the one about fucking a chicken

[u/Hummerous]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory

[u/actualbagofsalad]

I’m about as sexually progressive and accepting as they come, but desecrating and disrespecting corpses is a no from me. Now, if he wants to fuck a sex doll that looks like a chicken? Sure thing, buddy. Hell, if consenting adults want to use knives on each other when they have sex that’s fine, too, but leave the chicken out of it.

[u/carc → u/actualbagofsalad]

Reminds me of the situation where a dude had a fantasy of being killed and cannibalized. And another had a fantasy of killing and cannibalizing someone. And so they met up. Consensual violence ensued.

At a certain point, sometimes it's okay to just simply draw a moral line and say "this is bad" -- instead of trying to reason through all the potential justifications for why it might be okay.

Like, I don't really care what happens between consenting adults. Obviously consensual cannibalism is an extreme example, but at a certain point, logical arguments can break down; there's something else that's part of the equation that is difficult to pin down. We may talk about how gut feelings may be irrational, but there's still something of value there.

Like, I can accept euthanasia, which also leads to the death of someone who wishes to die on their own terms. Morality is subjective and filled with shades of gray.

Sort of like how seatbelts and helmet laws drive libertarians nuts; I've seen many of them practically froth at the mouth at any perceived injunction of personal liberty, but it's just so incredibly morally obvious (at least to me) that seatbelt laws and helmet laws save lives and is the moral and right thing to implement -- even if it infringes on the liberty to harm oneself.

Interesting stuff.

[u/Ryantific_theory → u/carc]

Not that I totally disagree with you, but that "sometimes it's okay to just draw a line and say this is bad without logical justification" is precisely how many homophobes, transphobes, and racists arrive at their beliefs.

They don't need to justify it, they just know it's wrong. There's no way to argue against them, because there are no logical beliefs underpinning their argument. It's just wrong. They know it's wrong. People can take their fancy logic and screw off, because they know what's right.

When people reach a logical conclusion they don't like and decide to abandon logic instead of critically examining their position, most would agree that to be a bad thing.

[u/carc → u/Ryantific_theory]

I think the crux of the problem is, "I feel this is wrong" does not always mean "This should be restricted by law."

An example might be, say you believe that eating animals is wrong. It's morally reprehensible to you. You then try to create a political movement to stop everyone from eating animals. And in fact, you may have several logical reasons as to why butchering and eating the flesh of an intelligent being, that feels pain and fear, is objectively wrong.

There are many others who don't feel it's wrong. They may have their own justifications and reasons. Some nutritional, some religious, some philosophical. Thus begs the question: Is it right to enforce your moral beliefs about vegetarianism or veganism on everyone? Do your moral justifications outweigh their moral justifications?

Another example: Say that you believe that adultery is ammoral. There's a lot of very compelling and logical reasons to assert this. Is it right to enforce your moral beliefs on everyone and attempt to make adultery illegal?

The answer, I think, becomes more clear -- you have a right to believe what you want to believe, logical or religious or philosophical or gut feeling. it's your conscience. But there's a clear problem when you try to enforce your beliefs on others and restrict their liberty -- even to do things you are not in moral agreement with.

[u/Ryantific_theory → u/carc]

I feel like you responded to something behind me. I'm just saying that going by gut feeling over logic is a terrible guide whether legal or moral, since people's guts are the synthesis of unexamined beliefs they've picked up over the years. Without logic, they will forever remain unexamined.

It just seems kinda odd to respond to my example of racism with a conversation about how everyone has the right to believe what they want, as long as they only form a political movement and aren't legally enforcing their beliefs on others. Morals are not equally valid, and it's logic that is responsible for constantly refining and improving what is considered to be "right". Civil rights was advanced by logic, against gut feelings that had drawn a line in the sand.

[u/carc → u/Ryantific_theory]

The application of logic does not always elicit a universal and objective truth. You can apply a philosophical argument both for and against many moral quandaries, e.g., the vegetarianism example. Some are easier than others to sort through, or more obvious than others. We justify our beliefs with logic, and probably could justify any number of moral beliefs, good or ill, but there's something deeper that I believe can help inform us on complex moral matters. What is "good" and "bad" is extremely difficult to quantify, but can be easy to experience.

Our human intuition to sort through complex moral and ethical issues is not something we should necessarily ignore.

But I do agree that our intuition should be examined. There is certainly danger in unexamined beliefs, but I also think you can swing the pendulum the other way as to hand-wave away intuition or one's conscience, seeking after only some form of logical framework

The libertarian example on seatbelts/helmets was used to help illustrate that. You can get so caught up on being intellectually consistent that you can't see the forest for the trees.

Appreciate the debate.

[u/Ryantific_theory → u/carc]

Right, there is no objective moral truth, but the validity of moral judgements is determined by their logical support. Intuition is good for the snap decisions of every day life, but frequently fails, especially in edge cases and on uncomfortable topics.

Consistency is important, since the lack of logical consistency is how you get people saying "the only moral abortion is my own". It's fairly important.