Lian, Jr-Jiun (Lian, J.J.)

In recent years, Taiwan has been consistently targeted by cognitive warfare launched by China, using tactics that demonstrate a level of complexity beyond traditional academic definitions. This paper examines cognitive warfare through a multi-modal framework, integrating the concept of horizontal dissemination from political communication theory to expand scholarly understanding of these strategies. It also asserts that since cognitive warfare includes “malicious socio-disruptive technologies,” such tactics should not be categorized under the rights protected by free speech. This study extensively examines the theoretical and practical frameworks for countering cognitive warfare, focusing on three primary concerns: first, the clarification of the multi-modal cognitive warfare framework; second, analyses of cognitive warfare from both theoretical and practical perspectives; and third, proposing possible response strategies rooted in Taiwan’s democratic resilience.

The examination of "Taiwanese Philosophy" is intricately influenced by the complex meanings of its terms4, fostering a range of interpretations and understandings that play a crucial role in the methodological discussions on how Taiwanese philosophical ideas are analyzed and developed. I highlight that the conventional approaches to interpreting "Taiwanese Philosophy" are mainly divided into two models: the PIT framework, signifying "Philosophical activities in Taiwan," and the TP framework, indicating "Taiwanese Philosophy noted for its unique subjectivity" (see Hung & Gao 2018)5. In the early twentieth century, Mou Zongsan's emergence of New Confucianism shaped the academic reception towards the PIT model and elicited critiques of the TP perspective. This trend guided scholars in Chinese philosophy towards the CPIT (Chinese Philosophy in Taiwan) approach for deciphering "Taiwanese Philosophy," typically viewing it as a form of "Chinese philosophical endeavors in Taiwan." The prevailing contemporary academic opinion posits that initial supporters of New Confucianism failed to recognize Taiwanese philosophy’s unique characteristics and position following colonialism, reducing it to the CPIT model. This stance places "Taiwanese Philosophy" within the broader realm of Chinese Philosophy, highlighting the hierarchical differences between Chinese and Taiwanese philosophical traditions, which later drew substantial critique from supporters of Western liberalism and decolonization efforts. Recently, the importance of "Taiwanese Philosophy" and "Taiwanese Theory" has been increasingly acknowledged, with a growing agreement that "Taiwanese Philosophy," ideally interpreted through the TP model6, mirrors Taiwan's collective ethos and academic value rather than the more exhaustive PIT classification, which encompasses diverse philosophical lineages. Proponents of TP recognize the historical importance of the PIT model in documenting the evolution of Taiwanese Philosophy but strongly dispute its completeness for grasping the essence of "Taiwanese Philosophy." I intend to argue that, notwithstanding the recent criticisms against the PIT approach, revisiting PIT with the aid of extensive textual collections, cultural archives, and the study of intellectual history might offer a solid basis for a deeper appreciation of TP. It will explore how the PIT model can lead to significant misunderstandings by introducing two main biases: the belief that PIT sufficiently encapsulates "Taiwanese Philosophy," and the limitation of PIT to a mere geographical context. In addressing these biases, I offer a potential amicable reinterpretation and reassess the critical elements for a metaphysical description of the subjectivity emphasized in TP. Keywords: Optimal interpretation of Taiwanese Philosophy, Subjectivity and Agency, Genealogy of Knowledge, Methodology of Constructing Theories, Characteristics of Regional Philosophy

