6 ms·

If I were hiring someone to do a job requiring major ethical judgment, exposure to academic thinking on ethics would be immediately disqualifying. My experience

If I were hiring someone to do a job requiring major ethical judgment, exposure to academic thinking on ethics would be immediately disqualifying. My experience is that it is corrupting: it equips a student with a vast array of theories they can use to justify anything.

endominus 3y ago
In the same sense that learning about cognitive biases can equip people to become even more entrenched in their own beliefs. Being able to claim that others are falling prey to "confirmation bias" whenever confronted with evidence that conflicts with their own preconceptions does a lot to shore up the Semmelweiss reflex. It does make one think about how much education actually helps people think better; the simple heuristic of "more learning = better" doesn't seem to hold up to real scrutiny. I would hypothesize that some forms of pedagogy would instead calcify incorrect ideas in people's heads, and predicting which would do that is nontrivial considering we don't actually know much about why people learn in the first place.
- atoav 3y ago
  If you are not interested in the truth, every theory becomes a weapon to hide it. This is why instead of teaching theories you have to teach the love of truth — coincidentally that is the meaning of the word philosophy.
  - taylorius 3y ago
    I think it's hard to know whether you're interested in the truth. Even if you think you've scrupulously cleared away all the thickets of biases and prejudices, there are probably more still there, hiding in all the corners you've turned away from.
    - jrumbut 3y ago
      It's true that all of us have a lifetime of work to do in that area, but I think the grandparent posted is referring to the people who cling to and consciously nurture biases. Maybe my standards are too low but these days I'm excited to talk to anyone who even has a passing interest in truth for its own sake, no matter what the quality of their inquiry is.
    - vixen99 3y ago
      If you love truth you will know those hidden corners exist and be alert to emerging evidence of biases and prejudices. There is the story which I suppose is true, of the professor who sat through a lecture and understood that the work being described had demolished the basis for his own work of the last twenty years. Rather than despairing he stood up and congratulated the speaker on discovering a better theory.
  - dr_dshiv 3y ago
    Truth =! Wisdom
    - atoav 3y ago
      It isn't (and nobsoy claimed it was), but if you A) know ethics B) have a love for the truth It is harder to use ethics to lie to yourself or others. Ethics are a tool that can be used to justify heinous behaviour, or to shine a light on how your daily choices could be made better, all depending on those wielding the tool.
      - drdeca 3y ago
        They said that because the word philosophy is from “love of wisdom”, not “love of truth”, as was claimed?
    - dudeinjapan 3y ago
      =! != !=
    - marginalia_nu 3y ago
      Socrates would have questions about this.
- jrumbut 3y ago
  Not to fall into exactly the trap that you set, but there is a survivorship bias at play here. If you are wholly committed to young earth creationism, many college classes will be an unpleasant confrontation from start to finish and very little of your existing knowledge will help you pass classes even if you want to play along. People who come to college with more mainstream ideas will have an easier time and be more likely to succeed. And it's not entirely surprising that graduates have a bit of a calcified worldview. If you read Marx without dropping out to join a revolution and were able to deal with a lot of compelling but conflicting arguments in whatever field you studied it's going to take quite a bit for you to radically change your mind.
cschwarm 3y ago
That is common human behavior, not corruption of what would be 'good' behavior otherwise. The only difference to academics is that normal people don't try to create a consistent theory. We merely pick from whatever is available in to our moralistic toolbox.
totetsu 3y ago
So people without any exposure to 'academic' discussion of ethics, are not exposed to any other types of ethical thought that couldn't be equally 'corrupting'? .. Do you really think that there is some pure un-corrupted state that a person could be in that would allow them to make perfect ethical judgements, that are not motivated by any instinct to justify something? I would put it to you that we are all deeply marinated in the sauce of the values and thoughts, and ways of reasoning of the societies and cultures we are raised in. Academic study gives people a tool to reflect on these things and make more careful judgements. In come cases it is as simple as giving people a shared vocabulary to talk about things they notice in every day life.
- atleastoptimal 3y ago
