One of the most formative courses of my graduate career has been taking a graduate seminar on moral psychology and philosophy, taught by Mike Zhao at Notre Dame. This class was such a good foundation for understanding current experimental and empirically focused philosophical work. In this class, we began by reading groundbreaking psychological research alongside the current philosophical literature at the time. This not only situated the psychological research within a relevant debate, but the readings also made clear the various delineations between all the positions engaged in the relevant debate.
Reading psychological literature alone lends itself to being myopically focused only on the very precise results of the data and the psychology literature, which the researchers are drawing from. However, much of what we read was excellent at seamlessly incorporating the various philosophical proposals on the table and current psychological research.
One of the best examples of this kind of seamless incorporation is Adina Roskies’s paper on “acquired sociopaths” and their ethical judgments. In this paper, she lays out the necessary and sufficient conditions for motivational internalism (as it is currently defended) to introduce current cognitive scientific research which provides a counterexample to such conditions, namely patients with VM (ventromedial prefrontal cortex) damage. These patients can make moral judgments, which align with the general population, ostensibly without also being motivated by such judgments.
This class was exactly the kind of philosophy class I’ve always wanted to take. I know empirically minded philosophy is more common now than ever before. However, the philosophy courses that I’ve taken thus far have never treated papers published in another field as on an equal footing as philosophical literature. That was absolutely refreshing. This class solidified my decision to continue pursuing moral reasoning research. I have become more interested in investigating the necessary (purportedly) link between moral judgments and motivation. Additionally, I’m curious to see what current cognitive science research might be able to illuminate about such a link.
At the beginning of the course, I thought I mostly understood the different positions and current debates in moral psychology. As the course went on, I realized there were so many more nuanced positions that I never even considered and I continued to learn new positions and further distinctions. One of the most important things to note is that with the addition of these positions and distinctions, the waters did not get muddier. Instead, because the papers we read were just so clear and mostly enjoyable to read, I became clearer on the argument space and the positions being laid out.
From a pedagogical standpoint, I found that reading selection has a significant impact on how the course unfolds. Not only do the readings provide good fodder for discussion, but they are also a model of clear and empirically integrated philosophy. Having good models for philosophical writing can guide students in the right direction. Without it, philosophical writing can become nebulous and hard to emulate. I really appreciated the female philosophers and psychologists that were highlighted in the course. The weekly reading lists almost always had at least one female author that we were seriously engaging with. The female-authored papers never felt like an add-on, rather they were central to the important philosophical debates we covered. Oftentimes, I have experienced the inclusion of women in reading lists as a bit like a sympathy move or an afterthought. In this course, it did not remotely feel this way. In fact, I felt like some of the most memorable and thought-provoking readings were written by women. This particular feature of the course is something that I find really inspiring.
The gender disparity in philosophy is an unfortunate reality that really needs to change. Having the experience of seeing (on a regular basis) the very important contributions that women in philosophy and psychology have made was hugely impactful. In this class, I felt for the first time that women are no less influential than men in philosophy. And that is not an insignificant experience for me.
As a woman of color in philosophy, I am, oftentimes, the only woman (let alone, person) of color in a room. And the experience I had, where I seriously engaged with important philosophical work by women has given me a sense of belonging. Seeing the impact that women have had and continue to have engenders a sense of possibility for myself and my future as a philosopher.
As I transition into TA-ing and eventually teaching my own course, I will carry that sense of possibility and inspiration with me. I am invigorated by the ability to follow some of the research presented in this class that stems from influential work by women in philosophy and psychology. When women are central to the history of a philosophical debate, they open the channels for future female philosophers to be not simply included, but also central and unavoidable. I look forward to teaching my own course on empirically motivated moral reasoning, which centers female philosophers.
Certain areas of philosophy can be much harder to achieve such a parity, but that does not seem like a hurdle that I will have to overcome. I hope that I can inspire future budding female students that philosophy is not a space where women have to be marginalized. After taking this course, I am genuinely optimistic about my ability to change the landscape of philosophy through gender and racial diversity in at least one subfield, namely moral psychology and reasoning.
Abby Concha
Abby Concha is a 2nd year PhD student in the Philosophy department at University of Notre Dame. She primarily works on questions concerning moral reasoning. More specifically, Abby engages with topics related to moral reasoning viz. experimental philosophy, deontic logic, and cognitive philosophy of mind.
