Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:59:00.410Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Disgust in Bioethics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 February 2012

ARLEEN SALLES  and
INMACULADA DE MELO-MARTIN
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

“Dissecting Bioethics,” edited by Tuija Takala and Matti Häyry, welcomes contributions on the conceptual and theoretical dimensions of bioethics.

The section is dedicated to the idea that words defined by bioethicists and others should not be allowed to imprison people’s actual concerns, emotions, and thoughts. Papers that expose the many meanings of a concept, describe the different readings of a moral doctrine, or provide an alternative angle to seemingly self-evident issues are therefore particularly appreciated.

The themes covered in the section so far include dignity, naturalness, public interest, community, disability, autonomy, parity of reasoning, symbolic appeals, and toleration.

All submitted papers are peer reviewed. To submit a paper or to discuss a suitable topic, contact Tuija Takala at tuija.takala@helsinki.fi.

Type
Dissecting Bioethics
Information
Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , April 2012 , pp. 267 - 280
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. See, for example, Rozin, P, Fallon, AE.A perspective on disgust. Psychological Review 1987;94:23–41CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Kekes, J.Disgust and moral taboos. Philosophy 1992;67(262):431–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Miller, WI.The Anatomy of Disgust. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1997Google Scholar; Kahan, D. The progressive appropriation of disgust. In: Bandes, S, ed. The Passions of Law. New York and London: New York University Press; 1999:63–79Google Scholar; Rozin, P, Haidt, J, McCauley, CR. Disgust. In: Lewis, M, Haviland, J, eds. Handbook of Emotions. 3rd ed. New York: Guilford; 2008:757–76Google Scholar; Nussbaum, M.Hiding from Humanity: Disgust, Shame, and the Law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2004Google Scholar; Deigh, J.The politics of disgust and shame. Journal of Ethics 2006;10:383–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Nussbaum, M.From Disgust to Humanity: Sexual Orientation and Constitutional Law. New York: Oxford University Press; 2010.Google Scholar

2. Kolnai A. Disgust. In: Smith B, Korsmeyer C, eds. On Disgust. Chicago and La Salle, IL: Open Court; 2004:29–91.

3. Devlin, P.The Enforcement of Morals. London, New York, and Toronto: Oxford University Press; 1965.Google Scholar

4. For a sample of articles in bioethics that deal explicitly with the issue of disgust, see, for instance, Kass, L.The wisdom of repugnance: Why we should ban the cloning of humans. The New Republic 1997;216:17–26Google ScholarPubMed; Midgley, M.Biotechnology and monstrosity: Why we should pay attention to the “yuk factor.” Hastings Center Report 2000;30(5):7–15CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Caplan, A.Revulsion is not enough. American Journal of Bioethics 2002;2(3):57–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Häyry, M. Deeply felt disgust—a Devlinian objection to cloning humans? In: Almond, B, Parker, M, eds. Ethical Issues in the New Genetics: Are Genes Us? Aldershot: Ashgate; 2003:55–67Google Scholar; de Grey, AD.Life extension, human rights, and the rational refinement of repugnance. Journal of Medical Ethics 2005;31(11):659–63CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Kaebnick, G.Reasons of the heart: Emotion, rationality and the “wisdom of repugnance.” Hastings Center Report 2008;38(4):36–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Roache, R, Clarke, S.Bioconservatism, bioliberalism, and the wisdom of reflecting on repugnance. Monash Bioethics Review 2009;28(1):4.1–21CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Niemelä J. What puts the “yuck” in the yuck factor? Bioethics 2010 Feb 25. [Epub ahead of print]

5. See note 4, Roache, Clarke 2009.

6. See note 4, Kass 1997.

7. See Callahan S. The role of emotion in ethical decisionmaking. Hastings Center Report 1988;18(3):9–14.

8. Carse, AL.The voice of care: Implications for bioethical education. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 1991;16:5–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

9. Gaylin, W.Knowing good and doing good. Hastings Center Report 1994;24(3):36–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

10. Little, MO.Why a feminist approach to bioethics. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 1996;6:1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11. Carson, R.Sensibility and rationality in bioethics. Hastings Center Report 1994;24(3):23–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

12. For a discussion of the neglect of emotions in the clinical setting see Connelly, J.Emotions, ethics and decisions in primary care. Journal of Clinical Ethics 1998;9(3):225–34Google ScholarPubMed; Robichaud, A.Healing and feeling: The clinical ontology of emotion. Bioethics 2003;17:59–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

13. For example, Beauchamp, T, Childress, J.Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 1994.Google Scholar

14. For a discussion of this issue see, for example, Greene, J, Haidt, J.How (and where) does moral judgment work? Trends in Cognitive Psychology 2002;6(12):517–23CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Illes, J.Neuroethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006Google ScholarPubMed; Damasio, A.Neuroscience and ethics: Intersections. American Journal of Bioethics 2007;7(1):3–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

15. See note 4, Kass 1997.

16. For this point see also Elliot, C.Passion slaves. Society 2007;44(4):31–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17. For more recent discussions claiming that arguments against biotechnological advances are weakened by their reliance on emotional considerations see Caplan, A.Rhetoric and reality in stem cell debates. Society 2007;44(4):26–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Macklin, R.The new conservatives: Who are they and what do they seek? Hastings Center Report 2006;36(1):34–43CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Harris, J.Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case for Making Better People. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2007.Google Scholar Jon Shields turns those arguments on their head by holding that many times it is those who favor biotechnological advances who have a purely “sentimental” case for them; Shields, J.The stem-cell fight. Society 2007;44(4):18–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar What all these authors have in common is the idea that emotions do not appropriately contribute to the ethical discussion.