「臺灣哲學」因其詞彙上固有語義多義性(polysemy)的特徵，被賦予了廣泛的解讀模式與概念內涵，佔據主導地位的語義理解框架，深遠影響了「詮釋臺灣哲學」的研究方法論取徑選辨之爭端。本文闡述，傳統上「臺灣哲學」語義差異的解讀模式主要座落在兩種不同的框架之內：分別為(1)PIT 框架:「在臺灣的哲學活動(或稱：『在臺灣的哲學(Philosophy in Taiwan)』, 簡稱 PIT)」、(2)TP 框架：「具主體特徵(或主體性)的臺灣哲學(或稱:『臺灣(式)的哲學(Taiwanese Philosophy)』, 簡稱 TP)」(參見 洪＆高, 2018)。臺灣於上世紀(即二十世紀)之際，牟宗三諸賢之新儒學盛行於學界之主流，雖有學人或對(PIT)框架保有開放態度，然針對(TP) 框架則多存疑慮與駁斥。在新儒家思潮的驅動下，涉獵與執論中國哲學的學者被囿於(CPIT, Chinese Philosophy in Taiwan)的框架範疇來詮釋「臺灣哲學」，大抵將「臺灣哲學」看作是一種「在臺灣的中國哲學實踐活動」或「中國哲學在臺灣之表現形式」。根據當代學術界主流之見解，早期新儒家學圈似未充分顧及後殖民與後遺民臺灣哲學的異質性與特殊地位，偏狹獨斷地將「臺灣哲學」逕自簡化認作為(CPIT)的觀點——此見解於理論形而上學之層面，頗有昭示凸顯「『臺灣哲學』乃『中國哲學』一支」之姿態，且亦強調中國哲學之於臺灣哲學有「主v.s客」、「核心v.s邊陲」、「宰制v.s隸屬 」等法統位階差異，繼後數旬間屢遭承襲西洋自由主義與解殖獨立運動思潮影響的志篤之士劇烈反撥。近年來學者們更加深切關懷與反思「臺灣哲學」與「臺灣理論」的重要性，諸多意見中，不乏有學者力言「臺灣哲學」之意義，在於學術探究價值與反映臺灣特色的群體精神上，其最適切之詮釋係屬(TP) 「具主體特徵的臺灣哲學」，而非(PIT)「在臺灣的(東方與西方 i.e. 中國、英美、歐陸⋯⋯)哲學活動」。倡議(TP)框架的學說家或可予以同意(PIT) 描繪與勾勒出臺灣哲學的歷史軌跡輪廓，但對於將(PIT)框架視為理解及詮釋「臺灣哲學」之充分要件，恐怕仍將遭到強烈排斥。本篇論文將指出，儘管利用(PIT)框架來詮釋「臺灣哲學」的取向近年受到眾多挑戰，但透過重塑對(PIT)框架的認識並結合大型語料庫、文化檔案、思想史的研究方法，容或能為(TP)提供與奠定一個更全面的理解基礎。筆者將嘗試說明，(PIT)框架為何可能導向嚴重的認知誤區，其中涵蓋了兩項主要偏誤：(偏誤一)(PIT)框架提出了「臺灣哲學」存有論上的充分要件；(偏誤二)(PIT)框架的「在臺灣(in Taiwan)」指的純粹是「空間地理內的臺灣」。本文透過對於前述偏誤的釐清與釋疑，提供了一種可能的善意調融詮釋。本文在最後再次審視，對於(TP)框架中所強調的主體性特徵而言，哪些要素構成了適當的形上學描述。 關鍵詞：臺灣哲學、主體性與能動性、知識系譜、建構理論的方法論、地域哲學的特徵

This paper explores the correlation between economic indicators and economic development, focusing on common economic indicators such as GDP, Purchasing Power Parity (PPP), economic growth rate, and unemployment rate. It compares and analyzes data from Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, the United States, and China. The study finds that a single economic indicator cannot fully reflect a country's economic development and that multiple indicators must be considered to assess the economic situation more accurately. The paper also discusses differences in economic growth among countries, the impact of income disparity and unemployment rates on economic development, and emphasizes the importance of PPP in cross-country comparisons. Finally, it points out that in addition to GDP, factors such as income distribution and social welfare should also be considered when evaluating economic development. Keywords: Economic Indicators, Gross Domestic Product (GDP), Purchasing Power Parity (PPP), Economic Growth Rate, Unemployment Rate

Education fundamentally focuses on 'individuals', whose human value is rooted in the expression of 'self-identity'. This process is influenced by their social rank and linguistic culture, and within varied discourses and ideological communities, different 'self-identity values' emerge. This applies to all individuals, whether they are citizens or women, and encompasses complex social metaphysical questions. For instance, how do we define social identities such as poverty, disability, privilege, or femininity? 'Intuition' and 'common sense' often fail in such definitions, especially in recognizing exceptions like gender identification, which challenges the distinctions between biological sex and gender identity. The paper analyzes 'Social Historical Structuralism' and ' Performative Theory' to see if they address the challenges of 'Essentialism'. It assesses both pluralism and monism and the autonomy of the 'true self' in educational philosophy's core concepts, grounded in the philosophy of self-identity. This study starts from female community perspectives, addressing women's disadvantaged status in social and linguistic structures and the impact of individualism on gender mainstreaming. This paper concludes by re-evaluating monistic approaches and considering the equitable recognition of community members' autonomy, underscoring the importance of self-identity in educational philosophy amidst the growing influence of identity politics in Western education. Keywords: Self-Identity and Educational Philosophy, Social Metaphysics, Class and Identity, Ideology and Autonomy