  I agree, the comment you replied to supports the "noble idiot" bias a lot of people have; that the best moral judgements are those without thought and from the purity of naive instinct.
  - scotty79 3y ago
    Moral instincts are correct on average because they reflect the bulk morality of the society that the person was raised in. While "informed" ethics can be imported from societies with other ethical frameworks that do not fit the desired ethics of this society. Worse yet people might think it's superior in some way just because it's educated and reasoned.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      > Moral instincts are correct on average because they reflect the bulk morality of the society that the person was raised in. Why would you assume that the society a person was raised in is moral? It's demonstrably and indisputably false in many cases.
      - enkid 3y ago
        Do you mean false?
PartiallyTyped 3y ago
You can say the same thing about religion; in fact, religions that tell you to ask for forgiveness are not only guilty of this, they don’t even allow one to consider the basis of their morality may be wrong.
Llamamoe 3y ago
This largely agrees with my own observations- I find that the benefit of knowing about ethical frameworks, societal issues, biases and fallacies ends at being aware of and taking them into consideration, and past that rapidly devolves into justifying increasingly contorted worldviews. You can see this in any and every ideology-centric group no matter how moral it actually is, from the unequivocally good like feminism, all the way to incels. The main reason people dig deeper into the underlying theory is motivated cognition, not desire for open-mindedness.
- dudeinjapan 3y ago
  Feminism is “unequivocally good” is it?
  - scotty79 3y ago
    Yes. Do you think that believing that women are lesser form of humans is better?
    - CrampusDestrus 3y ago
      That is a false dichotomy. There are many other beliefs incompatible with feminism that don't include believing that women are "lesser".
      - scotty79 3y ago
        Such as?
        CrampusDestrus 3y ago
        such as believing that females and males are better optimized for certain tasks
        scotty79 3y ago
        I don't think that's incompatible with feminism. I think feminism just opposes putting up gender barriers of any kind in the way of any activity despite of what anyone thinks about who's optimized for what. I mean the discussion is about what constitutes a barrier, and how to prevent them, but the general sentiment that's still the core of the idea is unequivocally good. Anything else?
tbitrust 3y ago
Purely anecdotal, but I choose not to read the literature on the ethics of animal exploitation because I was still eating meat. But I decided to take the plunge, and now I cannot go back to eating meat.
astrashe2 3y ago
I don't know if I'd go so far as to disqualify someone, but I agree with the basic point you're making. What you've described happens with religious people of a certain type as well. Sometimes they can adopt a legalistic approach to right and wrong that allows them to do things that are very much against the spirit of a teaching, by claiming they meet the letter of the law (or rule). Other times religious people take the position that the end justifies the means -- that their moral mission is so important that it's OK if they cut corners, sometimes very serious ones, along the way. I've never known what to make of SBF's parents, especially his mom, a scholar who has championed the idea of effective altruism. I don't know how much his parents knew about what was going on at FTX, but they seemed to benefit from the wealth the company threw off while FTX was at its peak. On one hand, it seems reasonable to me for parents to support their child, even or perhaps even especially when the child is being prosecuted. I don't know the truth of anything that happened. But it seems that SBF's defense is probably made up of lies. If that's the case, is it OK for his parents to sit on the sidelines and support SBF while he continues to lie?
ykonstant 3y ago
> My experience is that it is corrupting: it equips a student with a vast array of theories they can use to justify anything. So does a textbook or two read in their free time. I don't understand this rationale at all.
at_a_remove 3y ago
I am reminded of that Berkeley ethics professor, Clanton, who snuck up behind people at various protests and struck them in the head with a bike lock, seven times. This was not at just one event, either. He did this at multiple events. Even got one of his targets wrong, hit one of the people on his own side. Just three years probation. Three felony assault charges were dropped. One can only imagine the ethical gymnastics there. All of the steps, however, I've heard laid out, so he need merely assemble them. First, you classify a bunch of people as "Nazis." Second, you convince yourself that their speech is violence. Third, you're nobly defending people from the depredations of the violent, and if that means skulking up from behind, well, that's just being practical.