18. See note 4, Midgley 2000, at 9.

19. Solomon, R.The Passions: The Myth and Nature of Human Emotions. New York: Doubleday; 1984.Google Scholar

20. Nussbaum, M.Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

21. See note 4, Midgley 2000.

22. See also Midgley, M.Heart and Mind: The Varieties of Moral Experience. London: Methuen; 1981.Google Scholar

23. See note 4, Kaebnick 2008, at 36.

24. See note 1, Nussbaum 2004.

25. See note 1, Rozin et al. 2008.

26. See note 1, Nussbaum 2004.

27. See note 4, Kass 1997:20.

28. See note 2, Kolnai 2004, and note 3, Devlin 1965. For more recent defenses of the relations between disgust and morality, see note 1, Kekes 1992; Miller 1997; and Kahan 1999.

29. See note 4, Kass 1997, at 20. For a discussion of this point see also note 4, Roache and Clarke 2009.

30. See, for example, Dawkins R. What’s wrong with cloning? In: Nussbaum M, Sunstein C, eds. Clones and Clones. New York: W.W. Norton; 1998.

31. See also note 4, Caplan 2002; note 17, Harris 2007.

32. Tribe, L. On not banning cloning for the wrong reasons. In: Nussbaum, M, Sunstein, C, eds. Clones and Clones. New York: W.W. Norton; 1998.Google Scholar

33. Agar, N.Liberal Eugenics: In Defense of Human Enhancement. New York: Blackwell; 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

34. Lempert, R. Can there be a progressive bioethics? In: Moreno, J, Berger, S, eds. Progress in Bioethics. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2010.Google Scholar

35. See note 4, Nussbaum 2004.

36. Turner, L.Is repugnance wise? Visceral responses to biotechnology. Nature Biotechnology 2004;22(3):269–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

37. See note 4, Niemelä 2010.

38. Nelson, JL.Hippocrates’ Maze. New York: Rowman & Littlefield; 2003, at 134.Google Scholar

39. For an exception to this, see note 4, Niemelä 2010.

40. See note 1, Rozin et al. 2008.

41. For someone who disagrees with the link between disgust and food rejection but who still believes that tutored disgust can play an intelligible role in explaining our moral judgments, see note 1, Deigh 2006.

42. See Rozin, P, Haidt, J, McCauley, C. Disgust: The body and soul emotion. In: Dalgleish, T, Power, M, eds. Handbook of Cognition and Emotion. Chichester: John Wiley; 1999:429–45.Google Scholar

43. See also note 1, Rozin et al. 2008.

44. Haidt, J, Rozin, P, McCauley, C, Imada, S.Body, psyche, and culture: The relationship between disgust and morality. Psychology and Developing Societies 1997;9(1):107–31, at 121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45. See note 33, Agar 2004, at 57.

46. See note 1, Deigh 2006.

47. See note 1, Rozin, Fallon 1987; Kekes 1992; Miller 1997; Kahan 1999; Rozin et al. 2008; Nussbaum 2004; Deigh 2006; and Nussbaum 2010.

48. For someone who does not hold a cognitive view of the emotions but who still argues that emotions are not just feelings but rather represent something that should be taken into account, see Prinz, J.Gut Reactions: A Perceptual Theory of Emotion. New York: Oxford University Press; 2004Google Scholar; and Prinz, J.The Emotional Construction of Morals. New York: Oxford University Press; 2007.Google Scholar

49. See note 1, Rozin, Fallon 1987; Nussbaum 2004; Rozin et al. 2008; and Nussbaum 2010.

50. See note 1, Nussbaum 2004.

51. For references using disgust as a rhetorical devise or discussing the power of such use, see, Sun, M.Market sours on milk hormone. Science 1989;246:876–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Jones J. Genetic engineering: Tinkering with the destinies of mice and men. The Guardian 1995 Oct 29; Rifkin J. The Biotech Century: Harnessing the Gene and Remaking the World. New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Putnam; 1998; Brown, N.Xenotransplantation: Normalizing disgust. Science as Culture 1999;8(3):327–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bailey R. The yuck factor: Activists try to patent fear. Reason 2002 May 15; available at http://reason.com/archives/2002/05/15/the-yuck-factor (last accessed 29 Nov 2011); Schmidt, CW.The yuck factor: When disgust meets discovery. Environmental Health Perspectives 2008;116(12):A524–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Berg, T.Human brain cells in animal brains: Philosophical and moral considerations. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 2006;6(1):89–107CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Blue, G.Food, publics, science. Public Understanding of Science 2010;19(2):147–54; and note 17, Shields 2007.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

