In The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt narrates a disturbing episode to gauge our

Question

In The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt narrates a disturbing episode to gauge our moral intuitions:

A man goes to the supermarket once a week and buys a chicken. But before cooking the chicken, he has sexual intercourse with it. Then he cooks it and eats it. No harm, nobody else knows. But the action just seems so...degrading. Does that make it wrong? If you're an educated and politically liberal Westerner, you'll probably give a nuanced answer, one that acknowledges the man's right to do what he wants, as long as he doesn't hurt anyone. But if you are not a liberal or libertarian Westerner, you probably think it's wrong—morally wrong—for someone to have sex with a chicken carcass and then eat it. For you, as for most people on the planet, morality is broad. Some actions are wrong even though they don't hurt anyone.

Although Haidt is about to make a different, and very interesting point about morality, just by looking at this example, we can see that what he calls the 'liberal or libertarian Westerner' most likely approaches ethics from a primarily___________standpoint, whereas those who he says aren't liberal or libertarian probably understand ethics primarily in terms of____________or_____________ .

Explanation / Answer

What Haidt calls the 'liberal or libertarian Westerner' most likely approaches ethics from a primarily consequentialist standpoint. On the other hand, those who he says aren't liberal or libertarian probably understand ethics primarily in terms of deontology or virtues.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse I
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.