The Effect of a Face (CCA)
By: Mike Petrella
Mr. Ivak
HRE3M1
12/20/11
The effect a face can have on an individual is drastic, and mood altering. When we see a happy face we start to cheer up, when we see an angry face we start to feel anger. These feelings are provoked only by the single facial expression. Why does this happen? Why are we changed by the muscles on someone else’s face? Is it simply because humans have deep centered feeling to care for each other? Or is it simply because of the emotion we associate the face with? James Borg, author of “7 Easy Lessons to Master the Silent Language” proposes “human communication consists of 93 percent body language and paralinguistic cues, while only 7% of communication consists of words themselves.” Most of the tone and mood conveyed by humans is through body language. If we alter the face, species or characteristics of the face do we get an ethical response? Or do we simply stop caring because we do not relate to the face anymore?
The first concept is the ethical response from a human face. We learned about the beggar, whereby the example given was about a beggar on the street and as soon as you looked into his face it produced a response subconsciously. If you averted the beggar you would not feel anything but as soon as you look at the beggar there was an ethical response. The reason given for this was the human need to care for each other and be responsible for each other. It went on to say that all face to face encounters are ethical based on the human’s need to care for each other. We respond to human needs based on the face they give us, if they gave us a happy face we would go on to be happy and respond to their need of being happy. The human face demands action from other faces and the way that it is formed is the response it gives. Some people do not feel an ethical response; these people have lost touch with humanity as a whole and do not feel remorse for other human beings. These people are the only people who do not feel the ethical response from a human face. Guilt is an emotion that is felt when regret is present; not responding to a human face provides the opportunity for guilt to be felt.
The second concept is that when provided with a face that is not human, a human will still have an ethical response. If we are faced with an animal and that animal is in need, a human will help it even though it is not the same species. How do we know it’s in danger? By the facial expression; the tone of sound produced by the animal is a big indicator, but the facial expression helps justify the emotion we pair the voice with. Humans feel the need to help animals because we have sense to do well to all things; after all, all humans strive to do the good. The magnitude of the charity preformed is usually not much, a little bit of food for a stray cat or bringing the animal to a shelter, but the meaning behind it is great. Humans are aware of their surroundings and are intelligent enough to make decisions that affect a large number of people and things. We are able to go beyond the preservation of our species and go on to preserving other species. We can tell they’re troubled and we do our part to help these creatures and generally what we do is good. Sometimes, we do bad things while meaning to do good things, but as the course discussed this is the basis of all sin.
The connection I made is that human beings have ethical response to all natural faces and it is not just limited to human to human encounters. We as humans have become less focused on the securing our species and as a result of that is the ability to take care of other species. We are the caretakers of the Earth, that’s not to say we are doing the best job. We are meant to protect all living things that God as made, as this is the reason God gave us our vast intelligence. He wants us to nurture and protect his creations; some people do this with ease and some people who struggle. I believe this is why we have ethical responses to faces, when people struggle with choosing the good the response provoked by the face is enough to make them choose correctly. We as humans help others because we want the good, sometimes it is to improve the image of oneself, but more often than not it based on the pure need to do good. We define the good as “the existence that should be present and the God brings into being by God’s design.” God designed us to protect and take care of everything, as it is a design by God. Therefore by feeling an ethical response from a face, we are being called to do the good by God because the face is design from God. The face is an essential attribute of the animal we call in to question, without it, it could not eat, drink, smell or see. By being caretakers we can employ the virtues of Prudence and Justice. We are discerning true good by preforming the good and we are giving the creatures of the Earth what they are owed by respecting their habitats and caring for them in need. A good example of an organization that does this is World Wildlife Fund, because the concern themselves with endangered species and conservation of biomes. We as humans must strive to feel an ethical response from a face in order to do the good all the time. We mustn’t avoid faces in fear of an ethical response; we must embrace the feeling and do the good. We must become Virtuous people (people who know and choose the good with ease) rather than Continent people (know the good but have difficulty choosing it) and then we can receive the intended purpose of the face.
The first justification is from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Under Social Justice, one of the topics is Respect for the Human Person. “Social justice can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of man. The person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him.” This says that social justice can only be achieved through respecting the spiritual nature of his dignity, and that this respect can make or break all of social justice. “The duty of making oneself a neighbor to others and actively serving them becomes even more urgent when it involves the disadvantaged, in whatever area this may be.” According to this quote, when people are in need of help, that is when it becomes most important that we do help them. The helping that is required at any other time is not as severe because the person that requires the help is not in a situation where the help is mandatory. However one could argue that failure to help could escalate the situation requiring help to be mandatory. The Catechism’s teachings are to respect other humans and to help them when they are in dire need of your help.
The second justification comes from the bible. Ephesians 4:32 says “And be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving each other, just as God also in Christ forgave you.” This says that when we treat each other with kindness and when we forgive one another, we are giving the same forgiveness that Christ gave to us when he died on the cross for our sins. Acts 20:35 “In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’ ” This says the hard work we do to help the weak, is blessed, because it is better to give than receive. One could make an argument that animals are weaker when compared to humans, and that showing kindness to them is showing kindness to the weak, that being the message in the verse in Acts. The ethical response that is provoked by the face, and us rising to the call and providing the help that is needed, is what the Bible and the Catechism teach us to do.
