Moral Disgust Linked To Primitive Emotion

Study Shows Our Sense Of Right And Wrong Has Roots In A Survival Instinct Of Early Humans

(WebMD)  A new study reveals insights into the ancient roots of our modern-day sense of moral disgust.

Research from the University of Toronto suggests that our sense of right and wrong appears to be directly linked to a primitive survival instinct that caused our ancient ancestors to find foul-tasting, poisonous foods disgusting.

The study appears in the Feb. 27 issue of the journal Science.

"These results shed new light on the origins of morality, suggesting that not only do complex thoughts guide our moral compass, but also more primitive instincts related to avoiding potential toxins," principal investigator Adam K. Anderson, PhD, says in a news release.

Morality and Disgust

Morality has been widely considered to be a somewhat recent phenomenon, evolutionarily speaking, that is closely tied to our ability to reason.
Disgust, on the other hand, is considered an ancient and primitive emotion, which helped to keep early humans from eating foods that would kill them.

Anderson, lead study author Hanah Chapman, and colleagues conducted a series of experiments designed to determine if morality and disgust are more closely related than experts have thought.

"We wanted to see if there was any truth to the expression, 'It left me with a bad taste in my mouth,' when we talk about something that is morally offensive," Chapman tells WebMD.

"Does that have anything to do with the feeling that you get when you open up that take-out container that has been in the fridge too long or walk into that subway bathroom that hasn't been cleaned in a long time?"

The researchers employed a technique known as electromyography to record electrical activity that directs muscle movements.

They focused on one specific muscle, known as the levator labii, which is involved in raising the upper lip and wrinkling the nose - movements characteristic of the facial expressions people make in response to disgust.

'More Than a Metaphor'

In one experiment conducted to evoke the most basic, primordial form of disgust, participants drank a bad-tasting bitter liquid. In another, they looked at pictures of things generally recognized as disgusting, like dirty toilets.

In the final test, which measured moral disgust, participants were treated unfairly in a classic psychological experiment.

In all three situations, the participants showed activation of the levator labii muscle, indicating that reactions to tasting something bad, looking at something disgusting, and experiencing unfairness all involved similar disgust.

"People think about morality as being this pinnacle of human evolution and development," Chapman says. "But we showed that this very old and primitive response is playing an important role, too."

Harvard researcher Joshua D. Greene, PhD, tells WebMD that the research is consistent with studies he has done suggesting that emotion plays a key role in moral judgment.

"The idea that the emotion that causes us to reject something poisonous has been co-opted for use in social judgment is certainly intriguing," he says. "This study does not prove this, but it is pretty strong evidence for the idea that disgust in a moral context is more than just a metaphor."

[realnews12]

People who believe in morality aren't the hypocrites, the atheists are.

Posted by rennin1 at 5:28 PM : Mar 3, 2009

You are quite wrong if you think atheists don't "believe in morality". Atheists care about morality just as much as non-atheists do. The question is where does it come from? Why do people care about it? Those are questions science is beginning to address, such as with the study described in this article. People who believe it is necessary to teach morality based on a text such as the Bible are being shown that that idea is simply not correct. Morality is far more complex and deeply rooted in the human condition than that. Even atheists have a very well-developed sense of right and wrong.

[realnews12]

They actually believe that if the rest of us would listen to them, then we would be converted to their cause of making atheists out to everyone on the planet.

Posted by rennin1 at 5:28 PM : Mar 3, 2009

No, not really. Most people, atheist or believer, acknowledge that people who rely on Faith for their beliefs cannot be swayed by evidence. Believers simply don't care if there is no evidence for their beliefs. It's not that the arguments haven't been made in the right way, or that they haven't listened. They believe it is somehow virtuous to believe in the absence of evidence (after all, that's pretty much the definition of faith), and the less evidence there is, the more virtuous the believing. Atheists do care about evidence.

[realnews12]

Just because someone decides where to "draw the line" on what constitutes the bounds of reality that does not give that person the right to draw that same line for everyone else.

Posted by rennin1 at 5:28 PM : Mar 3, 2009

No, of course not. No one is saying they do. You can draw the line wherever you want. But there is such a thing as objective reality against which your selection can be measured. You can draw the line where you want, but that doesn't mean your choice corresponds to truth. Any one (or all of us) could be wrong. And how would be know? That's where the 5 senses and the experimental method (i.e., science) come in.

[rennin1]

To: realnews12: Just because someone decides where to "draw the line" on what constitutes the bounds of reality that does not give that person the right to draw that same line for everyone else. In case you are unfamiliar with recent developments in the atheistic movement in the US, the atheists are the ones who have become the new evangelists, not the people of faith. Post-modernism has held sway in our schools and universities for so long now that atheists have actually begun to conceive the idea that they have an important message that they need to get across to the rest of us. They actually believe that if the rest of us would listen to them, then we would be converted to their cause of making atheists out to everyone on the planet.

Based on this CBS news story, human morality is now objectively known to exist. But wait a minute, how could this be considering that morality is beyond the ability of our five senses to measure? Well, since the scientific community now agrees with us on this matter and considering that a lot of atheists have made it their business for a long time to ridicule a lot of people for believing in an objective notion of morality, those atheists owe a lot of people a huge apology. People who believe in morality aren't the hypocrites, the atheists are.

[realnews12]

My point is ... when you have totally explained away mankind as accidental cosmic slop, driven and defined only by evolutionary processes. you have opened the door to a society so inhumane you cannot imagine it.

Posted by Bill_from_Dallas at 4:57 PM : Feb 27, 2009

Your argument is specious. Just because you don't WANT it to be true does not mean it isn't true.

[realnews12]

how smart can someone be if they refuse to consider the possibility of a reality that lies just beyond their five senses?

Posted by rennin1 at 5:34 PM : Mar 2, 2009

It is fine to consider the _possibility_ of such a reality. That can be interesting to think about But it is quite something else to take the next step and _believe_ it IS reality when there is no evidence for it which is detectable by the 5 senses. One has to draw the line somewhere as to what one takes as truth. Evidence detectable by the senses is the best and most reliable criterion that mankind has come up with.

[rennin1]

To Vet_Turner: Where did you get the idea I was talking about religion? Is it because you are afraid of those you cannot understand? Well, if so, then I?ve got some bad news for you: being afraid of the unknown is what atheism is all about. And just because atheists are afraid, that doesn't give them the right to ridicule others who actually do understand something that atheists cannot. If you believe that atheists are smarter than non-atheists, then answer this question: how smart can someone be if they refuse to consider the possibility of a reality that lies just beyond their five senses?

[mdalerwill]

You better think your evolutionary crap all the way out my friends .... you might find yourself on the wrong end of "only the strong survive."
Posted by Bill_from_Dallas at 4:57 PM : Feb 27, 2009

You make many assumptions about people. You also need to work on debating without resorting to insults right out of the gate. Until you can do that, there isn't much to say to you.

[mgkonyx]

Newster1 wrote: "I do not consider myself religious and yet I know right from wrong instinctively. I am a total rule follower because I instinctively know it is right, not because I am earning my way into some makebelieve ever after. "

No, you don't "instinctively" know right from wrong. Your culture has taught you what it considers right and wrong, and you've gone along with the joke. Elbert Hubbard wrote:
"Morality is largely a matter of geography." He was right.

[Vet_Turner]

Hey rennin1 , Why don't you take your family over to visit LOT's family from the Old Testiment. Don't give me bull that religion somehow fuels moral principle. Geroge Bush, religious perhaps but not a moral fibre in his body.

There is actually altruistic behavior because the liberal brain wants to do something to expand itself beyond its own needs.

[sincity_q]

Another bunch of so-called 'experts' trying to tell us why we think.

Lovely.

[marie824]

Disgust over moldy food and over filthy bathrooms is not an example of moral repugnance. Morality has to do with behavior. Rotten food and unclean bathrooms are a matter of hygiene.

[mnorling]

Nincompoops here saying no religion equals no morality are apparently only acting morally because they are terrified of the religious consequences. Others with eyes open to scientific truth are acting morally because it is the right thing to do. Gee, who would I rather share a planet with?

Methinks the most fervent believers are terrified of their own inner rage and amorality. Why else would they refuse to look through Galileo's telescope? Oops, I mean read Darwin's Origin of Species.

[Newster1]

Remember, all Hitler had to do was redefine Jews as subhuman and scientific minds killed them like so many insects. Imagine if you successfully define ALL mankind away as ambitious protozoa. That effectively destroys any moral codes about sanctity of life.

Posted by Bill_from_Dallas

Sort of like how you Xtians defined blacks as sub human and used them as SLAVES, using your book of death to justify taking slaves as allowed in there. Sort of like how you Xtians defined all non-believers and those of other faiths the same way- as gods ENEMIES, the same book of death was used to strike down "gods enemies" and even recently there was in the news in Africa a woman was dragged out of her home and beaten to death by a mob of religious nuts who declared she was a pagan or a witch.

Your book of death was ALSO used to justify killing "witches" so sit down and shut up!

[Newster1]

3. It didn't take atheism and evolutionary theory for our European ancestors to dream up the most terrifying tortures ever invented--it was their belief in god and the conviction that their enemies were allies of satan. Look at the medieval church's view of Jews and witches, the wars of religion, the grand entertainments known as the *auto-da-fé*--all these were created not by atheists, but by people who believed their god was right and everyone else was under satanic powers.
Posted by tokyo2nite

Exactly right and Mein Kampf and Hitler's speaches were chock FULL of references to god and his catholic beliefs, he only disagreed with the organized CHURCH, he was not an atheist, he was even an altar-boy in his youth.

[Newster1]

Disgust, on the other hand, is considered an ancient and primitive emotion, which helped to keep early humans from eating foods that would kill them. "

Sort of works well too eh kids? , thats why people die every year from eating poisonous mushrooms, antifreeze they thought was coolaid, and salmonella infected peanut butter! yep, works well!

"Hitler's goal was the "purification" of the "Aryan race" through the elimination of "subhumans", which included Jews, gypsies, Asians, black Africans, and everyone else who was not a white Aryan. Despite the creationists claims that this was based on Darwinain evolutionary theory, Hitler's own writings give quite a different story."

Exactly like the xtians in the Middle Ages, they set about crusades to slaughter non Xtians, muslims, pagans, jews and non believers, and anyone who refused to CONVERT. They slaughtered entire towns for their book of death and an imaginary Santa Claus.

[jbright9]

Let's see didn't the Holocoust happen in a country of Catholics and Protestants and didn't the Pope and other church officials all look the other way. I do not consider myself religious and yet I know right from wrong instinctively. I am a total rule follower because I instinctively know it is right, not because I am earning my way into some makebelieve ever after.

[rennin1]

The article states, "These results shed new light on the origins of morality, suggesting that complex thoughts guide our moral compass." Well, if this is true then a lot of atheists owe a lot of people a huge apology. For years people of moral belief have had to endure the smug, pompous, arrogant comments from atheists who constantly try to convince us that our very conviction of a moral underpinning to how we live our lives is itself immoral. So, to all the atheists in the group I say: ?We aren?t the hypocrites, you are, and you aren't so smart after all. You should try to listen every once in a while rather than waiting for the other guy to quit talking so you can take over the conversation.?

[brianbwb-2009]

Posted by Bill_from_Dallas

The problem with your logic is that organized religion invariably becomes a means of segregating segments of the population into "believers" and "non believers", then they, as you say "define ALL mankind (who don't agree with their particular interpretation of their chosen dogma) away as ambitious protozoa. That effectively destroys any moral codes about sanctity of life." and has led to the genocide of millions over the history of organized religions, a practice which continues to this day. Witness those who still support the illegal invasion genocide, and subjugation of Iraq, simply because the religion of Iraq's majority has a different name and language from theirs.

The problem lies not in the acceptance or rejection of religion, it lies in the use of religion as a justification for the subjugation of those perceived as "the other".

Political persuasion, nationality, ethnicity, and even such a trivial matter as socioeconomic status are also tools used in the "divide and conquer" game, it is not simply religion, although religion does present it's most blatantly hypocritical facet.

[brianbwb-2009]

"...3. It didn't take atheism and evolutionary theory for our European ancestors to dream up the most terrifying tortures ever invented--it was their belief in god and the conviction that their enemies were allies of satan. Look at the medieval church's view of Jews and witches, the wars of religion, the grand entertainments known as the *auto-da-fé*--all these were created not by atheists, but by people who believed their god was right and everyone else was under satanic powers." Posted by tokyo2nite

I would tend to disagree, not because I believe in organized religion, but because I believe that there are those who use religion as a trap, they posit their own sociopathic ideas, and sublimated erotic perversions as having come from their interpretation of their religion, and then accuse those who disagree as being heretics, ans since no one wants to be thus socialy ostracized, they accept the perverted teachings of such people, brainwashing themselves into believing it.

For example, see how many people now believe that invading Iraq was justified by the false information that the perps of 9/11 were somehow linked, they have convinced themselves of a lie that was repeated incessantly by those who profited from it, and now that the "hate Muslims" box is open, they cannot close it again. If you point out the evidence of the lie, you are called a "terrorist sympathizer", "America hater", or some similar term.

See, it even works in secular contexts.