chapter="Playing God: Fears About Genetic Engineering"|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/perfectbabyparen0000mcge}} [http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/extract/285/5/656 Reviewed] in ''The Journal of the American Medical Association'' (subscription required; access date November 24, 2007) *{{Cite web|author=Bloom, Paul|url= https://www.theguardian.com/life/feature/story/0,13026,1265921,00.html |title=To Urgh Is Human|work=[The Guardian](/source/The_Guardian)|date=July 22, 2004|pages="Science" section|access-date=2007-11-24|location=[London](/source/London%2C_England) and [Manchester](/source/Manchester%2C_England)|author-link= Paul Bloom (professor)}} {{Refend}} {{Fallacies}} Category:Bioethics Category:Appeals to emotion Category:Causal fallacies Category:Ignorance Category:Prejudices Category:Barriers to critical thinking --- Adapted from the Wikipedia article [Wisdom of repugnance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_repugnance) by Wikipedia contributors ([contributor history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom_of_repugnance?action=history)). Available under [Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). Changes may have been made.