Anne Ozar

This article demonstrates the unique value of a Husserlian phenomenological account of the affective (or “feeling”) dimension of emotional experience for realizing Aristotle’s vision of the cultivation of virtue. Through an analysis of envy, the author defends the claim that the affective dimension of self-assessment is central to the process of conceptualization by which we learn to apprehend our own emotional responses. Analytic conceptual analyses that dismiss the subjective, affective correlate of emotional experiences, therefore, fail to take seriously what is involved in learning from one's mistakes.

The practice of ascribing dispositions of communicative truthfulness to others is necessary if language-use is to be effective. In this article, through a phenomenological analysis of everyday judgments about the sincerity and honesty of others, the author shows that, in learning to employ these two distinct concepts correctly, users of language are learning that communicative truthfulness is morally significant insofar as it manifests fairness (in the case of honesty) and the goods of affective human connectedness (in the case of sincerity). In so doing, the author identifies important evaluative differences between sincerity and honesty and provides a substantive explanation for how our lived presumption about the communicative truthfulness of others is possible.

In the field of contemporary metaethics, discontinuity theories that also want to defend the objectivity of moral claims tend to be broadly Kantian.While several such theories have made good use of what William Hosmer Smith labels a “narrow phenomenology” of ‘what it is like’ for agents to be confronted with what appear to be objective, categorical demands, he rightly observes that “they haven’t yet fully articulated the experiences that make this moral deliberation possible and to which it is beholden” (p. xiii). Drawing contemporary moral philosophers into conversation with the “broad” phenomenological philosophy of Husserl, Heidegger, and Levinas, The Phenomenology of Moral Normativity presents an original and insightful alternative to the Kantian theories that have dominated this corner of the metaethical landscape, and in so doing, sheds new light on the value of transcendental phenomenology for metaethics more generally.

This article seeks to explain and debunk some of the most common ways citizens in developed countries rationalize their failure to reduce carbon emissions by showing how our culturally inherited conception of individual responsibility conspires with certain ordinary moral intuitions to preclude judgments of complicitous accountability. I argue that accountability for climate change can be made intelligible by understanding each individual’s responsibility to be rooted in our shared capacity for collective action.

Trust is a crucial component of the relationship between a professional and those whom the professional serves because those served often lack the past experience and specialized training necessary to adequately assess the reliability of the professional’s judgments on their behalf. This article is an attempt to enhance our understanding of the conditions under which client trust of a professional is plausible. Trust, I will explain, is an emotional attitude with a unique evaluative dimension that can lead the one who trusts to anticipate that the one trusted will not betray her even when she cannot adequately assess evidence of the trusted’s reliability. It is, however, precisely because evaluating someone’s trustworthiness differs in important respects from assessing their reliability that substantive trust of a professional is implausible in cases where those served by a particular profession, for example, medicine or journalism, conceive of it as merely a commercial enterprise

One of the distinguishing features of late-modern democratic politics is the extent to which the media, voting public, and politicians are preoccupied with the personal sincerity of political leaders. This chapter explores the role such a preoccupation has played in reshaping our understanding of political accountability. Through a philosophical investigation of the rhetorical force of sincerity in verbal responses to terrorist acts, I show how an excessive concern with the sincerity of political leaders limits the role of truth in political discourse and, thereby, the possibility for responsible political action.