Argumentum ad fastidium

{{title-italics}}
[[File:Adriaen Brouwer - The Bitter Potion - Google Art Project.jpg|thumb|right|165px|''The Bitter Draught'' by Adriaen Brouwer, 17<sup>th</sup> century]]
{{logicnav}}
An '''''argumentum ad fastidium''''' (or "'''appeal to disgust'''" or "'''argument from disgust'''" or "'''wisdom of repugnance'''" or "'''yuck factor'''") is a [[logical fallacy]] that occurs when it is argued that something is [[moral]]ly wrong because it is gross (or conversely, it is good because it is beautiful).

The fallacy is an [[appeal to emotion]] and an [[informal fallacy]].

==Form==
In theory:
{{syl
|2='''X''' is gross.
|4=Gross things are wrong.
|5=C|6='''X''' is wrong.
}}

In practice:
<big>'''''EW''</big> ew ew ew <big>''EW!!!'''''</big>

==Explanation==
Being gross is not inherently tied to being wrong.

If grossness determined wrongness, then (as Kass notes) wrongness would change over time — [[miscegenation]] would become acceptable while [[racism]] would become unacceptable, solely because it discomforts most people.<ref name=Kass/> Furthermore, the definition of "gross" varies across cultures, regions, communities, and even individuals. This suggests that grossness is arbitrary and subjective, rather than an objective truth.

In addition, "gross" often appears to correlate much more highly with survival mechanisms (e.g., avoiding eating shit) rather than rational thought.

==Examples==
===Homosexuality===
[[Conservatives]] and [[fundamentalists]] often discuss [[homosexuality]] using the words of revulsion, and seek imagery to portray that disgust.<ref name=TMM>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFo-wLLSnyE</ref> This may be because disgust correlates with conservative self-identification.<ref name=TMM />

==="Disgusting" foods===
People from the [[United States]] and [[Europe]] who haven't tasted a lot of food from elsewhere, are easily disgusted by "creepy crawlies" &mdash; even potentially beneficial bugs such as some flies, which compost food waste, and spiders, who eat the now abundant flies, disposing of them easily &mdash; to the point of [[genocide]]. <small>One day, I'll make them listen. Soon, the tables will turn!</small>  This seems to be cultural, since people in many traditional societies eat insects, spiders, etc. as a matter of course, but Westerners almost universally avoid doing so, and in fact tend to react to the very idea with revulsion.

Foods that appeal to people in some parts of the world can also be viewed as disgusting to people from other parts. This is particularly true with raw, rotten, fermented or preserved foods such as {{wpl|casu marzu}} [[cheese]] from Sardinia, {{wpl|hákarl}} [[shark]] from [[Iceland]], {{wpl|lutefisk}} [[fish]] from parts of [[Scandinavia]], live octopus from South Korea, various {{wpl|fermented fish}} and {{wpl|Shrimp paste|seafood}} preparations, and {{wpl|century egg}} from [[China]]. {{wpl|Durian}} is notable for being a fresh fruit that some people find disgusting smelling. Organ meat is also a reviled food to many people in the West.

==="Crucial cases"===
Leon Kass, discussing [[human cloning]], argued both that "revulsion is not an argument" and that:<ref name=Kass>[https://web.stanford.edu/~mvr2j/sfsu09/extra/Kass2.pdf "The Wisdom of Repugnance"]] by Leon R. Kass (June 2, 1997) ''The New Republic''</ref>{{rp|20}}
{{quotebox|In crucial cases, however, repugnance is the emotional expression of deep wisdom beyond reason's power fully to articulate it. Can anyone really give an argument fully adequate to the horror which is father-daughter [[incest]] (even with consent), or [[Bestiality|having sex with animals]], or mutilating a corpse, or [[Cannibalism|eating human flesh]], or even just (just!) [[Rape|raping]] or [[murder]]ing another human being? Would anybody's failure to give full rational justification for his or her revulsion at these practices make that revulsion ethically suspect? Not at all. On the contrary, we are suspicious of those who think that they can [[Rationalization|rationalize]] away our horror, say, by trying to explain the enormity of incest with arguments only about the [[genetic]] risks of [[inbreeding]].}}

Kass' justification for respecting disgust is largely [[Circular reasoning|circular]] — we must be disgusted by certain things, because when people try to explain why it's wrong [[rational]]ly, that too disgusts us. Beyond that, Kass's argument for a supra-rational overriding disgust appears entirely based in [[Emotional appeal|emotion]]. In addition, as Max Lewis notes: "Kass provides no way of distinguishing 'crucial cases' from any other cases. That is, he provides no way of distinguishing between feelings of disgust that reflect 'deep wisdom' and those that reflect ignorance or [[prejudice]]."<ref>http://repugnantconclusions.com/2012/10/19/incest-and-disgust/</ref>

Joe Carter argued that disgust ''must'' be accepted as meaningful, for "[i]f all ethical arguments must withstand the rigors of analytical reasoning then we will have to reject a great deal of our deepest moral presuppositions", specifically "incest, [[bestiality]], [[necrophilia]], and other moral horrors that lie within the Pandora’s Box of [[taboo]] behaviors."<ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2010/12/in-defense-of-disgust In Defense of Disgust] by Joe Carter (12.15.10) ''First Things''.</ref> It's entirely unclear why rational reasoning cannot prove these actions immoral (or moral) ''without'' invoking disgust; for a trivial example, necrophilia is likely to cause infection. In addition, this is essentially a [[circular argument]] &mdash; disgust ''must'' be a valid moral determiner, because these '''X''' ''must'' be immoral, because '''X''' is  disgusting, and disgust…

===Argument from beauty===
[[File:Messina Straits Chauliodus sloani.jpg|thumb|right|165px|{{wpl|Sloane's viperfish|''Chauliodus sloani''|:}} in the eye of the beholder]]
{{main|Argument from beauty}}
One argument for [[God]] is that nature is so beautiful that it requires a designer. Not only are there [[evolution|alternate mechanisms]] to allow for explanation of "beauty", but there are certainly numerous counterexamples to the idea that nature is beautiful.<ref>[http://www.snailcrow.com/2008/01/08/argument-from-disgust-on-deepsea-ugliness/ Argument From Disgust: On DeepSea Ugliness] by C. Way (January 8<sup>th</sup>, 2008) ''SnailCrow''.</ref> Not to mention that things only appear "beautiful" to us because of the way our brains work, not because beauty is an objective attribute in the universe.

==See also==
*[[Appeal to shame]]
*"[[Degenerate]]", an common argumentum ad fastidium used by conservatives

==References==
{{reflist|2|80%}}

{{logfal}}

[[Category:Emotional appeals]]
[[Category:Informal fallacies]]

Categories: Emotional appeals, Informal fallacies