Lecture Objectives: After learning this material you will be able to:

1. Present an integral framework for the understanding of ethical theory.

2. Understand the thinking process used in moral reasoning, specifically how experience, interpretation, and analysis work and build on one another.

3. Discuss the three dimensions of how moral sensitivity, ontological shock, and praxis work in the process of ethical analysis.

4. Reflect on the significance of how our worldview and our resistance to change influence our understanding of ethics and how we act in the world.

5. Outline the basic components of an argument and how these components are used as a tool in moral reasoning.

6. Be able to recognize a significant number of fallacies that appear in moral reasoning and confuse our ability to make sound arguments.

In the last lecture we studied the definition of ethics as the study of right and wrong. We spent a good deal of time discussing relativistic and universalist theories about ethics and the problems associated with each. We spent time describing the importance of psychology in understanding ethics in terms of the free will and determinism arguments. In this lecture we will explore how experience, interpretation, and analysis work and build on one another. We will study this in an integral framework that includes moral sensitivity, ontological shock, and praxis as necessary conditions for true ethics to be studied and put into practice. We will also study the basics of moral reasoning, including becoming aware of a number of fallacies that interfere with clear reasoning.

An Integral Approach

You are probably beginning to see that our moral knowledge does not come simply from reason, or intuition, or emotions, or experience. Perhaps they all have to work together for us to begin to approach an adequate way of accessing moral knowledge. “By sharpening our analytical skills, we can become more independent in our thinking and less susceptible to worldviews that foster narrow-mindedness. The thinking process used in philosophical inquiry can be broken down into three tiers or levels of experience, interpretation, and analysis. Keep in mind that this division is artificial and merely one of emphasis. We never have pure experience or engage in pure analysis. All three levels overlap and interact with one another. Experience provides the material for interpretation and analysis; analysis, in the end, returns to experience. If the results of our analysis are inconsistent with our experience, then we need to start over and fine-tune our analysis so that it takes into account all relevant experience. Analysis also returns to experience in the form of action or praxis” (Judith A. Boss, Ethics For Life: A Text With Readings, Fourth Edition, [New York, New York: McGraw Hill, 2008] p. 33. Hereafter referred to as Boss). Examining these three levels in a little detail will help us understand this point. Let’s start by looking closer at the level of experience.

Most psychologists agree that there can be no thought without experience. This is one reason why there is an emphasis put on giving babies and young children as much stimulus as possible. “Experience is the first level of thinking. Experience goes beyond the five senses: We notice certain events happening, we observe different feelings within ourselves, we have certain intuitions, and we receive information about the world by reading or hearing about the experiences of others. Experience forms the foundation of the philosophical enterprise.” (Boss, p. 34.) But if all we had were experiences, with no way to remember and track them, we would not be able to make sense of our world. So experience, while necessary, cannot alone solve the problem of knowledge.

We must think about our experiences. “Interpretation involves trying to make sense of our experience. This level of thinking includes individual interpretations of experience as well as collective or cultural interpretations. Some of our interpretations may be well informed; others may be based merely on our opinions or personal feelings. Upon analysis, an opinion may just happen to be true. Even opinions that make good sense and win the approval of others are still only opinions if we cannot support them with good reasons or factual evidence” (Boss, p. 34.)

Critical thinking is often about learning to distinguish between opinions and arguments. People often confuse these things and this leads to much unnecessary distress. “The interpretations of our experiences taken together form what is known as our worldview. American physicist and philosopher Thomas Kuhn refers to our worldview regarding a particular aspect of our experience, such as science or morality, as a paradigm. Paradigms provide an overall way of regarding and explaining phenomena in a particular discipline” (Boss, p. 34.) It is very interesting to study worldviews and to realize that how we think of the world influences how we see it.

But experience and interpretation are not enough. “People often blend fact and opinion. It is important, therefore, to learn to distinguish between the two. By learning how to critically analyze our worldview, we can break the vicious cycle we just described. Analysis of moral issues draws on the findings of other disciplines such as psychology, sociology, and the natural sciences, it also involves an examination of our worldviews in light of fundamental moral intuitions, moral sentiments, and collective insights” (Boss, p. 35.) Analysis is what allows us to compare experiences and interpretations to come up with as accurate a picture of reality as we are capable of. This is critical if we are to find our way into an understanding of moral knowledge.

If we stay just on the level of interpretation then we are also staying on the level of subjectivism and emotivism that we discussed above. These are not wrong in themselves, but they are too limiting. “Analysis demands that we raise our level of consciousness and refuse to accept narrow interpretations of our experience. As such, analysis often begins with questions about the assumptions underlying our interpretations” (Boss, p. 35.) A big part of becoming a wise person is the result of our ability to analyze our worldview and discover what the hidden assumptions about it are.

Our assumptions about reality are so close to us it is really difficult to see them with practice and often without some sort of guidance as found in certain meditation techniques and therapy procedures. “Some liberation ethicists claim that certain groups of traditionally disempowered people, such as African Americans, women, and economically disadvantaged people, have epistemological privilege. Those who do not benefit from or are harmed by conventional interpretations of reality, it is argued, are the least likely to buy into or defend the interpretations that oppress them. Being the least biased in favor of traditional interpretations, they also have the least resistance to analyzing them. This is a reversal of the conventional wisdom that favors insight and the logical, abstract thinking processes used by well-educated White males” (Boss, p. 36.)

