David Koepsell argues that not all emotions should be treated equally in bioethical decision making. While emotions around justice and rights seem biologically determined, disgust and revulsion are often rooted in fear rather than rights. Examples from history and fiction show how appeals to disgust have violated individual rights and autonomy. While fear responses are natural, rights should take precedence over appeals to the "yuck factor" where they may conflict, as past injustices around freak shows and treating the disfigured as less than human demonstrate.

1. Vermelding onderdeel organisatie
April 23, 2014
1
The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly
Moral and a-moral emotions in bioethics
Den Haag, Moral Emotions and Intuitions conference
David Koepsell
Delft University of Technology

2. April 23, 2014 2
Background
• Some modern bio-conservatives (notably Leon Kass),
have argued that appeal to the “yuck factor” is
warranted in making decisions in bioethics
• This is because: if emotions are to be properly
considered in ethical decision-making, then disgust,
revulsion, and similar visceral emotions ought to be
taken into account.

3. April 23, 2014 3
Background
• But are emotions of disgust in bioethics on equal
ground with other emotions in guiding ethical decision-
making?
• From my moral-realist perspective, in which rights
are grounded upon brute facts
• This depends upon determining whether there are
brute-fact-based rights involved, and whether
disgust is derived from, or impedes rights

4. April 23, 2014 4
Background
• I am not a bioconservative. I have argued that genetic
engineering, for instance, is ethically persmissible
(with some minor exceptions - where rights are
impeded)
• See, 2007 "The Ethics of Genetic Engineering,"
Policy "White" Paper, Center for Inquiry,
Transnational. Published August 28, 2007.
http://centerforinquiry.net/opp/opp_work/category/
positions

5. April 23, 2014 5
Background
• But I oppose the patenting of unmodified genes. The
logic behind my argument is rights-based, whereas I
argue that the logic behind GMO-opponents is largely
based upon disgust or revulsion.
• Hypothesis:
• Both rights and disgust provoke emotions, but they
are not equal, nor should they be considered
equally in decision-making about bioethics.

6. April 23, 2014 6
The good
• Recent research suggests that our responses to justice are hard-
wired:

7. April 23, 2014 7
The good
• If true, then a sense of justice seems biologically-determined, and
our emotional responses grounded in brute-facts:

8. April 23, 2014 8
The bad
• Do our emotional responses about justice reflect grounded rights?

9. April 23, 2014 9
The bad
• Is our sense of equality grounded in evolutionary truths hard-
wired in our brains?

10. April 23, 2014 10
The bad
• In other words, is justice a real concept, grounded in biology, and
reflected in emotions?

11. April 23, 2014 11
If so, then how should we balance emotions regarding justice with
other emotions? Are they all equal?

12. Anecdotal evidence
• My work on gene patenting provokes in my audiences an
emotional response, but it is not fear or disgust
• The typical response is anger. “you mean they own my
genes?”
• I believe this is an appropriate and justified emotional
response to an incursion upon individual autonomy, or a
violation of a right to the “comkons by necssity”… or
spaces that cannot justly be owned.

13. Anecdotal evidence
• Disgust and revulsion over biological phenomena are, I
belive, rooted in fear.
• “Frankenfoods,” “test tube babies,” and genetic
manipulation of higher orgamnisms threaten our sense of
the biologically “normal” or expected. These are the
things of ancient and modern horros stories.
• We are disgusted because they frighten us, rather than
anger us. But we can look to horror stories to see the
conflict between fear and righteous anger, where rights
become involved.

14. April 23, 2014 14
The ugly
Biology provokes different sorts of emotions, namely those described as
disgust, revulsion, and accounting for the “yuck factor” promoted by some
as a valid measure for ethical-decision making
Our responses to the biologically foreign or disturbing have long
been the source of topics for horror stories, and also seem
biologically-determined.

15. April 23, 2014 15
The ugly
Nineteenth-century
freak-shows
capitalized on
our revulsions

16. April 23, 2014 16
The ugly
Joseph Merrick…
The “Elephant Man”
Treated first as a freak
… only later as a man,
with rights

17. April 23, 2014 17
The ugly
Modern horror … “Dren”

18. April 23, 2014 18
The ugly
Classic horror

19. April 23, 2014 19
The ugly
Modern horror “the Fly”

20. April 23, 2014 20
Conflict between disgust and justice
In each of these true and fictional scenarios, we
are conflicted. Physical revulsion vs. justice.
Freaks, Joseph Merrick, Dren, Frankenstein’s monster
and Seth Brundle are all victims of our (or some)
disgust.
Revulsion violates rights, and this is unjust.

21. April 23, 2014 21
Conflict between disgust and justice
Fear of predators, like snakes, spiders, disease,
seem to be the bases for our biological sense of
disgust.
So, is fear a good basis for ethical decision-making?
Perhaps, but not where it conflicts with rights.
Past injustices illustrate the dangers.

22. April 23, 2014 22
Conclusions
• Not all emotions should be treated equally in ethical
decision-making in bioethics.
• While our emotional responses to injustice and fear
are grounded in brute-facts, rights should trump fear
• After all, spiders, snakes, and other monsters are often
not only harmless, but may themselves deserve rights.