# Is there a place for "Sanctity" in a modern society? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 3, 2023, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028 "2023-10-03T01:15:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2023, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/1 "2023-10-03T01:15:21Z")
> **Previous conversation** > > > [@Is there still good and bad?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-still-good-and-bad/990513/40): > > > > I found this summary - does it seem accurate? > > > > [What is Jonathan Haidt saying about Morality?](https://www.online-psychology-degrees.org/study/jonathan-haidt-morality/) > > > > I find the example given here fascinating. Here is the example summarized in the article: > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > We’d like to think our moral beliefs are more sound, more logical, and even more practical than others. However, to illustrate from Haidt, “The intuitive dog wags its rational tail.” In various moral psychology [studies](https://moralfoundations.org/questionnaires/), people would often react to certain moral situations with disgust, but then not be able to explain _why_ that situation was morally wrong. To use Haidt’s example, a few people might think it immoral if a man goes to a store, buys a rotisserie chicken, goes home, and eats it. Yet, many more people would consider it repulsive if a man goes to a store, buys a rotisserie chicken, goes home, and has sex with the chicken. We can empathize with and share repulsion at such an act. But _why_ is such an act wrong? The man is not harmed. Nor is the chicken. > > > > I agree with everything he says so far, but his conclusion seems exactly backwards to me. > > > > > [@](#): > > > > > > Although some Americans might struggle to identify why the man having sex with the chicken is wrong, they still believe it’s wrong. Moral psychology and moral foundations theory would argue this is because we cannot deny some notion of purity or sanctity in our moral character. > > > > Haidt is arguing that because most people would be offput by a man having sex with a chicken despite nobody being harmed and no unfairness being created, this is evidence that there is a real and valuable thing called “sanctity” or “purity” that should not be ignored. > > > > I would point out two problems with this logic. > > > > 1. While the man isn’t directly harming anyone else by having sex with a chicken, one must wonder whether this is an emotionally healthy behavior. Is it a sign that this person is unable to emotionally connect with other people? Is his obsession with rotisserie chicken robbing him of the opportunity to connect successfully with another human being? I think Haidt is being too narrow minded with his definition of “harm” if he thinks there are no potential grounds to understand our moral dislike of this act other than “purity”. > > 2. Just because most of us object to this doesn’t mean there is a good reason for us to do so. After all, almost all of us grew up in a culture whose sense of morality was dominated by morally restrictive religions, and the older we are the truer this is. If this person is truly not being harmed by their unusual sexual proclivity - maybe they go to town on a rotisserie with an eagerly consenting partner with whom they share an emptionally fulfilling relationship - then _why is our revulsion actually indicative of anything aside from our society’s preconceived notions?_ > > > [@Is there still good and bad?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-still-good-and-bad/990513/42): > > > > > [@Is there still good and bad?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-still-good-and-bad/990513/41): > > > > > > Basically, I agree very much with your #2 and I think Haidt would too, but I think he would say that people DO tend to make “sanctity” constructs out of societally preconceived notions and so therefore this is going to be a societal thing that governs people’s reactions whether it makes rational sense or not. > > > > People also tend to make in-groups and out-groups, but I wouldn’t recommend that modern societies designate an out-group to channel their hatered towards. > > > > Sanctity and purity in and of themselves are nonsense concepts. They should be discarded, along with superstition and tribalism, on the ash-heap of history. > > > > > [@Is there still good and bad?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-still-good-and-bad/990513/41): > > > > > > I also agree with your #1, but I would also agree with Haidt that it’s not generally speaking the underlying reason why a person might react with visceral disgust to the idea. For someone like me, I might react with visceral disgust, then think through that and decide okay, maybe my societal preconceptions aren’t a good reason after all, and then think of #1 as a reason why it makes sense to object to it > > > > Like I said, I agee with Haidt’s description of how people work. I just think the conclusion shouldn’t be “therefore we need to accept that people are hardwired to be concerned with purity”. We need to understand that these are arbitrary concepts that perhaps had purpose in a pre-rational society (in the sense that many harmful things are also taboo; but many other things are taboo because they harm not people but the social structure that placed certain elites on top) but are now obsolete. Inspired by the discussion above in another thread, here is a thread to discuss the question: Is there a place for sanctity in a modern society? The TL,DR