Gender Perception as a Habit of Moral Perception: Implications for Philosophical Methodology and Introductory Curriculum
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Social Philosophy 43 (3):347-362 (2012)
The inclusion of more women’s works on introductory syllabi in philosophy has been suggested as one possible strategy to increase the proportion of philosophers that are female. Objections to this strategy often reflect the assumption that attention to the identity of authors is irrelevant to philosophy and detrimental to other pedagogical goals such as fairly and accurately representing the canon, and offering selections on the basis of their philosophical quality rather than the identities of their authors. I suggest the extent to which one perceives it important to include women on introductory syllabi, one’s “gender perception,” may be affected by one’s largely unconscious, and unchosen, habits of moral perception; I appeal to Peggy DesAutel’s distinction between two types of moral perceiver to suggest that the differences between advocates and critics of more inclusive curriculum are not merely differences in values, but reflect fundamental and unchosen biases which result in receptivity to different considerations as to the reasons to change the way we introduce philosophy to newcomers. I provide evidence that inclusive curriculum may benefit all students, and suggest alternative approaches to representing the importance of those benefits to philosophers whose habits of moral perception may incline them to receptivity to principled rules and fairness rather than affective considerations.
|Keywords||moral perception gender perception inclusive introduction to philosophy diversity critical thinking women in philosophy|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Rachel Mckinnon (2014). Stereotype Threat and Attributional Ambiguity for Trans Women. Hypatia 29 (1):857-872.
Similar books and articles
Justin P. McBrayer (2010). A Limited Defense of Moral Perception. Philosophical Studies 149 (3):305–320.
Andrew Cullison (2010). Moral Perception. European Journal of Philosophy 18 (2):159-175.
David Woodruff Smith (1986). The Ins and Outs of Perception. Philosophical Studies 49 (March):187-211.
Robert Audi (2010). Moral Perception and Moral Knowledge. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 84 (1):79-97.
Shannon Sullivan (2000). Reconfiguring Gender with John Dewey: Habit, Bodies, and Cultural Change. Hypatia 15 (1):23-42.
Bence Nanay (2014). Philosophy of Perception as a Guide to Aesthetics. In Greg Currie, Aaron Meskin, Matthew Kieran & Jon Robson (eds.), Aesthetics and the Sciences of the Mind.
Rebecca Copenhaver (2010). Thomas Reid on Acquired Perception. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 91 (3):285-312.
B. Nanay (2012). The Philosophical Implications of the Perky Experiments: Reply to Hopkins. Analysis 72 (3):439-443.
Ishtiyaque Haji (2010). Psychopathy, Ethical Perception, and Moral Culpability. Neuroethics 3 (2):135-150.
Jo Ann Ho (2010). Ethical Perception: Are Differences Between Ethnic Groups Situation Dependent? Business Ethics 19 (2):154-182.
Sarah McGrath (2004). Moral Knowledge by Perception. Philosophical Perspectives 18 (1):209–228.
Leendert P. Mos (1980). Perception (I). Methodology and Science 13:168-190.
Justin P. McBrayer (2010). Moral Perception and the Causal Objection. Ratio 23 (3):291-307.
Fiona Macpherson (2009). Perception, Philosophical Perspectives. In Tim Bayne, Axel Cleeremans & P. Wilken (eds.), The Oxford Companion to Consciousness. Oxford University Press
Added to index2012-09-03
Total downloads23 ( #164,484 of 1,902,209 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #466,168 of 1,902,209 )
How can I increase my downloads?