Education fundamentally focuses on 'individuals', whose human value is rooted in the expression of 'self-identity'. This process is influenced by their social rank and linguistic culture, and within varied discourses and ideological communities, different 'self-identity values' emerge. This applies to all individuals, whether they are citizens or women, and encompasses complex social metaphysical questions. For instance, how do we define social identities such as poverty, disability, privilege, or femininity? 'Intuition' and 'common sense' often fail in such definitions, especially in recognizing exceptions like gender identification, which challenges the distinctions between biological sex and gender identity. The paper analyzes 'Social Historical Structuralism' and ' Performative Theory' to see if they address the challenges of 'Essentialism'. It assesses both pluralism and monism and the autonomy of the 'true self' in educational philosophy's core concepts, grounded in the philosophy of self-identity. This study starts from female community perspectives, addressing women's disadvantaged status in social and linguistic structures and the impact of individualism on gender mainstreaming. This paper concludes by re-evaluating monistic approaches and considering the equitable recognition of community members' autonomy, underscoring the importance of self-identity in educational philosophy amidst the growing influence of identity politics in Western education. Keywords: Self-Identity and Educational Philosophy, Social Metaphysics, Class and Identity, Ideology and Autonomy

In light of Taiwan's extensive exposure to the Chinese Communist Party's "cognitive domain infiltration warfare," this paper proposes new response mechanisms and strategies for cybersecurity and national defense. The focus is primarily on assessing the CCP's cognitive infiltration tactics to develop policy recommendations in cybersecurity linguistics. These recommendations are intended to serve as a reference for future national defense and information security policies. Within the constraints of limited resources, this study attempts to provide an integrated analysis method combining qualitative and quantitative tools. This method involves text mining in cybersecurity linguistics, focusing on "textual content" and incorporating discourse deconstruction. The aim is to enhance the success rate in identifying and defining contentious information in cognitive warfare, thereby offering policy suggestions. Keywords: Cognitive Infiltration, Big Data Corpus, Cybersecurity Linguistics, Text Mining Analysis, Narrative Language Deconstruction.

Contentful Moral Perceptualists such as Audi (2013), Lord (2018), McNaughton (1988), McBrayer (2010a, 2010b), Cowan (2014, 2015), and Werner (2016, 2018) claim that moral propositions can serve as the content of perception for moral subjects. However, in my original interpretation, recent critics of moral perceptualism, such as Faraci (2015), Väyrynen (2018), and Chudnoff (2015), subtly suggest that it is more reasonable to claim that moral propositions are the content of cognition rather than perception. Faraci, Väyrynen, and Chudnoff argue that the so-called "moral perception" posited by Contentful Moral Perceptualists is actually dominated by dominative moral principles, representing a psychological state inferred from principles. Therefore, these critics believe that the so-called "moral perception" lacks the non-inferential characteristic of genuine perceptual experience and is not true perception. This paper will evaluate whether the "contentful moral perceptual model" can respond to the challenges posed by these critics. I will provide a preliminary defense for an affirmative answer. Keywords: Moral Perception, Phenomenal Contrast Method, Perceptual Content, Phenomenal Experience, Non-Inferential Characteristics of Perception

This paper delves into the significance and challenges of Artificial Intelligence (AI) ethics and justice in terms of Common Good and Well-being, fairness and non-discrimination, rational public deliberation, and autonomy and control. Initially, the paper establishes the groundwork for subsequent discussions using the Academia Sinica LLM incident and the AI Technology R&D Guidelines of the National Science and Technology Council(NSTC) as a starting point. In terms of justice and ethics in AI, this research investigates whether AI can fulfill human common interests and welfare. Taking AI injustice as an example, I analyze the practical assessment of AI regarding regional, industrial, and social impacts. Further, this paper discusses the challenges of fairness and non-discrimination in AI, specifically addressing the issue of training on biased data, discussing the acquisition of bias by AI and post-processing supervision issues, and emphasizing the importance of rational public deliberation in this process. Then, this research examines the challenges and countermeasures the rational public faces in public deliberation, such as the importance of education in STEM scientific literacy and technological capabilities. Finally, in discussing AI and autonomy, I propose a 'Human-Centered Approach’ rather than relying solely on the 'Technological Utility Maximization' brought by AI to achieve substantial AI justice. Keywords: AI Ethics and Justice, Fairness and Non-Discrimination, Biased Data Training, Public Deliberation, Autonomy, Human-Centered Approach