version of the above discussion, to get you caught up: Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) claims that there are a number of pillars that we all build our sense of morality around. Different cultures and groups that have different senses of morality prioritize different pillars (or avoid some entirely), but these pillars are the ‘menu’ that different cultures choose from. Specifically with regards to American liberals and conservatives, the argument is that liberals care about Harm and Fairness, while Conservatives do care about those (though not as much as liberals) but also care about Ingroup, Authority, and Purity (which is often called Sanctity as well). I plan to create another thread to discuss tribalism/ingroup, but for now, let’s talk Purity. [![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Haidt-political_morality.png/1024px-Haidt-political_morality.png) ](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Haidt-political_morality.png/1024px-Haidt-political_morality.png) I’ll quote my original thoughts on both Haidt’s points about Sanctity and my own ideas below, to kickstart this thread. > [@Is there still good and bad?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-still-good-and-bad/990513/40): > > I found this summary - does it seem accurate? > > [What is Jonathan Haidt saying about Morality?](https://www.online-psychology-degrees.org/study/jonathan-haidt-morality/) > > I find the example given here fascinating. Here is the example summarized in the article: > > > [@](#): > > > > We’d like to think our moral beliefs are more sound, more logical, and even more practical than others. However, to illustrate from Haidt, “The intuitive dog wags its rational tail.” In various moral psychology [studies](https://moralfoundations.org/questionnaires/), people would often react to certain moral situations with disgust, but then not be able to explain _why_ that situation was morally wrong. To use Haidt’s example, a few people might think it immoral if a man goes to a store, buys a rotisserie chicken, goes home, and eats it. Yet, many more people would consider it repulsive if a man goes to a store, buys a rotisserie chicken, goes home, and has sex with the chicken. We can empathize with and share repulsion at such an act. But _why_ is such an act wrong? The man is not harmed. Nor is the chicken. > > I agree with everything he says so far, but his conclusion seems exactly backwards to me. > > > [@](#): > > > > Although some Americans might struggle to identify why the man having sex with the chicken is wrong, they still believe it’s wrong. Moral psychology and moral foundations theory would argue this is because we cannot deny some notion of purity or sanctity in our moral character. > > Haidt is arguing that because most people would be offput by a man having sex with a chicken despite nobody being harmed and no unfairness being created, this is evidence that there is a real and valuable thing called “sanctity” or “purity” that should not be ignored. > > I would point out two problems with this logic. > > 1. While the man isn’t directly harming anyone else by having sex with a chicken, one must wonder whether this is an emotionally healthy behavior. Is it a sign that this person is unable to emotionally connect with other people? Is his obsession with rotisserie chicken robbing him of the opportunity to connect successfully with another human being? I think Haidt is being too narrow minded with his definition of “harm” if he thinks there are no potential grounds to understand our moral dislike of this act other than “purity”. > 2. Just because most of us object to this doesn’t mean there is a good reason for us to do so. After all, almost all of us grew up in a culture whose sense of morality was dominated by morally restrictive religions, and the older we are the truer this is. If this person is truly not being harmed by their unusual sexual proclivity - maybe they go to town on a rotisserie with an eagerly consenting partner with whom they share an emptionally fulfilling relationship - then _why is our revulsion actually indicative of anything aside from our society’s preconceived notions?_ ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2023, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/2 "2023-10-03T01:15:45Z")
Tagging @raspberry_hunter ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2023, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/3 "2023-10-03T02:09:41Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > Yet, many more people would consider it repulsive if a man goes to a store, buys a rotisserie chicken, goes home, and has sex with the chicken. We can empathize with and share repulsion at such an act. But _why_ is such an act wrong? The man is not harmed. Nor is the chicken. I think the logical error is the assumption that it is considered “wrong” not just repulsive (or that considering it that way is a majority opinion). I may be overly optimistic about the level of nuance in the average person, but I think most people in Western countries\* would nowadays distinguish between something that appears to them repulsive to them personally but does not harm anyone or anything, and something that is actually wrong. It may not be an overwhelming majority but I’d say it was a majority opinion. - not that people in non-western countries are less moral or nuanced but I wouldn’t feel knowledgeable enough to hazzard a guess about what a majority of their population thinks on the matter (in countries without a a tradition of abrahamic religion it could be larger) ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2023, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/4 "2023-10-03T02:17:47Z")
