Sentimental perceptualism and the challenge from cognitive bases

Abstract

According to a historically popular view, emotions are normative experiences that ground moral knowledge much as perceptual experiences ground empirical knowledge. Given the analogy it draws between emotion and perception, sentimental perceptualism constitutes a promising, naturalist-friendly alternative to classical rationalist accounts of moral knowledge. In this paper, we consider an important but underappreciated objection to the view, namely that in contrast with perception, emotions depend for their occurrence on prior representational states, with the result that emotions cannot give perceptual-like access to normative properties. We argue that underlying this objection are several specific problems, rooted in the different types of mental states to which emotions may respond, that the sentimental perceptualist must tackle for her view to be successful. We argue, moreover, that the problems can be answered by filling out the theory with several independently motivated yet highly controversial commitments, which we carefully catalogue. The plausibility of sentimental perceptualism, as a result, hinges on further claims sentimental perceptualists should not ignore.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    For an interpretation of Aristotle along these lines, see Moss (2013).

  2. 2.

    Shaftesbury’s view can be difficult to pin down, but see Gill (2018) for a sentimental perceptualist reading of Shaftesbury.

  3. 3.

    Audi (2004) and Huemer (2005) argue that appeals to non-affective intuition in moral epistemology are not mysterious. We are officially neutral about the issue here. Our project is internal to the sentimental perceptualist framework.

  4. 4.

    We say ‘involve’ to avoid adjudicating the question of whether sentimental perceptualists should identify affective experiences with non-doxastic normative representations or whether they should view such experiences as only a part of emotion. This question and its significance are discussed in detail in Milona (ms) and Naar (ms.).

  5. 5.

    We are assuming that perceptual experiences are representational, but some philosophers deny this (Campbell 2002). Readers who deny perceptual states represent can translate our arguments accordingly; nothing of what we argue ultimately depends on this assumption.

    Furthermore, many philosophers take desires and moods to be representational. Those who are attracted to perceptual theories of the emotions may be especially tempted to adopt such a view (see Oddie 2005; Tappolet 2018). For ease of discussion, however, we set aside these complications. We focus on the cognitive bases that have been emphasized by sentimental perceptualism’s opponents. For a discussion of the problem of ‘motivational bases’ for sentimental perceptualism, and a tentative response on behalf of the perceptualist, see Naar (2016).

  6. 6.

    It may be a conceptual truth that emotions are mediated by other mental states (Greenspan 1995, 194–6). We are neutral about this.

  7. 7.

    Roberts is aware this objection. His reply is that animals can possess concepts in the relevant sense. For example, a dog experiencing jealousy distinguishes three relevant parties: herself, the beloved, and the rival. The rival is perceived as the rival insofar as they are perceived to be threatening a cherished relationship with the beloved. For an animal to possess the concepts required for jealousy, they need only make these distinctions perceptually. An animal need not be capable of perception-independent thoughts (2013, 90). But this is to shift away from the analogy with high-level perception and towards an analogy with low-level perception. This is a move that we ultimately claim sentimental perceptualists should be pursuing (see below).

  8. 8.

    Readers who do not view low-level perceptions as non-conceptual should feel free to translate our proposal to their favored view of low-level perceptions.

  9. 9.

    See Prinz (2007, 65–68) on basic emotions (candidates for which include fear, anger, and sadness, among other) and non-basic emotions (e.g., indignation, which requires the concept of injustice). For an overview of basic emotions in the scientific literature, see Tracy and Randles (2011). According to Tracy and Randles (2011, 398), psychologists say that a basic emotion “should be discrete, have a fixed set of neural and bodily expressed components, and a fixed feeling or motivational component that has been selected for through longstanding interactions with ecologically valid stimuli (e.g., the subjective feeling and motivational component of fear is what it is because this response has historically been most adaptive in coping with typical fear elicitors).”.

  10. 10.

    Wedgwood’s specific target is Johnston (2001).

  11. 11.