So much of our understanding of ethics and morality in the Western world has come from a relatively few White males from Europe and America. This does not mean that what they had to say is not valid, but it does make it seem more limited. We live in an exciting time when we now have access to many other viewpoints and this only helps us analyze our experience and interpretation of reality with more insight. Let’s look at some of these other ways of viewing the world that have come to the fore in the last few decades.

Feminist Methodology and Praxis in Ethical Analysis

Do women see the world differently than men do? Women’s studies programs are asking us to take this question very seriously, not only in the study of ethics, but in other areas as well. “In an article entitled ‘Shifting Perspective: A New Approach to Ethics,’ Canadian philosopher Sheila Mullett outlines a process for ethical analysis based on what she calls a feminist methodology. Mullett’s approach to ethical analysis involves three steps or dimensions:

1. The first dimension, moral sensitivity, grows out of a collective consciousness raising. Until we develop an awareness of the experience of violence, victimization, and pain that surrounds us, we will continue to inadvertently perpetuate it. Only through actually experiencing - directly or indirectly - ‘this consciousness of pain,’ Mullet argues, ‘can we begin to cultivate a new attitude towards the social arrangements which contribute to suffering.’

2. The second dimension is ontological shock. Ontology is the philosophical study of ‘being’ or the nature of being. Ontological shock is something that shakes us to the very core of our being, thus forcing us to call into question our cherished worldview or standard interpretations of our experiences. Simply being aware of and lamenting the injustices and pain in the world are not sufficient to motivate us to do this. When we experience ontological shock, the worldview that we once took for granted is displaced, thereby forcing us to reanalyze our old assumptions.

3. The third dimension of analysis is praxis. Praxis refers to the practice of a particular art or skill. In ethics, praxis requires informed social action. True philosophical analysis always returns with an altered and heightened consciousness to the world of particular experiences” (Boss, p. 38.)

We grow in moral sensitivity with new experiences. This is one reason why it is so important to travel and expose ourselves to different people and different types of food, literature, and music. It is all too easy for us to stay with the safe and small circle of where we are comfortable. But without challenges we don’t seem to grow. Ontological shock is easy to understand when you think of a time that made you question your values.

For people raised within a religion, this often happens when they encounter suffering. The great problem of evil is the one that most religious people have to tackle sooner or later if their faith is going to be relevant to their lives. It can happen in relationships the first time we encounter a problem. Will we be able to forgive and move on? Praxis has to do with exposure. We often learn to care for others by being put in situations where people are dependent on us. Sometimes it happens when we are ill or hurt and we see how helpful it is to have others care for us. With that experience we start to desire to be a part of a world where more of this care and concern is seen as central to the meaning of human life.

Hopefully you are starting to see how an integral approach that includes experience, interpretation, and analysis all work together. When we combine this integrally with moral sensitivity, ontological shock, and praxis we start to get a much richer view of ethics and morality. “Analysis, in this broader sense, is interactive, interdisciplinary, and directed toward praxis or social action. This approach is not only richer and more inclusive but also more effective for promoting moral growth. Praxis demands that we also cultivate our own moral character. Until we overcome our own narrow interpretations of the world and incorporate these changes into our personal life, it is unlikely that we will be able to sustain our involvement in praxis” (Boss, p. 39.)

One of the interesting attempts to sponsor peace in the turbulent Middle East has been an effort to bring Israeli and Palestinian children together in summer camps in the United States. The idea is that when these children have a chance to get out of the hot house of their immediate environment and simply learn about one another they almost naturally start caring about one another. It is hoped that this care will then transform itself into a praxis of peace when they return home.

We are going to plunge into the actual process of moral reasoning soon, but first I want us to look at one of the key hurdles we must cross when learning about ethics, and that is our resistance to being challenged.

Overcoming Resistance

One of the most difficult challenges with studying ethics is that it is a study that has implications for our lives and the choices we make. Many times we don’t want to look at things because if we did we know we would need to change. “Most of us hate to be proved wrong. When a particular paradigm becomes thoroughly entrenched in our worldview, we may begin to see it as fact rather than an interpretation of experience, especially if we benefit by that particular worldview” (Boss, p. 40.) The key word is benefit. As long as slaveholders could benefit from slavery it was difficult to see that slavery itself was wrong. We rationalize the things we like or find another way to justify our choices.

Rationalizations and justifications are two ways we are able to use defense mechanisms to avoid learning and growing. So we need to look at this closely. “To avoid having our worldview challenged, we may use a type of defense mechanism known as resistance. Defense mechanisms are psychological tools, which we usually learn at an early age, for coping with difficult situations. Defense mechanisms can be divided into two main types: (1) coping and (2) resistance” (Boss, p. 40.) Sometimes we need defense mechanisms. They only become a problem when they are used inappropriately.

Many new things come our way all of the time. Many demands are made on our time. So we need healthy ways to deal with all of this stress. “Coping, or healthy defense mechanisms, allows us to work through challenges to our worldview and to adjust our life in ways that maintain our integrity. Healthy ways of coping include logical analysis, objectivity, tolerance of ambiguity, empathy, and suppression of harmful emotional responses” (Boss, p. 40.) You can usually test a person’s mental health by watching to see how well they cope with the many demands made on their time and energy. How do they deal with all of that? Do you admire or disrespect how they cope?