本研究旨在探究台灣華文哲學期刊文章摘要的修辭語步。有鑒於過去針對研究論文「摘要研究」語步分析最常見的理論，是 Hyland（2000）提出的五項修辭語步「簡介、目的、方法、成果、結論」架構，且多數人文科學或自然科學領域的研 究論文摘要都是由 Hyland（2000）所提出這五項修辭語步所組成的。因此，本研究所要探討的問題是華文哲學期刊論文摘要的修辭語步如何組成？各個修辭語步在各篇論文摘要出現的頻率與次序為何？它們是否反映出某些特定類型的分佈狀 況？是否有哪些修辭語步出現的頻率格外稀少？華文哲學期刊文章的摘要是否適用『簡介、目的、方法、成果、結論』這五項修辭語步的架構？哲學學術期刊論文摘要的修辭語步所反映出哲學寫作社群慣例是什麼呢？為了解答上述問題，本 研究採取的方法是蒐集近五年（2017 年至 2021 年）台灣代表性華文哲學期刊文章《東吳哲學學報》十八篇論文摘要，並逐一運用 Hyland（2000）五項修辭語步的理論架構分析各篇摘要的修辭語步，並運用表格彙整呈現出各個修辭語步出現 的頻率、次序、類型。本研究的結果發現：「方法（M）」與「結論（C）」並不是構成台灣哲學期刊文章摘要的修辭語步、而「目的（P）」這項修辭語步是「必備性」出現的修辭語步（主語通常是「本文」；動詞是「論證」或「探究」）、「簡介（I）」雖是「慣例性」出現的語步，然其所占的總字數卻居於首位。這也顯示出了哲學期刊論文摘要的修辭語步變異、哲學學術社群的寫作文化與慣例。最後，本研究提出了三項適用於 Hyland（2007）語體教學法的學術論文的摘要寫作教學方針，期許能藉此延伸應用作為哲學教師未來進行教學、或研究生撰寫並投稿哲學期刊論文摘要的一個重要參照依據。 關鍵詞：哲學、期刊論文、摘要、言談分析、修辭語步

道德感知主義（moral perceptualism）主張「（至少有一些）道德性質（moral properties）可以是主體感知內容（perceptual content）的一部分」，其中的支持者包含了Audi （2013, 2015）; Lord （2018）; McNaughton （1988）; McBrayer （2010a, 2010b）; Cowan （2015）; Werner （2016, 2020b）。其中，Werner （2016）認為他所提出的「現象對比論證（Phenomenal Contrast Arguments, PCAs）」可以用來證立道德感知主義。此論證強調了某些道德情境中有「跨主體的現象對比」（inter-subjective phenomenal contrast）的存在；換句話說，兩個主體面對同一場景時，其經驗各別顯現出不同的現象特性/現象特徵（phenomenal character）。此論證認為對於「跨主體間的現象對比（inter-subjective phenomenal contrast）」的最佳解釋說明是兩個不同主體在道德感知經驗上有所差異(contrast in moral perceptual experience)。簡言之，根據此論證，跨主體的現象對比的最佳解釋是：某個主體感知到了道德性質，但另一個主體則缺乏這種感知。若此解釋成立，則其蘊含，主體的確可以感知到道德性質 （至少其中一個主體的確感知到了道德性質），也因此，道德感知主義就可以被證立。然而，Werner （2016）所擁護的現象對比論證與道德感知主義，卻遭受許多哲學家的質疑與抨擊，尤以Väyrynen（2018）; Reiland（2021）; Chudnoff（2015）等人為代表。他們也分別提供了各自對於「跨主體間的現象對比」的相競替代解釋方案，並嘗試論證他們的說法相較於Werner （2016）的道德感知主義解釋方案來得更有解釋效力、且更為合理。本篇論文的主要目標是，剖析與回應以下兩個問題：（I）上述質疑者的替代解釋方案是否說得通？它們是否較之道德感知主義的解釋方案來得更好呢？（II）道德感知主義者是否能恰當回應質疑者的挑戰呢？倘若Werner （2016, 2020b）的說法不足以回應質疑者的話，道德感知主義者是否能夠有其他的解套方案呢？針對問題（I），筆者將論證，Väyrynen（2018）; Reiland（2021）; Chudnoff（2015）等人對於道德感知主義的質疑大致上言之成理，可和Werner （2016）的理論成為具有同等解釋力的相競解釋方案。但針對問題（II），筆者將指出Väyrynen（2018）; Reiland（2021）; Chudnoff（2015）等人頂多只能說明「對錯好壞」這類的整體道德性質（overall moral properties）無法作為感知的內容，但並未排除掉道德主體仍舊可以感知到「道德顯著性」（moral salience）這類初步確定道德性質（pro-tanto moral properties）的可能性。也因此，這並未排除一種本論文所擁護的改良版本的道德感知主義。根據此改良版本的道德感知主義，雖然對錯好壞這類的整體道德性質本身也許無法做為感知的內容，然而道德顯著性仍然可以是感知內容。筆者將此改良版本稱之為「道德顯著性感知主義」(moral salience perceptualism)。為了突顯此版本的優點，筆者將進一步論述，此改良版的道德感知主義可以恰當地解釋跨主體間的現象對比（inter-subjective phenomenal contrast），並可規避原來Werner （2016）版本所招來的質疑。 關鍵詞：道德感知主義、現象對比論證、道德顯著性、道德經驗與道德判斷、道德教育

