Term Paper on "Moral Phenomenology"

Quoted Instructions for "Moral Phenomenology" Assignment:

For the part below about an actual lived event from your past use being held up at gun point, its ok to be creative. Use whatever is easier if that is not. thanks

Moral Phenomenology

Background information and context: Most of the philosophers in the West reduce morality to a matter of rational, dispassionate reflection and decision-making (Kantianism and U.ianism). Although Eastern (and other) philosophers tend to emphasize social cues and norms (Confucianism), intuition (Taoism), and relations/emotions (care ethic), the role of the physical world and our body’s perceptions of it (sound, smell, sight, touch, taste) have been relatively ignored. This is largely because this senses are thought to be animal instincts ( and not the part of us that primarily engages us in ethics), and unreliable (e.g. blood may be morally relevant in a homicide situation, but not in a surgery, or in a Shakespearean tragedy).

“Sensibility theory” is the name for the belief that the “good” and “evil” are metaphysical realities inherent in the physical world and that our bodies and senses are epistemological tools that help us gather “moral data”. Sensibility theory raises many intriguing questions: Is the body a primary and reliable “data-gathering mechanism” for distinguishing a situation as moral? Do some things in the physical world have inherent moral import—such as blood, a scream, a cry, a corpse, a baby, etc. Have our bodies evolved to distinguish between sense-datums with and without moral import (a baby’s “just making noise cry” vs their “something is very wrong” cry). Do these things have immediate (a priori) and instinctual moral importance for us (as opposed to “a posteriori” reflection –where we can achieve mind over matter, or tell ourselves “It’s just a movie”, or “this is really happening”). Can we and should we train our bodies to be more or less sensitive “moral perceivers”? Are some people better moral perceivers than others? Do some practices and relationships enhance/diminish our capacity for moral perception? What are the strengths and weaknesses of positing that humans have “moral sensibilities”? Can it be a mistake to use the language of “perception” in describing ethics?

Assignment:

This assignment consists of two parts, an active and written part. The objective of this assignment is for you to gain experiences that allow you to become more critically aware of the various components of ethical phenomena and experiences, and how they relate. You must also develop an argument for how you understand the role of the body in moral experience, and how bodily sensations are ideally related to our other abilities.

Part 1: Activity: A Moral Internship: To prepare for this assignment you must place yourself in a position to observe an event that you consider to be morally “charged”, that is, that you feel raises questions about right and wrong for you. You should plan to actively seek out such a situation by going to a place that will provide “moral data” for you to observe—some obvious suggestions might be: a courtroom, a police ride along, an emergency room, a hospital, the humane society, etc. Some less obvious suggestions (for the very sensitive only) might be a zoo, a grocery store (or Wal-Mart), a dump, etc. As much as possible, this part of the assignment should involve the activity of you visiting a physical place, in person (as opposed to the passive activities of watching a film, surfing the net, reading a book, etc.) You may draw upon an actual lived event from your past ONLY if a) it happened recently, b) it had a very strong impact on you, and c) your memory and bodily reactions to it are fresh. If in doubt, check with me.

Part 2. Writing Assignment: (3 pages minimum) You should include the following four components in your paper:

1) Opening statement (1 paragraph): Briefly describe the event and your overall position as a result of this assignment. (Your hypothesis and introduction).

2) Description of event (1 paragraph, or may be combined with the above paragraph): Where did you go, what did you perceive?

3) Analysis (1 page) : Analyze your “internship” in terms of the following categories:

i) Bodily sensations (What did you see, smell, hear, etc.? Did these perceptions have immediate moral relevance to you?) For this part you should also refer to your in-class reflection on the “Never Forget” short for comparison.

ii) Spirited reaction—Emotions (What did you feel?)

iii) Intellectual reaction. (What did you think? What did you know or not know?)

iv) Social elements (how did others react? Did their reaction inform your own? How did your own socialization and prior experiences influence your perception?)

v) How did these three elements inform one another? Did your thoughts inform your perceptions of vice versa?

4) Evaluation (your hypothesis) : (1-1/2 page) As a result of your experiment, argue either in favor of the sensibility theory or against it. Be sure to identify at least two reasons (premises) in favor of your stance, and anticipate one possible objection. (For example, an argument in favor of sensibility theory might note that our moral inclinations often change if we are physically immersed in a situation—one may be more prone to “see a wrong in the world” in the act of eating a cheeseburger if one visits a slaughterhouse vs. a McDonalds. OR, conversely, an argument against the role of the body might emphasize the cultural nature of perception*, the fallibility of the senses, or the possibility to train oneself to selectively perceive events so that right/wrong is not “out there” to be perceived in the physical world by the body as we do trees and other objects, but merely a social or emotional projection onto the physical world.

* An experiment that involved children from Mexico and the United States reveals the cultural nature of perception—all children were shown pictures of football players and Matadors in quick succession. Not surprisingly, when asked to report what they saw (what was really there) Mexiacn children said a matador, while American children said a football player.