endominus 3y ago

In the same sense that learning about cognitive biases can equip people to become even more entrenched in their own beliefs. Being able to claim that others are falling prey to "confirmation bias" whenever confronted with evidence that conflicts with their own preconceptions does a lot to shore up the Semmelweiss reflex. It does make one think about how much education actually helps people think better; the simple heuristic of "more learning = better" doesn't seem to hold up to real scrutiny. I would hypothesize that some forms of pedagogy would instead calcify incorrect ideas in people's heads, and predicting which would do that is nontrivial considering we don't actually know much about why people learn in the first place.

atoav 3y ago
If you are not interested in the truth, every theory becomes a weapon to hide it. This is why instead of teaching theories you have to teach the love of truth — coincidentally that is the meaning of the word philosophy.
- taylorius 3y ago
  I think it's hard to know whether you're interested in the truth. Even if you think you've scrupulously cleared away all the thickets of biases and prejudices, there are probably more still there, hiding in all the corners you've turned away from.
  - jrumbut 3y ago
    It's true that all of us have a lifetime of work to do in that area, but I think the grandparent posted is referring to the people who cling to and consciously nurture biases. Maybe my standards are too low but these days I'm excited to talk to anyone who even has a passing interest in truth for its own sake, no matter what the quality of their inquiry is.
  - vixen99 3y ago
    If you love truth you will know those hidden corners exist and be alert to emerging evidence of biases and prejudices. There is the story which I suppose is true, of the professor who sat through a lecture and understood that the work being described had demolished the basis for his own work of the last twenty years. Rather than despairing he stood up and congratulated the speaker on discovering a better theory.
- dr_dshiv 3y ago
  Truth =! Wisdom
  - atoav 3y ago
    It isn't (and nobsoy claimed it was), but if you A) know ethics B) have a love for the truth It is harder to use ethics to lie to yourself or others. Ethics are a tool that can be used to justify heinous behaviour, or to shine a light on how your daily choices could be made better, all depending on those wielding the tool.
    - drdeca 3y ago
      They said that because the word philosophy is from “love of wisdom”, not “love of truth”, as was claimed?
  - dudeinjapan 3y ago
    =! != !=
  - marginalia_nu 3y ago
    Socrates would have questions about this.
jrumbut 3y ago
Not to fall into exactly the trap that you set, but there is a survivorship bias at play here. If you are wholly committed to young earth creationism, many college classes will be an unpleasant confrontation from start to finish and very little of your existing knowledge will help you pass classes even if you want to play along. People who come to college with more mainstream ideas will have an easier time and be more likely to succeed. And it's not entirely surprising that graduates have a bit of a calcified worldview. If you read Marx without dropping out to join a revolution and were able to deal with a lot of compelling but conflicting arguments in whatever field you studied it's going to take quite a bit for you to radically change your mind.

cschwarm 3y ago

That is common human behavior, not corruption of what would be 'good' behavior otherwise. The only difference to academics is that normal people don't try to create a consistent theory. We merely pick from whatever is available in to our moralistic toolbox.

totetsu 3y ago

So people without any exposure to 'academic' discussion of ethics, are not exposed to any other types of ethical thought that couldn't be equally 'corrupting'? .. Do you really think that there is some pure un-corrupted state that a person could be in that would allow them to make perfect ethical judgements, that are not motivated by any instinct to justify something? I would put it to you that we are all deeply marinated in the sauce of the values and thoughts, and ways of reasoning of the societies and cultures we are raised in. Academic study gives people a tool to reflect on these things and make more careful judgements. In come cases it is as simple as giving people a shared vocabulary to talk about things they notice in every day life.

atleastoptimal 3y ago
I agree, the comment you replied to supports the "noble idiot" bias a lot of people have; that the best moral judgements are those without thought and from the purity of naive instinct.
- scotty79 3y ago
  Moral instincts are correct on average because they reflect the bulk morality of the society that the person was raised in. While "informed" ethics can be imported from societies with other ethical frameworks that do not fit the desired ethics of this society. Worse yet people might think it's superior in some way just because it's educated and reasoned.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > Moral instincts are correct on average because they reflect the bulk morality of the society that the person was raised in. Why would you assume that the society a person was raised in is moral? It's demonstrably and indisputably false in many cases.
    - enkid 3y ago
      Do you mean false?

