(1) Position 1: Mind perception is the essence of morality. The best evidence in favor of Gray et al (2012) claims is the dyadic template provided. “A dyadic template suggests that people understand

(1)

Position 1: Mind perception is the essence of morality. 

The best evidence in favor of Gray et al (2012) claims is the dyadic template provided. “A dyadic template suggests that people understand morality as a combination of agent and patient, intention and suffering” (Gray et al, 2012). This diagram broke down the moral dyadic into two different categories. From there, it was split into two more subcategories. This evidence helps support the claim, as it explains mind perception of agent and patient suffering. It then shows how injustice and harmless wrongs correlate with these two categories. 

At worst, Gray et al (2012) presented evidence on moral typecasting. Figure seven provides graphical breakdown of a human being either a moral agent or moral patient. This evidence is weaker, as it does not provide much information or explanation to support the claims. “Although the two-dimensional structure of mind perception suggests that perceptions of agency and experience are independent, within a moral context, perceptions of moral agency and moral patiency may oppose each other” (Gray et al, 2012). This makes the evidence weaker, as it seems to contradict each other.  

Position 2: Mind perception is not the essence of morality.

At best, Graham and Iyer (2012) presented evidence explaining “Is the claim that mind perception is a necessary precursor to all moral judgments? This is a potentially useful and testable claim, but the authors provide no specific evidence for it” (Graham and Iyer, 2012). This data makes readers question the initial claim, as well. Since there was no specific evidence supporting Gray et al (2012) claims, it helps support Graham and Iyer (2012) claims. 

At worst, Graham and Iyer (2012) question what is the pragmatic validity of the theory? Yet, they just provide more questions instead of answering or providing evidence to their claim. They do provide a definition of pragmatism, but does not explain how this corresponds to their question. 

(2)

Position 1: My position is that mind perception is the essence of morality. Everyone’s perception is linked to our behavior and the decisions we make, good or bad.

At best, the evidence to support this conclusion is for one, the law being linked to mind perception and reality. “The mind survey revealed that people perceive minds along with experience and agency.” (Gray, K., Young, L., Waytz, A., p. 103) Several different surveys were conducted between a functioning adult, a psychotic adult, and an autistic adult. In comparison, the individuals’ perception, mental processes, and outcome showed that the moral rights and responsibilities vary. For example, Joe has a history of mental illness and suffers from schizophrenia, multiple personality disorders, and severe depression. He is required to report to MHMR every two weeks and is on medications. Due to Joe’s mental capacity of being clinically insane, the responsibility and consequences to his actions may be lesser. If he commits a crime, it is likely that he will have to serve his time in a mental institution where he can continue treatment and medications rather than a prison setting where he would not receive proper treatment, and risk being a victim in a prison setting.

At worst, the weakest evidence is an example that revealed that “Pain underlies the general acquisition of morality.” (Gray, K., p. 116). How each person perceives an act or information given to them will determine if it causes pain or not.

Position 2: My position is that mind perception is not the essence of morality. Not everyone’s perception is linked to our behavior and the decisions we make, good or bad.

At best, the evidence to support this conclusion is that “norms are important in structuring the moral world, as is negative effect, but these factors are not sufficient enough to account for moral judgement.” (Gray, K., p 116).  Mental causation is not involved until the child reacts to the situation. Others may be involved in her reaction depending on her exposure to other children while in her pajamas. Where one child may cry out of embarrassment after exposure to other people while in pajamas, another child in the same situation may start acting silly like a class clown, in hopes to change the reaction, or just go home and change.

At worst, the weakest evidence to support this is an example they give is a “child who wears her pajamas to school when nobody else does.” (Gray, K., p 116). This alone could make a child feel a bit out of place and feel like they do not blend in with the rest, because of our norms of not wearing pajamas in public. Though the child’s perception of this can change the overall outcome as well, this has nothing to do with morality. However, the actions and how other students treat her regarding the situation would have to do with responding to the situation in a positive way or negative way.

IN 5-6 LINES, RESPOND TO THIS TWO DISCUSSION BOARD.