The third and final justification comes from the topic of uncanny valley. Basically, this is the theory of robotics and androids, which we have added human faces to these robots but they are so unnatural and flawed that we get disgusted and frightened by these faces and have the opposite of an ethical response. I believe because this is an unnatural face, we stop identifying with because it becomes fake. We know that an animals and humans have a finite life compared to android which has a longer finite life (as long as the parts work). We start to lose what it means to become human by looking into a face that’s not real and we begin to wonder what it means to die. We become aware of the fact that people have to die and it scares us. The uncanny valley pushes us past the normal realms of humanity and that cannot provide an ethical response. We know that androids do not feel pain, they are not aware of death and they do not have emotions like you or me. The uncanny valley stems from a romance with technology, we stop worrying about if it’s right to do something rather than if we are able to do it. The continued romance with technology will lead humanity down a dark path.
We can apply the ethical response we get from observing the face, by providing the help that is needed to the individual. When we help the person in need we are applying the connection I proposed, that humans have a response to all faces. We can extend our selves to others and it will be the application of the concept. The best way we can apply this concept is selflessly, when it becomes automatic we are truly virtuous. When we apply the connection in this way, we not only better ourselves, but we better other people and we show them what kind of a person we are. We apply ourselves in such a way that truly portrays us as Catholics; we can do what Christ asked us to before his death. The application of the connection is easy to do, but hard to do with ease. Doing good things to people in need is the way we apply this connection in real life, even if it is hard as we do not like the person we are helping we still must help.
Another application that we can do about ethical responses to faces is, looking at faces instead of averting them. A large reason why we do not have these ethical responses is because we do not spend enough time to observe the face. Humans will never feel the intended feeling without taking the time out of their day to look at the need around them. When we look at this need and suffering we can apply the first concept and that’s when true healing can occur. We can apply this second concept easily; it is just a matter of taking 30 seconds out of our day to observe our surroundings. We have become a society that is so connected to technology. There was an experiment done in a college campus where a clown went through the campus on a unicycle and no one had noticed him. When our society becomes less enamored with our phones and our gadgets, and we notice those in need, which is when this concept will become applied. I just hope that our society will not become addicted to technology and realize what the natural world has to offer the world.
An enduring understanding for my connection would be “Human happiness depends on using rationality and free will to choose the good.” We use rationality and free will to choose to help people we receive the ethical response from, we use rationality and free will when we choose to look or not look at the person in need. When we use our rationality to choose the good, we are choosing the good for a person who is need. There is an old saying that goes “Good begets good and evil begets evil.” What this means is that good deeds bring about more good deeds, but evil deeds bring about more evil deeds. I strongly believe that people who a good day brought on by good deeds would have trouble ruin someone’s day with an evil deed. Also, when we preform good deeds ourselves we start to feel really good about the deed we just did. That is why I believe that human happiness that had happened with free will and rationality choosing the good would be an enduring understanding for the connection I proposed.
In conclusion, an ethical response can be achieved from any natural face. We learned from the beggar that all human faces provide ethical response, and I proposed that all natural faces provide ethical responses. I justified it with a quote out of the catechism about respecting the dignity of your fellow man and a verse out of the bible about how it is better to give than to receive, while providing some research I did on the uncanny valley, the unnatural faces on androids. I said that by helping those in need of help and trying to not avoid people in need are ways to apply the ethical response that is generated from a face. Finally, I used an enduring understanding from the course about using rationality and free will to choose the good and related it to my connection. I believe that with a little work, everybody can understand the true ramifications from the impact of the face. However, it will be a little while before we reach such a stage. The goodness that we can achieve when we do good can outweigh the bad that people do, and it all starts with us.
Bibliography
"Acts 20:35 (New International Version)." Web. 21 Dec. 2011. <http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+20:35&version=NIV>.
Bartneck, C., T. Kanda, H. Ishiguro, and N. Hagita. "Is The Uncanny Valley An Uncanny Cliff?" Bartneck. Christoph Bartneck, Ph.D. Web. 21 Dec. 2011. <http://www.bartneck.de/publications/2007/uncannyCliff/index.html>.
"Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText." Vatican: the Holy See. Web. 21 Dec. 2011. <http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6O.HTM>.
"Distracted By A Cell Phone? Some Cell Phone Users Fail To See Unicycling Clown Passing Them." Science Daily: News & Articles in Science, Health, Environment & Technology. 19 Oct. 2009. Web. 21 Dec. 2011. <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091019172628.htm>.
"Ephesians 4:32 (New International Version)." Bible Gateway. Web. 21 Dec. 2011. <http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%204:32&version=NIV>.
"WWF - What Does WWF Do?" WWF - WWF. Web. 21 Dec. 2011. <http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/>.