    The sentimental perceptualist could concede the point and say that the analogy with perception is only at the level of justification. But this would be to place an important limit on the perceptual analogy, leaving advocates of the view with a difficult question about how emotional experiences of value could be non-accidentally correct and thus ground moral knowledge. Perhaps some plausible views could be offered, but our methodology in this paper is to preserve the analogy as much as possible, using it to develop answers to the most difficult questions about moral knowledge.

  12. 12.

    We borrow talk of formation principles (and the formation laws those principles describe) from Burge (2010) and Orlandi (2014).

  13. 13.

    This response assumes that causation is transitive, or at least that it is in these kinds of cases.

  14. 14.

    But what of conceptual perceptions? We believe that the account of robustness that we offer below may extend to many conceptual perceptions, and if so, emotions that are responses to such perceptions require no special treatment (see Sect. 7.1). But if some conceptual perceptions happen not to fit our model, then they can be treated in the manner of emotions which are responses to beliefs (see Sect. 8). Either way, the issue does not require separate treatment.

  15. 15.

    And one might think that memory is always mediated by belief.

  16. 16.

    Relying for instance on the background belief that if the world is as I believe it to be (non-normatively), then my emotions provide evidence that the world is indeed the way that it presents it as being (normatively).

  17. 17.

    Walton admits a similar sort of exception with respect to drawings by claiming that “[t]here are also doodles done automatically, while the doodler’s mind is on other things. Some such mechanically executed drawings are probably transparent.” (Walton 1984, 267).

  18. 18.

    Some theorists treat offline emotions as different in kind due to their different functional characteristics (Doggett and Egan 2007). We have no objection to this. Nothing we argue here turns on this debate.

  19. 19.

    Chudnoff (2013) proposes a theory on which we can intellectually perceive abstracta, including normative properties such as wrongness. But for reasons explained in Milona (2017), we do not believe that this is an attractive model for sentimental perceptualists.

  20. 20.

    Schroeder and Schafer refer specifically to sentimental perceptualist views of desire, but their point goes equally well for sentimental perceptualist views of emotions.

References

  1. Armstrong, D. (1973). Belief, truth, and knowledge. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Audi, R. (2004). The good in the right: A theory of intuition and intrinsic value. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Brady, M. S. (2013). Emotional insight: The epistemic role of emotional experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Burge, T. (2010). Origins of objectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Campbell, J. (2002). Reference and consciousness. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Chudnoff, E. (2013). Intuition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cowan, R. (2015). Perceptual Intuitionism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 90(1), 164–193.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cowan, R. (2016). Epistemic perceptualism and neo-sentimentalist objections. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 46(1), 59–81.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cowan, R. (2018). Epistemic sentimentalism and epistemic reason-responsiveness. In A. Bergqvist & R. Cowan (Eds.), Evaluative perception. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. D’Arms, J., & Jacobson, P. (2017). Whither sentimentalism? On fear, the fearsome, and the dangerous. In K. Stueber & R. Debes (Eds.), Ethical sentimentalism: New perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Deigh, J. (1994). Cognitivism in the theory of emotions. Ethics, 104, 824–854.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Deonna, J. A., & Teroni, F. (2012). The emotions: A philosophical introduction. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Deonna, J. A., & Teroni, F. (2014). In what sense are emotions evaluations? In S. Roeser & C. Todd (Eds.), Emotion and value. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Doggett, T., & Egan, A. (2007). Wanting things you don’t want: The case for an imaginative analogue of desire. Philosophers’ Imprint, 7, 7–17.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dokic, J., & Lemaire, S. (2013). Are emotions perceptions of value. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 43(2), 227–247.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Döring, S. A. (2007). Seeing what to do: Affective perception and rational motivation. Dialectica, 61(3), 363–394.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Echeverri, S. (2017). Emotional justification. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Finlay, S. (2014). Confusion of tongues: A theory of normative language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Gill, M. (2018). Shaftesbury on life as a work of art. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 26(6), 1110–1131.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Greenspan, P. (1995). Practical guilt: Moral dilemmas, emotions, and social norms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Huemer, M. (2005). Ethical intuitionism. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hutcheson, F. (1991). An inquiry concerning the original of our ideas of virtue or moral good (selections). In D. D. Raphael (Ed.), British moralists 1650–1800: Hobbes-Gay (pp. 261–299). Hackett: Indianapolis.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Johnston, M. (2001). The authority of affect. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 63(1), 181–214.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Kauppinen, A. (2013). A Humean theory of moral intuition. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 43(3), 360–381.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Mackie, J. L. (1976). Problems from Locke. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Mackie, J. L. (1977). Ethics: Inventing right and wrong. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Martin, C. B., & Deutscher, M. (1966). Remembering. Philosophical Review, 75(2), 161–196.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Meinong, A. (1972). On emotional presentation (Marie-Luise Schubert Kalsi, Trans.). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

