The Yuck Factor

It's time for me to sound off on how I feel about "the yuck factor" that we talked about in class today. I'm amazed that what I'm about to write failed to come up in class because I feel it's an extremely relevant example of why the yuck factor isn't enough to constitute why something is wrong. Yes, it might make us uncomfortable, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's intrinsically wrong. The examples given in the book as well as in class, pedophilia and incest, can I think be deemed as morally wrong, not just on the basis of the yuck factor, but of course in large part because we are made so uncomfortable by it.

There is an example that I am thinking of that does not seem to carry much of a yuck factor here but definitely has a lot of weight where I'm from--the Bible Belt. I am thinking of homosexuality. I personally have absolutely no yuck factor when it comes to this, but a solid majority of the people I know are evangelical Christians and their yuck factor for this is HUGE. Does that mean that it's wrong? No, of course not. The people who oppose it hold to that opinion because they say it's unnatural, another reason we gave for being uncomfortable with something. However there are a lot of things that exist in nature that are not good--war, disease, ect.

However, I think that the yuck factor has its place in the discussion of animal ethics. Frankly, I feel this way because I'd be willing to take any reason for the ethical treatment of nonhumans, even if it's something as faulty as the yuck factor.

My question for this blog is what do you base your moral opinions on more, your personal yuck factor or something else?