3 ms·

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'?

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?
      - lapcat 3y ago
        Oops, that was a bad typo. Corrected, thanks!
    - scotty79 3y ago
      Why does it matter? We are talking about the fact that ethicists are dangerous because they use non-local moral frameworks and intellectualizing to justify locally immoral actions. Why doesn't matter if local morality of any given society is moral or immoral when judged in a framework of some other culture? Every society is immoral from the point of view of some other society.
      - lapcat 3y ago
        > Why does it matter? Why does what matter, morality?? > We are talking about the fact that ethicists are dangerous because they use non-local moral frameworks Dangerous? This discussion sounds a lot like the trial of Socrates. Would you put ethicists to death for "corrupting the youth"? > Why doesn't matter if local morality of any given society is moral or immoral when judged in a framework of some other culture? This sounds like anything-goes relativism. I've been trying to avoid invoking Godwin's law... Anyway, societies change. They evolve. You apparently only want pollsters, but pollsters only reflect current opinion. Is it wrong for moral views to change?
        scotty79 3y ago
        > Why does what matter, morality?? I was referring to "Why would you assume that the society a person was raised in is moral?". Imho it doesn't matter if you deem that society as moral or immoral because it's a relative thing. What matters is how moral the behavior is in the moral framework of this particular society. And ethicists are straying for that and picking and choosing their own imported moral frameworks that let them justify any locally immoral deeds. > Would you put ethicists to death for "corrupting the youth"? Why make up the crime? I'd rather accuse them of corrupting academic integrity by faking research, like the recent examples have proven. I'd punish them accordingly and adjust expectations about their future behavior. As it is currently done. > This sounds like anything-goes relativism. Details of morality are obviously relative. They develop along with societies that use them. They differ. > I've been trying to avoid invoking Godwin's law... I'll do it for you then. If nazis have won, you'd have a bit different moral framework than you do and you'd be as sure about its universal correctness as you are now about yours. Did you notice how when you read history, every time there was a conflict the good guys eventually won? Is that an amazing coincidence? Or do the winners decide who's good? > Is it wrong for moral views to change? It's perfectly normal and necessary, but we don't talk about that. Just that ethicist, due to their education are a bit too crafty about justifying stuff that current morality labels as bad.
calf 3y ago
Engineering undergrads are now required to take an ethics course at the university I studied at. Clearly they are all immediately disqualified from STEM hiring. I think what's actually going on is people in industry just take a dim view of academic liberals, and so use a crypto anti-intellectual argument to rationalize against people with academic backgrounds. Sure, there is a risk that the more one knows, the more they might use knowledge to rationalize. Academics (yes, academics) have pointed out this problem, from knowledge about psychology to knowledge about politics (and probably some dead philosopher has mentioned this issue as well!). But that is a risk and not a disqualification.

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?
    - lapcat 3y ago
      Oops, that was a bad typo. Corrected, thanks!
  - scotty79 3y ago
    Why does it matter? We are talking about the fact that ethicists are dangerous because they use non-local moral frameworks and intellectualizing to justify locally immoral actions. Why doesn't matter if local morality of any given society is moral or immoral when judged in a framework of some other culture? Every society is immoral from the point of view of some other society.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      > Why does it matter? Why does what matter, morality?? > We are talking about the fact that ethicists are dangerous because they use non-local moral frameworks Dangerous? This discussion sounds a lot like the trial of Socrates. Would you put ethicists to death for "corrupting the youth"? > Why doesn't matter if local morality of any given society is moral or immoral when judged in a framework of some other culture? This sounds like anything-goes relativism. I've been trying to avoid invoking Godwin's law... Anyway, societies change. They evolve. You apparently only want pollsters, but pollsters only reflect current opinion. Is it wrong for moral views to change?
      - scotty79 3y ago
        > Why does what matter, morality?? I was referring to "Why would you assume that the society a person was raised in is moral?". Imho it doesn't matter if you deem that society as moral or immoral because it's a relative thing. What matters is how moral the behavior is in the moral framework of this particular society. And ethicists are straying for that and picking and choosing their own imported moral frameworks that let them justify any locally immoral deeds. > Would you put ethicists to death for "corrupting the youth"? Why make up the crime? I'd rather accuse them of corrupting academic integrity by faking research, like the recent examples have proven. I'd punish them accordingly and adjust expectations about their future behavior. As it is currently done. > This sounds like anything-goes relativism. Details of morality are obviously relative. They develop along with societies that use them. They differ. > I've been trying to avoid invoking Godwin's law... I'll do it for you then. If nazis have won, you'd have a bit different moral framework than you do and you'd be as sure about its universal correctness as you are now about yours. Did you notice how when you read history, every time there was a conflict the good guys eventually won? Is that an amazing coincidence? Or do the winners decide who's good? > Is it wrong for moral views to change? It's perfectly normal and necessary, but we don't talk about that. Just that ethicist, due to their education are a bit too crafty about justifying stuff that current morality labels as bad.

calf 3y ago

Engineering undergrads are now required to take an ethics course at the university I studied at. Clearly they are all immediately disqualified from STEM hiring. I think what's actually going on is people in industry just take a dim view of academic liberals, and so use a crypto anti-intellectual argument to rationalize against people with academic backgrounds. Sure, there is a risk that the more one knows, the more they might use knowledge to rationalize. Academics (yes, academics) have pointed out this problem, from knowledge about psychology to knowledge about politics (and probably some dead philosopher has mentioned this issue as well!). But that is a risk and not a disqualification.