Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 99–113 | Cite as

Variability and moral phenomenology

Regular article


Many moral philosophers in the Western tradition have used phenomenological claims as starting points for philosophical inquiry; aspects of moral phenomenology have often been taken to be anchors to which any adequate account of morality must remain attached. This paper raises doubts about whether moral phenomena are universal and robust enough to serve the purposes to which moral philosophers have traditionally tried to put them. Persons’ experiences of morality may vary in a way that greatly limits the extent to which moral phenomenology can constitute a reason to favor one moral theory over another. Phenomenology may not be able to serve as a pre-theoretic starting point or anchor in the consideration of rival moral theories because moral phenomenology may itself be theory-laden. These doubts are illustrated through an examination of how moral phenomenology is used in the thought of Ralph Cudworth, Samuel Clarke, Joseph Butler, Francis Hutcheson, and Søren Kierkegaard.


Moral phenomenology Variability Ralph Cudworth Samuel Clarke Joseph Butler Francis Hutcheson Søren Kierkegaard 


  1. Butler, J. (1983). In S. Darwall (Ed.), Five sermons. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company. (Original work published in 1726).Google Scholar
  2. Clarke, S. (1738). The works (Vol. 2). London: John and Paul Knapton.Google Scholar
  3. Craig, E. (1987). The mind of God and the works of man. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  4. Cudworth, R. (1996). In S. Hutton (Ed.), A treatise on eternal and immutable morality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published in 1731).Google Scholar
  5. Dancy, J. (1986). Two conceptions of moral realism. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 60(Supplement volume), 167–187.Google Scholar
  6. Dreyfus, H., & Dreyfus, S. (1990). What is morality? A phenomenological account of the development of ethical expertise. In D. Rassmussen (Ed.), Universalism vs. Communitarianism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Frankfurt, H. (1988). Necessity and desire. In The importance of what we care about. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Gert, B. (1998). Morality: Its nature and justification. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Gill, M. B. (2004). Rationalism, sentimentalism, and Ralph Cudworth. Hume Studies, 30, 149–181.Google Scholar
  10. Gill, M. B. (2006a). The British moralists on human nature and the birth of secular ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gill, M. B. (2006b). Moral rationalism vs. moral sentimentalism: Is morality more like math or beauty? Philosophy Compass, 1, 16–30.Google Scholar
  12. Horgan, T., & Timmons, M. (2005). Moral phenomenology and moral theory. Philosophical Issues, 15, 56–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hutcheson, F. (2002). In A. Garrett (Ed.), An essay on the nature and conduct of the passions and affections, with illustrations on the moral sense. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. (Originally published in 1728).Google Scholar
  14. Hutcheson, F. (2004). In W. Leidhold (Ed.), An inquiry into the original of our ideas of beauty and virtue. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. (Original work published in 1725).Google Scholar
  15. Kierkegaard, S. (2006). In C. S. Evans & S. Walsh (Eds.) (S. Walsh (Trans.)), Fear and trembling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published in 1843).Google Scholar
  16. Mandelbaum, M. (1969). Phenomenology of moral experience. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
  17. Williams, B. (1981). Practical necessity. In Moral luck. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of ArizonaTusconUSA

Personalised recommendations