4 ms·

Reading the study (https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2019.1587912 https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2019.158...) the questio

Reading the study (https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2019.1587912 https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2019.158...) the questions don't sound overly morally charged. They're certainly what I'd imagine a normal person may find moral questions, but are otherwise fairly middling in terms of moral impact. Other than vegetarianism, I'd say many of the don't have moral weight, at least not how they were asked. And even if you had considered them moral, it would only be from a deontological, or possibly virtue, ethics perspective. The behaviour is a little more damning, but they only show evidence from two different scenarios. One of those scenarios had to do with charity and once again I feel like donating to charity is not overly morally charged. And if it is, it's certainly not the way they presented it.

jrumbut 3y ago
I'd like to see a self-controlled case series design here, so we can isolate the effect of studying ethics and working as an ethicist from the choice to do so. For instance, if I gathered together experts on sobriety I suspect the group would include many very heavy drinkers. That's because most people don't interact with the concept of sobriety unless they have a problem with their drinking. Maybe these ethicists took up the field because they were struggling to behave ethically, and so becoming individuals with a normal amount of flaws is a major improvement.
- mattigames 3y ago
  That makes as much sense as assuming structural engineers are most likely people who have experienced infrastructural problems before opting for a career.