This paper examines sensibility theory through a first-person phenomenological account of being robbed at gunpoint. The author analyzes the experience across four dimensions — bodily sensations, emotions, intellectual responses, and social factors — demonstrating how these intertwined elements resist reduction to purely objective moral frameworks. Drawing on Liu Xiusheng's comparative analysis of Mencius and Hume, the paper argues that the moral feelings evoked by the incident were evidence-dependent and response-dependent, conforming to core tenets of sensibility theory. The analysis ultimately supports the view that moral qualities are as real as secondary physical qualities, and that a holistic understanding of ethics must account for the full phenomenological depth of lived experience.
Sensibility theory enables us to understand morality and ethics from the perspective of the phenomenological depth of a situation. This view transcends the purely rational and intellectual modes of understanding morality within the complex context of human experience. The subtle relationship between the body and emotional and intellectual factors in the experience of ethics and morals is a reality that became evident to me through analysis of a real experience I once had. This experience included both subjective and objective factors that cannot be easily separated.
It is this total phenomenological experience that provides evidence conforming to one of the central tenets of sensibility theory: that this theoretical stance emphasizes the harmonization of both subjective and objective aspects of moral feelings, and even transcends that duality in a realistic context.
The event I experienced occurred in the recent past and can be described briefly as follows. I was held up at gunpoint and robbed while leaving a cinema. Although I received no physical injuries, this was the first time an event of this nature had happened to me, and it left a profound mental and emotional mark.
The event was also unconventional in many respects. The incident took place in public and was unexpected in that social context — a fact that would prove central to the moral discomfort I experienced. I was walking away from the theatre in a well-lit area with a number of people further behind me. Suddenly, a man appeared beside me, moved ahead of me, and produced a gun that he pointed straight at my face. The shock was immense, accompanied by a feeling of strangeness and incongruity. He demanded money, which I gave him, and then he left as suddenly as he had arrived. As the following analysis describes, the incident produced a number of strange and at first seemingly unrelated bodily sensations, intermingled with thoughts and emotions.
There were a wide range of bodily sensations that I experienced. The most extreme of these was not fear but a sense of disgust at the smell of sweat. This smell is a central emotional and tactile memory that tends to dominate my first impression of the man and of the experience as a whole. The smell is associated with a feeling of revulsion and of moral dislike — it is definitely connected to a feeling of something wrong.
My other bodily sensations were more expected under the circumstances: a tautness of the muscles in the shoulders and back, as well as a physical sense of being trapped in a situation that went against my ideals of right and correct behavior. There was also fear, but this was secondary to the actual physical encounter, which seemed more real than anything I had previously experienced. It seemed that all my senses were more alive than ever before. There was a deeply felt moral sense of evil and the abnormal.
Emotionally, there was a strong feeling that something was very wrong with the situation. The sense of physical danger and the physical cues described above together indicated a strong emotional complex that was more than just fear or dislike — it had an almost tangible moral component. The sense of present danger was to a large extent overridden by a sense of moral wrongness that was the product of various physical as well as emotional-intellectual factors.
Intellectually, a number of aspects only came to the fore after the event. There were no immediate intellectual thoughts; the encounter was more physical and visceral than intellectual, and my response was more in terms of immediate sensations and impressions. The one intellectual thought that did arise was the incongruity of the situation — the strangeness of such an event occurring in so open and public a place.
"Social shock and the interplay of experience dimensions"
"Connecting lived experience to sensibility theory claims"
Liu, Xiusheng. "Mencius, Hume, and Sensibility Theory." Philosophy East and West, vol. 52, no. 1, Jan. 2002, pp. 75–97.
You’re 48% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.