I find the idea that liberals don’t care about purity to be odd, as there are plenty of liberal purity tests that occur, and often hinder. But as for the chicken thing in particular, I agree that disgust isn’t the same thing as finding something immoral. It honestly seems odd to me to conflate the two. To me, they have nothing to do with each other. The purity I find myself caring about is what I mention above (but am trying to not care as much about it). ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2023, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/5 "2023-10-03T02:31:01Z")
Liberals and conservatives both care about fairness. The problem is that they define it differently. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2023, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/6 "2023-10-03T02:36:24Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I find the idea that liberals don’t care about purity to be odd, as there are plenty of liberal purity tests that occur, and often hinder. So purity in that sense is nothing to do with purity in the sense of OP, as in “ritual purity” that can be made “impure” by doing something repulsive. The modern political purity test from the left wing is more closely related “ingroup” in the OP, as in “if you don’t have identical political aims as me, even if almost all our beliefs and aims are identical, you are the enemy and no better than a literal neo-nazi” ([obligatory Monty Python clip](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WboggjN_G-4)) Apologies if this is just ruining the joke 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2023, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/7 "2023-10-03T02:39:48Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I find the idea that liberals don’t care about purity to be odd, as there are plenty of liberal purity tests that occur, and often hinder. Can you explain what you mean by this? When I think of “liberal purity tests” they still center around harm. The term “purity” is pejoratively borrowed to compare them to religious fanatics, but the things generally associated with being “impure” in this context are seen as harmful, not unholy. Racism, homophobia, etc. That’s why I used the term Sanctity instead of Purity. It is more descriptive. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2023, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/8 "2023-10-03T02:44:37Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > > [@BigT](#): > > > > I find the idea that liberals don’t care about purity to be odd, as there are plenty of liberal purity tests that occur, and often hinder. ⁢ > > So purity in that sense is nothing to do with purity in the sense of OP, as in “ritual purity” that can be made “impure” by doing something repulsive. The modern political purity test from the left wing is more closely related “ingroup” in the OP, as in “if you don’t have identical political aims as me, even if almost all our beliefs and aims are identical, you are the enemy and no better than a literal neo-nazi” ([obligatory Monty Python clip](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WboggjN_G-4)) > > Apologies if this is just ruining the joke 🙂 ⁢ No, that makes sense. I was not understanding what the term meant. To me, there is a similarity in these two ideas of purity, but I can see how they are more different than similar, and that “ingroup” fits better. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2023, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/9 "2023-10-03T02:44:55Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > The modern political purity test from the left wing is more closely related “ingroup” in the OP, as in “if you don’t have identical political aims as me, even if almost all our beliefs and aims are identical, you are the enemy and no better than a literal neo-nazi” ([obligatory Monty Python clip](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WboggjN_G-4)) Yeah, ingroup is definitely part of it too. The phenomenon is focused on people who are exiled from the ingroup due to the perception that they are doing something that violates the ingroup’s harm/care morality. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2023, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/10 "2023-10-03T02:48:31Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > No, that makes sense. I was not understanding what the term meant. To me, there is a similarity in these two ideas of purity, but I can see how they are more different than similar, and that “ingroup” fits better Go ahead and save this point for when I open a similar thread regarding Ingroup in the future 😉 although I notice that Ingroup does score slightly higher than Purity for liberals so maybe there’s something there! ---
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2023, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/11 "2023-10-03T04:27:21Z")