PartiallyTyped 3y ago

You can say the same thing about religion; in fact, religions that tell you to ask for forgiveness are not only guilty of this, they don’t even allow one to consider the basis of their morality may be wrong.

Llamamoe 3y ago

This largely agrees with my own observations- I find that the benefit of knowing about ethical frameworks, societal issues, biases and fallacies ends at being aware of and taking them into consideration, and past that rapidly devolves into justifying increasingly contorted worldviews. You can see this in any and every ideology-centric group no matter how moral it actually is, from the unequivocally good like feminism, all the way to incels. The main reason people dig deeper into the underlying theory is motivated cognition, not desire for open-mindedness.

dudeinjapan 3y ago
Feminism is “unequivocally good” is it?
- scotty79 3y ago
  Yes. Do you think that believing that women are lesser form of humans is better?
  - CrampusDestrus 3y ago
    That is a false dichotomy. There are many other beliefs incompatible with feminism that don't include believing that women are "lesser".
    - scotty79 3y ago
      Such as?
      - CrampusDestrus 3y ago
        such as believing that females and males are better optimized for certain tasks
        scotty79 3y ago
        I don't think that's incompatible with feminism. I think feminism just opposes putting up gender barriers of any kind in the way of any activity despite of what anyone thinks about who's optimized for what. I mean the discussion is about what constitutes a barrier, and how to prevent them, but the general sentiment that's still the core of the idea is unequivocally good. Anything else?

tbitrust 3y ago

Purely anecdotal, but I choose not to read the literature on the ethics of animal exploitation because I was still eating meat. But I decided to take the plunge, and now I cannot go back to eating meat.

astrashe2 3y ago

I don't know if I'd go so far as to disqualify someone, but I agree with the basic point you're making. What you've described happens with religious people of a certain type as well. Sometimes they can adopt a legalistic approach to right and wrong that allows them to do things that are very much against the spirit of a teaching, by claiming they meet the letter of the law (or rule). Other times religious people take the position that the end justifies the means -- that their moral mission is so important that it's OK if they cut corners, sometimes very serious ones, along the way. I've never known what to make of SBF's parents, especially his mom, a scholar who has championed the idea of effective altruism. I don't know how much his parents knew about what was going on at FTX, but they seemed to benefit from the wealth the company threw off while FTX was at its peak. On one hand, it seems reasonable to me for parents to support their child, even or perhaps even especially when the child is being prosecuted. I don't know the truth of anything that happened. But it seems that SBF's defense is probably made up of lies. If that's the case, is it OK for his parents to sit on the sidelines and support SBF while he continues to lie?

ykonstant 3y ago

> My experience is that it is corrupting: it equips a student with a vast array of theories they can use to justify anything. So does a textbook or two read in their free time. I don't understand this rationale at all.

at_a_remove 3y ago

I am reminded of that Berkeley ethics professor, Clanton, who snuck up behind people at various protests and struck them in the head with a bike lock, seven times. This was not at just one event, either. He did this at multiple events. Even got one of his targets wrong, hit one of the people on his own side. Just three years probation. Three felony assault charges were dropped. One can only imagine the ethical gymnastics there. All of the steps, however, I've heard laid out, so he need merely assemble them. First, you classify a bunch of people as "Nazis." Second, you convince yourself that their speech is violence. Third, you're nobly defending people from the depredations of the violent, and if that means skulking up from behind, well, that's just being practical.