Прочитал "Введение в эволюционную этику" Скотта Джеймса (про спор между реалистами и анти-реалистами о происхождении морали). Там есть такой пассаж:

Imagine that you aren't alone when you come upon that rotting corpse. A friend sees (and smells) what you see (and smell). But, quite remarkably, your friend does not respond as you do. She looks curiously at the corpse as you recoil in disgust. Perplexed, you ask your friend: Don't you think that that's gross? She responds flatly: “No.” No seriously, you say, that's gross! “No, it's interesting,” she replies. Your friend appears to be sincere. But clearly she's made a mistake, you think. And so you point out to her (in case she missed it) the putrefying flesh, the rancid odor, the blind, busy work of maggots. “Yes, I see all that, but I don't find it gross,” she says. You're dumbfounded. She's clearly mistaken, you think. She's made an error. There's something about the scene that she has failed to grasp, namely, that that corpse is gross. The corpse has the property being gross, and your friend – despite perceiving its other properties: its odor, its appearance – has failed to perceive that property.

Ну прямо сценка из прогулки с младшей дочкой - непонятно, какие из этого следуют выводы.