Words like “sanctity” and “purity” to me have a very religious cast to them, and as such I am not interested in having them represented as one of society’s pillars of morality. “Purity” especially is way too wobbly a word to base anything serious on, because it raises the question of the standard by which the purity is to be measured. Is it sexual, emotional, behavioral, purity of thought, purity of belief, or what? “Sanctity” to me just means holiness or saintliness, or being sacred, all religious terms. I do not wish to promote any of those things, as I regard them as irrational and divorced from reality. So to answer the OP, not really. There are plenty of people who give lip service but are hypocritical (because such attitudes are divorced from reality), there are probably a few people who really try to be those things, but whose life is probably not working out well (because those goals are divorced from reality). A modern society requires from most people a fairly rational approach to life. Please note that I have not said that people ought not to want to and try to be moral people, nor have I said (because I do not believe it) that a successful life is a materialistic one. I am just saying that my understanding of concepts of sanctity and purity have no bearing on living a moral life. One might, I suppose, be both moral and “pure” (whatever that is supposed to mean) but the two concepts are not connected. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2023, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/12 "2023-10-03T06:01:48Z")
The idea of Sanctity as defined in this thread — that certain things are considered wrong in and of themselves, aside from any measurable harm or violation of fairness — does not have any personal value for me. If there’s no identifiable real-world impact, then there’s nothing to be policed. To use the initial example, if the guy wants to have sex with a cooked chicken he has purchased himself in the privacy of his own residence, I might think that’s odd, but there’s nothing especially _wrong_ with it. That said, even from a somewhat utilitarian mindset, I _do_ think there is a place for this concept of Sanctity in the modern world, specifically regarding the values of an inclusive democratic society. The collective dialogue about why we have freedom of expression, freedom of belief, broad suffrage, racial equality, etc., can become a thick and knotty ethical debate which, to be completely frank, a large sector of the population is simply too stupid to understand. It is therefore useful to raise those principles to a higher level, in a sense, in order to short-circuit the disingenuous arguments promoted by opponents of those values, and thereby immunize society, to some extent, from having ultimately self-destructive seeds planted by stealth authoritarians and their ilk. So if, for example, some malicious ideologue starts trying to defend the idea of keeping some minority group segregated in ghettos by whipping up doubt and fear about that group’s effect on society, it would be nice if there were an immediate collective skepticism about the ideologue’s intentions based in the instinctive recognition that separating people on the basis of skin color and/or religious faith and/or preferred language violates a fundamental sense of purity about the definition of people, rather than appealing to fairness or other even more abstract principles as happens currently. The Sanctity of a cooked chicken is irrelevant. The Sanctity of human dignity, however, is not. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2023, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/13 "2023-10-03T11:45:52Z")
> [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > Words like “sanctity” and “purity” to me have a very religious cast to them, and as such I am not interested in having them represented as one of society’s pillars of morality. From the book that engendered this discussion: > [@](#): > > When I speak to liberal audiences about the three “binding” foundations—Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity—I find that many in the audience don’t just fail to resonate; they actively reject these concerns as immoral. Loyalty to a group shrinks the moral circle; it is the basis of racism and exclusion, they say. Authority is oppression. Sanctity is religious mumbo-jumbo whose only function is to suppress female sexuality and justify homophobia. > > Haidt, Jonathan. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (p. 334). Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Kindle Edition. > [@Cervaise](#): > > The Sanctity of human dignity, however, is not. And that, I think, is an important consideration. Is the idea of human dignity, or the inherent value of human beings, a form of “sanctity” thinking? ---
**Author:** ![hogarth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hogarth/32/1773_2.png) [@hogarth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hogarth)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2023, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/14 "2023-10-03T12:18:32Z")
I think it could be considered harmful to society if everyone stopped having sex with humans and started having sex with food instead. I suppose your hypothetical example could revolve around a person who is perfectly happy having sex with humans and also perfectly happy having sex with food, but that seems like a kind of unlikely case to me. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2023, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/15 "2023-10-03T12:18:40Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > From the book that engendered this discussion: That’s an interesting quote. I, too, reject loyalty, authority, and sanctity as moral values, but I find Haidt’s explanations for _why_ they’re invalid to be somewhat straw men. Loyalty is an attribute that can be good or bad, depending on how it’s practiced. A mobster’s loyalty to her boss may prevent her from testifying against his crimes, which may result in his continued freedom and continued reign of terror. There’s nothing positive about that loyalty. A police officer’s loyalty to the thin blue line may result in his support for a corrupt cop. That’s negative. A husband’s loyalty to his abusive wife may prevent him from leaving a bad marriage. That’s not good. But loyalty can function positively. A mobster’s loyalty to her family may result in her willingness to testify against her boss in order to get her family out of a deadly situation. A police officer’s loyalty to his community may result in his reporting a corrupt cop. A husband’s loyalty to his children may result in his removing them from an abusive home. Loyalty, then isn’t a moral pillar. It’s a secondary attribute, and whether it’s good or bad depends on its effects on an actual moral pillar like harm. Similar arguments would hold true for authority and sanctity. These may be good or bad, but whether they’re good or bad depends on whether they’re promoting or preventing harm. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2023, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/16 "2023-10-03T12:21:09Z")
> [@hogarth](#): > > I think it could be considered harmful to society if everyone stopped having sex with humans and started having sex with food instead. Sure–but the same thing is true if you swap “vibrators” for “food.” Does that have any implications for the sale of Hitachi magic wands? (Note that this is pretty much the only time it’ll ever be okay to swap “vibrators” for “food.”) ---
**Author:** ![hogarth](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hogarth/32/1773_2.png) [@hogarth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hogarth)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2023, 12:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/17 "2023-10-03T12:23:34Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Sure–but the same thing is true if you swap “vibrators” for “food.” Does that have any implications for the sale of Hitachi magic wands? I admit I have no evidence for this, but my guess would be that there are more vibrator users who have healthy social relationships than foodosexuals who have healthy social relationships. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2023, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/18 "2023-10-03T12:51:45Z")
It’s an interesting question, for sure. All moral systems are axiomatic, reduced to a certain level. That includes my own, which I feel is self-evidently true: the best behavior treats others with fairness and kindness, reducing human suffering where reasonably possible. “Why is that axiomatically true?” someone might ask. Because it benefits the most people, I might answer. “But why is that best? Isn’t it better that the strong, ruthless few thrive?” And so on. So, if all moral beliefs are at some point unexplainable, just self-evident, I want to say that sanctity must have some place in society if people believe in a certain flavor of it. And I mean that philosophically, not legally, where of course if enough people say something is or isn’t prohibited, them’s the rules. But that collides with my super-strong belief that acts that harm no one are nobody’s business but the person doing said act. I can’t think of an example of a harmless act that I’d think it appropriate to restrict, including the chicken example (my revulsion is not a factor for me, not if he’s doing it behind drawn blinds). But that is, again, me enforcing my own beliefs. Dueling axioms, and all that. I’ll think some more on it. ---
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2023, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/19 "2023-10-03T15:42:33Z")
> [@hogarth](#): > > I admit I have no evidence for this, but my guess would be that there are more vibrator users who have healthy social relationships than foodosexuals who have healthy social relationships. Then what about homosexual sex? If everyone stopped having sex with the opposite sex in favor of the same sex, it would also be harmful to society. Is that a moral argument against homosexual behavior? The “if everyone did it” doesn’t seem to work as a moral argument in the arena of procreation. ---
**Author:** ![raspberry\_hunter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b19c9b/32.png) [@raspberry\_hunter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raspberry_hunter)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2023, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/20 "2023-10-03T15:47:53Z")
> [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > > [@Cervaise](#): > > > > The Sanctity of human dignity, however, is not. > > And that, I think, is an important consideration. Is the idea of human dignity, or the inherent value of human beings, a form of “sanctity” thinking? Ooh, this is an interesting point. I think I agree with that. I don’t think I have a rational reason for thinking that human beings have inherent value (and I can think of rational arguments that human beings on the whole shouldn’t be particularly valuable) – it’s just axiomatic for me, of _course_ human beings have inherent value and human dignity is important. I thought something similar when I read _Brave New World_ many years ago. Rationally speaking, it seems to a large part of me like the society that’s been set up in that book is totally sensible and has a lot of upsides. Everyone’s happy, everyone has their own place and is happy with it. And yet… [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028.md?page=2)