In this paper, I expand my upon earlier linguistic research (Lian, 2023), which delved into the genre of abstracts from Western philosophical papers. I engage with the philosophical ramifications emanating from the guidelines established for crafting philosophy paper abstracts (Lian, 2023) and underscore their significance in the domain of academic philosophical writing. A pivotal focus of this research is to navigate the intricate philosophical challenges posed by cross-disciplinary investigations bridging applied linguistic statistics with philosophical paper composition, specifically, the nuanced interpretation of linguistic findings in a manner palatable to philosophers. My exploration probes into the dynamics of various concepts within Inter-Disciplinary Research (IDR), highlighting the complexities in reconciling semantic intuitions related to the notions of "Method (M)" and "Conclusion (C)". I delineate three philosophical stances: (1) deferring to scientific authority, (2) recognizing domain-specific terminologies, and (3) interrogating peripheral scientific theories. I posit that these stances significantly influence the ways philosophers engage with and resolve the cross-disciplinary semantic and theoretical contentions stemming from the rhetorical structures of "Method (M)" and "Conclusion (C)". This work proposes avenues to attain either "theoretical coherence" or "disciplinary synthesis", thereby fostering enhanced cross-disciplinary collaboration and fortifying academic discourse across diverse fields. Keywords: Inter-Disciplinary Research (IDR), Applied linguistics, Philosophical writing, Genre Analysis, Rhetorical Moves

內容型道德感知主義者（Contentful Moral Perceptualists）： Audi (2013), Lord (2018), McNaughton (1988), McBrayer (2010a, 2010b), Cowan (2014, 2015), Werner (2016, 2018) 宣稱 道德命題(moral proposition)可以作為道德主體的感知內容(content of perception)。然而，在筆 者原創的詮釋下，晚近反駁道德感知主義的學者，如： Faraci (2015), Väyrynen (2018), Chudnoff (2015)，則隱約透露出以下想法：「與其宣稱道德命題是感知內容，不如宣稱道德 命題是認知信念內容(content of cognition)〕更為合理」。Faraci、Väyrynen、Chudnoff 都認為 「內容型道德感知主義者所謂的道德感知」背後其實是受到宰制型的道德原則（dominative moral principles）所主導的，是一種從原則所推論產生的心理狀態; 也因此，上述反駁者認為 「內容型道德感知主義者所謂的〔道德感知〕」缺乏貨真價實的感知經驗所具有的「非推論 的」(non-inferential)特徵，並不是真正的感知。本文將評估：「內容型的道德感知模型」是 否有辦法回應上述反駁者所提出的挑戰呢？ 筆者將為肯定的答案供提初步的辯護。 關鍵詞：道德感知、現象對比⽅法、感知內容、現象經驗、感知的非推論特徵