52. See note 51, Brown 1999.

53. See also Robert, JS, Baylis, F.Crossing species boundaries. American Journal of Bioethics 2003;3(3):1–13, 20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

54. Streiffer, R.In defense of the moral relevance of species boundaries. American Journal of Bioethics 2003;3(3):37–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

55. See note 1, Rozin et al. 2008.

56. See note 4, Kass 1997, and note 51, Rifkin 1998; Berg 2006.

57. See note 4, Kass 1997.

58. Ibid.

59. See note 4, Caplan 2002, and note 51, Schmidt 2008.

60. See also Callahan, D.Images, arguments, and interests. Society 2007;44(4);22–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

61. Callahan, D, Magnus, D.Medical Ethics (Burlingt Mass) 2001 fall:6–7.Google Scholar

62. Haidt, J.The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review 2001;108:814–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

63. See note 51, Brown 1999; Schmidt 2008.

64. We are not arguing that the ideas of unnaturalness or playing god are always used to express a feeling of disgust, only that sometimes they are indeed used to convey disgust or repugnance.

65. Editorial. Overcoming the "yuk" factor. Nature Biotechnology 2001;19:491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

66. See note 1, Nussbaum 2004; note 4, de Grey 2005; and note 17, Harris 2007. See also, Pence, G.Who Is Afraid of Human Cloning? Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield; 1998;Google Scholar

67. See note 17, Harris 2007; see note 66, Pence 1998.

68. Berger, S, Moreno, J. Bioethics progressing. In: Moreno, J, Berger, S. Progress in Bioethics: Science, Policy, and Politics. Cambridge and London: MIT Press; 2010; 3–22.Google Scholar

69 Kulinowski, K.Nanotechnology: From “wow” to “yuck”? Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 2004;24:13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

70. See note 17, Harris 2007; and note 68, Berger, Moreno 2010. See also Hughes JJ. Technoprogressive biopolitics and human enhancement. In: Moreno, J, Berger, S.Progress in Bioethics: Science, Policy, and Politics. Cambridge and London: MIT Press; 2010:163–88.Google Scholar

71. See note 17, Harris 2007; note 68, Berger, Moreno 2010; and note 70, Hughes 2010. See also Miller, HI, Morandini, P, Ammann, K.Is biotechnology a victim of anti-science bias in scientific journals? Trends in Biotechnology 2008 Mar;26(3):122–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

72. See note 17, Harris 2007; note 68, Berger, Moreno 2010; see also, Farah, MJ.Rationality is a better basis for ethics than repugnance. Nature 2008;451:521.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

73. Wynne, B.Creating public alienation: Expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMO. Science as Culture 2001;10(4):445–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

74. Magnus, D, Caplan, A. Food for thought: The primacy of the moral debate in the GMO debate. In: Ruse, M, Castly, D, eds. Genetically Modified Foods. Amherst, NH: Prometheus Books; 2002:80–7.Google Scholar

75. Wynne, B.Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science—hitting the notes, but missing the music? Community Genetics 2006;9(3):211–20.Google ScholarPubMed

76. Macnaghten, P.Animals in their nature a case study on public attitudes to animals, genetic modification and “nature.” Sociology 2004;38(3):533–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

77. Han, J-H, Harrison, RW.Factors influencing urban consumers’ acceptance of genetically modified foods. Review of Agricultural Economics 2007;29(4):700–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

78. Hauskeller, M.Biotechnology and the Integrity of Life: Taking Public Fears Seriously. Burlington, VT: Ashgate; 2007.Google Scholar

79. Thompson, PB, Hannah, W.Food and agricultural biotechnology: A summary and analysis of ethical concerns. Advances in Biochemical Engineering/Biotechnology 2008;111:229–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

80. See note 17, Harris 2007, and note 68, Berger, Moreno 2010.

81. Irwin, A, Wynne, B, eds. Misunderstanding Science? The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

82. Lee, C-J, Scheufele, DA, Lewenstein, BV.Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Science Communication 2005;27(2):240–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

83. Nisbet, MC.The competition for worldviews: Values, information, and public support for stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 2005;17:90–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

84. Jasanoff, S.Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States. Oxford: Princeton University Press: 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

85. Ho, SS, Brossard, D, Scheufele, DA.Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 2008;20(2):171–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

86. Sturgis, P, Brunton-Smith, I, Fife-Schaw, C.Public attitudes to genomic science: An experiment in information provision. Public Understanding of Science 2010;19(2):166–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

87. See note 68, Berger, Moreno 2010, at 14.

88. Longino, H.Science as Social Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1990.Google Scholar

89. Kitcher, P.Science, Truth, and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

90. Lacey, H.Values and Objectivity in Science. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield; 2005.Google Scholar

91. Rollin, B.Science and Ethics. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

92. Kincaid, H, Dupré, J, Wylie, A.Value-Free Science: Ideals and Illusions. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar