Reply to comment

My paper (with Aybala of course) this week has gone more from the dilemma of what a good parent is and who should be allowed to decide who may or may not have children to more of a question if a so called "good parent" is a relative term across cultures or has (or should have?) a universal definition.  I think Haidt's argument has a very interesting relationship to this question in terms of the idea of instinct.  When reading the article I wasn't sure if he sees instinct as universal across cultures.  I guess to me it seems that instinct is something that humans as a species share--not something that humans within one specific culture share.  I brought this up during my meeting with Anne today and she countered that there can be "learned instincts."  I'm not sure how I feel about this...  If instincts can be learned then don't they have some sort of cultural background and therefore reason behind them?...in which case reason is not futile, but the cause of that "gut reaction" that we've been discussing.

As far as accommodating his research into finding an answer to my own dilemma I almost feel like...well, what's the point?  If ethical decisions are made instinctually, then people's opinions cannot be changed (because they're not even opinions! they're...basically facts), so why try to find a solution?  Maybe I'm just very cynical...