Is there still good and bad?

[Babale]

I found this summary - does it seem accurate?

What is Jonathan Haidt saying about 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, 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?