Moral Abominations by Jeffrey Stout

1. Anything loathsome counts as an abomination according to Stout. Anything out of natural social order will be abominated as well.

2. Cannibalism offends us because it threatens our definite status as human beings.

3. There is a sharp line between men and women, humanity and the animal kingdom, between male and female roles, and human and non-human.

4. Ethical theories are to blame for our deepest moral feelings and beliefs.

5. We must restore the historical and cultural context of the moral life in order to classify what is abominable in contemporary theory.

Stout defines abomination in many different categories and classifies different judgments that revolve into abominations. However, why is it so difficult to make sense of abominations and classify them? It is so difficult to make sense of abominations because something is abominable only if it is a threat to social structure. (10) This remains difficult since every society has different norms and ethics. Stout defines abominations as anything loathsome. (10) Other abominations such as cannibalism, bestiality or sodomy stand as abominations in our culture but may not in others. There aren’t clearly defined roles as Aquinas would like to believe. Each abomination has defining traits. If one has independent kind of defining traits, they are not likely to be abominated. (15)

Certainly we cannot define an abomination; much like we could not define an absolute. We can culturally define an abomination according to our moral feelings and ethical theories. (17) Abominations are not defined among theories. “Ethical theory should not be viewed as a mere reflection of its context; its relation to context is dialectical. It continues to shape and reshape the ethos even as that ethos poses its problems and supplies whatever resources the theorist possesses for the task of resolving them.” (20) According to Stout, “we have little hope of finding out [what an abomination is] unless we begin to restore the historical and cultural context of the moral life.” (22) Stout displays the flaws of thinking morally or by using universal standards. Ethical dilemmas like abomination do not fall under the category of doing what is good for the most people. How is cannibalism best for the good of the people? Unless you are dying out at sea?

Many situations we consider to be abominations are merely judgments; such as homosexuality. “As Needham says, it is methodically defective to consider only prohibitions. Judgments of abomination are typically just the other side of affirmative valuations and cannot be understood without keeping these in mind.” (16)

If the realm of morality is not properly conceived, how can we define what is morally ethical? Are there constant moral flaws that we live by on a regular basis?