  29. Milona, M. (2016). Taking the perceptual analogy seriously. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 19(4), 897–915.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Milona, M. (2017). Intellect versus affect: Finding leverage in an old debate. Philosophical Studies, 174(9), 2251–2276.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Milona, M. (2018). On the epistemological significance of value perception. In A. Bergqvist & R. Cowan (Eds.), Evaluative perception: Aesthetic, ethical, and normative (pp. 200–218). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Milona, M. (ms.). The attitudinalist challenge to perceptualism about emotion.

  33. Moss, J. (2013). Aristotle on the apparent good: Perception, phantasia, thought, and desire. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Naar, H. (2016). Le caractère personnel des émotions. Revue Philosophique de la France et de l’Etranger, 141(2), 197–214. (Special issue “Les motivations affectives”).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Naar, H. (ms.). A Humean challenge for sentimental perceptualism.

  36. Neander, K. (2012). Teleological theories of mental content. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2012 Edition). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2012/entries/content-teleological/.

  37. Nussbaum, M. (2001). Upheavals of thought: The intelligence of emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Oddie, G. (2005). Value, reality, and desire. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Orlandi, N. (2014). The innocent eye: Why vision is not a cognitive process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Prinz, J. (2007). The emotional construction of morals. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Roberts, R. C. (2013). Emotions in the moral life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Schafer, K. (2013). Perception and the rational force of desire. Journal of Philosophy, 110(5), 258–281.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Scheler, M. (1973). Formalism in ethics and non-formal ethics of values (Manfred Frings and Roger Frunk, Trans.). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

  44. Schroeder, M. (2008). How does the good appear to us? Social Theory and Practice, 34(1), 119–130.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Shaftesbury, the Third Earl of. Anthony Ashley Cooper. (1991). In D. D. Raphael (Ed.), An inquiry concerning virtue, or merit (selections). British moralists 16501800: Hobbes-Gay (pp. 169–188). Indianapolis: Hackett.

  46. Siegel, S. (2010). The contents of visual experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Siegel, S. (2013). The epistemic impact of the etiology of experience. Philosophical Studies, 162(3), 697–722.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Solomon, R. C. (1976). The passions. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Tappolet, C. (2016). Emotions, values, and agency. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Tappolet, C. (2018). The metaphysics of moods. In H. Naar & F. Teroni (Eds.), The ontology of emotions (pp. 169–186). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Tracy, J., & Randles, D. (2011). Four models of basic emotions: A review of Ekman and Cordaro, Izard, Levenson, and Panksepp and Watt. Emotion Review, 3(4), 397–405.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Van Leeuwen, N. (2017). The imaginative agent. In Amy Kind & Peter Kung (Eds.), Knowledge through Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Walton, K. (1984). Transparent pictures. Critical Inquiry, 11(2), 246–277.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Wedgwood, R. (2001). Sensing values. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 63(1), 215–223.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Yablo, S. (1992). Mental causation. Philosophical Review, 101, 245–280.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Milona.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Milona, M., Naar, H. Sentimental perceptualism and the challenge from cognitive bases. Philos Stud 177, 3071–3096 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-019-01360-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Emotion
  • Cognitive base
  • Perception
  • Moral epistemology