Live data from Hacker News

A study of ethicists finds they’re no more ethical than the rest of us

qz.com

11–20 of 65 posts

Re: A study of ethicists finds they’re no more ethical than the rest of us

#11

Thanks. There was a thread on HN yesterday about the benefits of a college education. There was a subthread arguing that without going to a formal college process of study of topics such as ethics and philosophy, a person could not hope to become a moral person, and therefore, the implication goes, college is not only necessary but fundamental to a moral society, and also obviously graduates are more moral and ethica…

[deleted]

Re: A study of ethicists finds they’re no more ethical than the rest of us

#12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What everyone in this discussion seems to be missing is that the number one source of moral failures is not trying. The inborn human conscience provides so much ignored guidance that trying to help it out with books is pointless. Instead, we need to be thinking about how to get people to put some effort and sacrifice into having morals. It doesn't matter if you know one ethical truth or ten billion if you are not wil…

Empathy is not inborn, it is taught. Ask anyone with a toddler. Also people must be taught to broaden their circle of empathy to include foreigners, animals, etc. The capacity may be innate but it must be shaped by education, formal or otherwise.

> Empathy is not inborn, it is taught.

I remember when I was a kid, around 6, I was out hiking with my dog and had gotten on top of this huge boulder and fell off. I fell pretty far, got scraped up bad, probably a concussion and I was laying on the ground moaning. My dog scampered down and he started whimpering and licking my face. He then ran a couple miles to get help, which he brought back.

Cats though don't do this sort of thing.

Re: A study of ethicists finds they’re no more ethical than the rest of us

#13
Morality isn't supposed to be an intellectual edifice from which experts expound rational arguments. It's a living practice. It's unsurprising to me that the people who devote their lives to making useful distinctions between words, or cooking up situations with babies and trains, aren't as moral as we might think. There's a reason Jesus was more influential than Socrates.

Re: A study of ethicists finds they’re no more ethical than the rest of us

#18

Thanks. There was a thread on HN yesterday about the benefits of a college education. There was a subthread arguing that without going to a formal college process of study of topics such as ethics and philosophy, a person could not hope to become a moral person, and therefore, the implication goes, college is not only necessary but fundamental to a moral society, and also obviously graduates are more moral and ethica…

I've heard similar arguments but from a religious angle. That without religion there's no morality.

Re: A study of ethicists finds they’re no more ethical than the rest of us

#20
This is consistent with a few previous studies along the same lines, but also shouldn't be that surprising. Ethical knowledge or reasoning not only isn't sufficient for ethical behavior (weakness of will exists!), it might not even be necessary. It's easy to believe, e.g. with Hume (more or less) that we have a pretty good natural sense of right and wrong in day to day behavior.

But this doesn't mean ethical philosophy is useless. We might have a pretty good innate sense of what we ought to do on a day-to-day basis as individuals, but there are lots more complex situations---in politics, in business, in science (bioethics, e.g.)---where our innate sense of right and wrong leads us to conflicting judgments or might mislead us altogether. Those situations are where we need professionals. Not in asking whether we ought to steal candy from babies or cheat on our spouses.

(Bias/credibility check: credentialed political theorist, has been paid to help companies figure out ethical things.)

Post reply on HN