This study aimed to explore the rhetorical moves of article abstracts in Taiwanese Chinese philosophy journals. The most common theory for the discourse analysis of research abstracts is proposed by Hyland（2000）. Most of the research abstracts in the field of social sciences and natural sciences are composed of Hyland’s five rhetorical moves: introduction, purpose, method, results, and conclusion. Therefore, the question to be explored in this research is how to compose the rhetorical moves of abstracts of Chinese philosophy journal articles. What is the frequency and order of each rhetorical move in the abstract of each paper? Do they reflect some particular type of distribution? Are there any rhetorical moves that occur exceptionally rarely? Does the abstract of research articles in Chinese philosophy journals apply the framework of the same five rhetorical moves? What are the conventions of the philosophy writing community reflected in the rhetorical moves of abstracts of academic journal articles in philosophy? To answer the above questions, this research collected the abstracts of 18 papers from the representative Chinese philosophy journal "SOOCHOW JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES " in Taiwan in the past five years (2017-2021) and used the five moves of Hyland（2000） one by one to answer the above questions. The rhetorical moves of each abstract were analyzed and presented in tables to show the frequency, order, and type of each rhetorical move. The results of this study found that "method (M)" and "conclusion (C)" are not the rhetorical moves that constitute the abstract of articles in Taiwanese philosophy journals, but the rhetorical move "purpose (P)" is "necessary" to appear. In the Purpose move, the subject is usually "this article"; the verbs are "argue" or "inquire." Although "introduction (I)" is a "conventional" move, the total number of words in the introduction is the highest in the whole abstract. This study also shows rhetorical move variation of the abstracts of philosophy journal articles, reflecting the writing culture and conventions of the academic philosophy community. Finally, this study proposes three teaching guidelines for abstract writing of academic papers in philosophy, which will be useful for philosophy scholars and graduate students to consult when writing and submitting abstracts of philosophy in conference or journal papers. Keywords: philosophy, journal article, abstract, discourse analysis, rhetorical move

This thesis is a defense of (a version of) moral perceptualism. Moral perceptualism (MP), as is generally understood, advocates the bold view that “moral properties can be perceptual content”; its supporters include Audi (2013, 2015), Lord (2018), McNaughton (1988), McBrayer (2010a, 2010b), Cowan (2015), and Werner (2016, 2020b). In support of MP, Werner (2016) bolsters what he calls ‘phenomenal contrast arguments(PCAs)’. According to PCAs, the best explanation for inter-subjective phenomenal contrast between two subjects facing the same moral situation is that one subject has moral perceptual experience(s) of moral properties, whereas the other does not. If PCAs are sound, then MP can be justified (in that one subject does perceive moral properties). However, some powerful counterarguments against MP have been proposed by Väyrynen(2018), Reiland(2021), and Chudnoff(2015); each of them provides competing explanations for inter-subjective phenomenal contrast and argues that their explanations are more reasonable than PCAs. My purposes in this thesis are to ascertain (I) which explanation for inter-subjective phenomenal contrast is more reasonable; (II) (how) could moral perceptualists like Werner (2016, 2020b) properly reply to the counterarguments against MP？ Or is there any better alternative explanation that could support MP？ As regards (I), I will argue that Väyrynen’s(2018), Reiland’s(2021), and Chudnoff's (2015) alternative explanatory models for inter-subjective phenomenal contrast are not to be seen as competing explanations against the one provided by MP; rather, they are complementary to it. As regards (II), I argue that Väyrynen’s(2018), Reiland’s(2021), and Chudnoff's (2015) conterarguments against MP at most demonstrate that certain moral properties (e.g., rightness/ wrongness/goodness/badness) can’t be part of the perceptual content, but their arguments do not (or indeed cannot) rule out the possibility that moral salience can be properly construed as part of the perceptual content. In light of this, I argue that an alternative version of moral perceptualism, or what I call ‘moral salience perceptualism’, according to which “moral salience can be part of the perceptual content”, still remains alive and kicking in face of their counteraguments. Moreover, I argue that moral salience perceptualism is explanatorily superior to Werner’s (2016) version of MP in terms of explaining inter-subjective phenomenal contrast. Keywords： moral perceptualism, phenomenal contrast, moral salience, moral experiences, moral judgments