Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

qz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 65 posts

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

#41

Post by grawprog »

droithomme wrote: post #2

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…

The main lesson I learned in my mandatory ethics class was that formal ethics can be used to justify anything.

I'm not sure if the teacher we had was just not very good or if ethics classes are just like this. But, we ended up arguing with her a lot, we were all in ecological restoration and a whole lot of the case study examples we were given were to show how various corporations were ethically correct in doing some pretty terrible things.

As you can imagine, this is pretty much in direct opposition for everything we had been going to school for for the previous three years and we'd recently come back from a trip involving some wetlands, a copper mine and a golf course that had jaded us pretty heavily towards any kind of ethical reasoning to the actions of industry.

There was one evening(we were forced to take this in the evening) she ended up screaming at us to shut the fuck up we just didn't understand and sat in her desk and didn't speak for the rest of the class.

Ethics was by far my least favourite course in university.

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

#42

Post by coldtea »

droithomme wrote: post #2

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…

>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 ethical than non-graduates.

Only someone born and raised quite removed from contact with most layers of humanity, and grown in some sterile environment (rich country clubs? flown from school to home and back? self-schooled? raised in some academic microcosm), would ever believe such BS.

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

#43

Post by boomboomsubban »

droithomme wrote: post #2

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…

>This study you post is a very good formal rebuttal. In the best case scenario, where the person intentionally focuses on the study of ethics in college, it has no effect on personal moral/ethical advancement.

The argument made seems to have been that college helped improve ethical behavior, not necessarily that specialization was necessary. As all participants in this study were academics, it is not disputing any part of the argument.

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

#44

Post by grandmczeb »

rudiv wrote: post #35
burfog wrote: post #33

Missed the prime example: Eric Clanton He taught ethics at a couple colleges in California. He evidently thought that it would be ethical, in his properly educated professional opinion, to attempt to murder people with different political views. Over multiple days and locations, he bashed a half dozen people in the head with a heavy metal bicycle lock. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/26/eric-clanto...

The link says it was three people, during confrontations at/near a political tally. I don't know if you're speaking from further knowledge and the link is a preliminary report or something like that.

It was seven people[1] over multiple separate incidents during protests at Berkeley. The most famous video of one of the assaults is this one[2].

[1] https://www.berkeleyside.com/2018/08/08/eric-clanton-takes-3...

[2] https://youtu.be/9qKCl9NL1Cg

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

#45

Post by coldtea »

apocalypstyx wrote: post #29
loco5niner wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In truth, the educated are more likely to be self-deceived (as well as being deceived by the system).

When I was young, I heard this from Christian fundamentalists. As an adult, I hear it from atheists. (Along with the phrase 'keep your mind open, but not so open your brains fall out', which both groups really seem to like.)

Well, both groups are on to something.

(Neither Christian -- too provincial --, nor atheist -- too smug --).

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

#46

Post by darkpuma »

mcguire wrote: post #39
droithomme wrote: post #2

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 disbelieve. I apparently missed the thread yesterday, but I doubt anyone seriously suggested that formal college classes were a requirement for moral behavior. If they did, they're fools. Higher education, philosophy, and ethics classes are beneficial because they put the student in an environment where they can be exposed to a variety of ideas, in an efficient manner. But, you cannot make a horse drink even if you…

Here is the thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19324670

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

#47

Post by jorgesborges »

hopler wrote: post #37
jorgesborges wrote: post #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.

Jesus (unwittingly) had armies killing and subjugating people in his name to spread his influence, and promising impossible rewards. Jesus isn't popular because people lived his practice.

I'm admittedly not an expert in this area but my point is that Jesus didn't write anything down or intellectualize his teaching: he led by example. That was the foundation of his influence. The subsequent centuries of writing and hermeneutics over his life and teaching is another matter entirely.

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

#48

Post by krapp »

apocalypstyx wrote: post #32
zeulhex wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steven Pinker also makes an interesting case that widespread reading of fiction has made people in general more empathetic as they put themselves into a greater variety of shoes.

This was claimed long before Pinker. But the general proposition brings with it one huge (moral? / ethical?) problem: at its heart its the argument that feeling sad for fictitious entities helps us to in some way interface better with non-fictitious entities. Terry Eagleton argues against the idea of considering fictitious people as in any way relating to real people, but I think he's wrong. The argument needs to be…

The human brain seems not to experience or process reality so much as simulate it, since we know there are myriad ways that memories and perception don't match literal reality. I wouldn't doubt that deep, deep down at whatever amounts to the "bare metal" there isn't a recognized distinction between "fictional" and "real" entities, or even between those and the self.

Perhaps only at higher levels of abstraction that these distinctions are meaningful.

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

#49

Post by burfog »

rudiv wrote: post #35
burfog wrote: post #33

Missed the prime example: Eric Clanton He taught ethics at a couple colleges in California. He evidently thought that it would be ethical, in his properly educated professional opinion, to attempt to murder people with different political views. Over multiple days and locations, he bashed a half dozen people in the head with a heavy metal bicycle lock. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/may/26/eric-clanto...

The link says it was three people, during confrontations at/near a political tally. I don't know if you're speaking from further knowledge and the link is a preliminary report or something like that.

I'm speaking from further knowledge, but grabbed the first article I could quickly find without super-awful ads.

Multiple people got in fights at multiple locations and times, mostly minor. Eric however, was at several of these fights and repeatedly used a weapon with the potential for cracking a skull and causing a brain bleed.

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

#50

Post by jeffdavis »

grandmczeb wrote: post #44
rudiv wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The link says it was three people, during confrontations at/near a political tally. I don't know if you're speaking from further knowledge and the link is a preliminary report or something like that.

It was seven people[1] over multiple separate incidents during protests at Berkeley. The most famous video of one of the assaults is this one[2]. [1] https://www.berkeleyside.com/2018/08/08/eric-clanton-takes-3... [2] https://youtu.be/9qKCl9NL1Cg

Curious why that resulted in misdemeanor probation rather than felony with prison time.
Post reply on HN