Our author, Joe Carter, puts up an argument against Martha Nussbaum‘s work:
Those who reject the concept of the wisdom of repugnance must be prepared to deliver solid arguments against incest, bestiality, necrophilia, and other moral horrors that lie within the Pandora’s Box of taboo behaviors. If all ethical arguments must withstand the rigors of analytical reasoning then we will have to reject a great deal of our deepest moral presuppositions. Are we prepared to do that in order that radical individualism may advance unimpeded?
You’ve probably been hearing the slippery slope argument for a while, and may find the logic compelling. There is a deep debate here, about what moral-philosophical framework we use in order to base our moral thinking and thus our laws (Nussbaum isolates disgust from other emotions as particularly unreliable, and argues it does not justify moral censure through law). She offers her own framework as an alternative.
The comments hold a lively debate.
Also On This Site: Taking religion out of the laws, and replacing it with a Millian/Aristelolian framework?: Repost: Martha Nussbaum Channels Roger Williams In The New Republic: The First Founder……From The Reason Archives: ‘Discussing Disgust’ Julian Sanchez Interviews Martha Nussbaum
What are some examples of the dangers of post-Enlightenment reason? (Nussbaum offers examples of Nazism taking advatage of disgust): A Few Thoughts On Isaiah Berlin’s “Two Concepts Of Liberty”…did Leo Strauss offer an alternative? (he argued that Nazism is a post Enlightenment pursuit the nihilistic logic inherent in modernity): From Peter Berkowitz At Harvard: ‘The Reason Of Revelation: The Jewish Thought Of Leo Strauss’…Strauss was worried that even Edmund Burke had succumbed to what he termed ‘historicism’: Some Quotations From Leo Strauss On Edmund Burke In ‘Natural Right And History’…
How does Natural Law Philosophy deal with these problems, and those of knowledge?