XiphosAletheria t1_j14xm0a wrote
It seems to me that the author first needs to show that there is some meaningful correlation between advanced study of ethics and actually having ethical behavior. Do people with philosophy degrees commit crimes at lower rates than people with STEM degrees? Do criminals forced to take ethics classes reoffend less than those who aren't? Because if not, the argument in the article falls apart before it even begins.
bildramer t1_j18801b wrote
Here's some evidence that there's no meaningful correlation.
EDIT: That said, the article isn't about "advanced study of ethics", it's about more basic professional ethics. It says that e.g. engineers need to do something beyond rote algorithmic code-of-conduct-obeying, they need to exercise judgement. The humanities don't fix a lack of judgement, and IMO nothing that can be taught does. If you don't genuinely care about honesty, others' safety, others' dignity, your own personal responsibility and trustworthiness, externalities, etc., nothing that a professor will tell you (but an employer will tell you to disregard for money) will make you care.
40percentrobot t1_j2d9iro wrote
Are you making the claim that you can't teach judgement? If so, is judgement and one's capacity for it simply set at birth?
I happen to think judgement is learned, and if it can be learned, it can be taught.
Many professions require their licensees to study a professional code, or go through continuing education on the subject. Even sociopaths understand rules and that following them will keep them out of trouble (i.e. losing their license). This isn't merely blind rule-following, though, because code of conduct rules are not written to account for every ethical scenario.
Ultimately, if it makes sense to teach ethics to licensed professionals, why wouldn't it make sense to teach it to non-licensees?
RichardPascoe t1_j161iib wrote
Well we could take the biblical approach and stone our children to death for their disobedience:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2021%3A18-21&version=KJV
Or we could take Sheriff Joe Arpaio's approach and dye everyone's underwear pink:
https://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/15/justice/arizona-arpaio-profile
I somehow think it is not just the criminals who need ethical training.
The debate is really about the causes of crime and whether reform is better than punishment with no attempt at reform. So next time your politician claims he is going to get tough on crime remember that means less reform and more punishment.
Yes we need ethics to be taught in the same way as reading, writing and arithmetic. Please note Deuteronomy is the Old Testament and Jesus said "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone". Which means no one can cast a stone because everyone has sinned. But we will always have pink dye.
XiphosAletheria t1_j16pa3b wrote
My point is that ethics is generally something you learn from society, and as institutions of higher education are basically there to promulgate the status quo, they are unlikely to convince anyone of anything new. Put another way, I don't think anyone who didn't already believe in stoning criminals to death will come away with that belief after taking lessons, because such lessons will only reinforce the current social expectation that you not support that. And if you did hold such a belief already, the lessons likely won't convince you, because you must already have strong reasons for holding such a belief in defiance of conventional wisdom and societal disapproval.
Platos_Kallipolis t1_j18tsrb wrote
There has been research done on the efficacy of introducing students to animal ethics and them changing their behavior by (for instance) ceasing to eat meat.
It can be effective - not like high percentage of students effective but like it gets a few students to think and act differently when they weren't aware of the issue at all before.
So, there is some evidence that exposure to ethical issues that demand behavioral changes that run against social norms can work. It'd be wild to think otherwise, since that'd mean no one would ever rationally question social morality. But that happens a lot. Not always due to exposure in an ethics class, but similar kinds of exposure and training in general
RichardPascoe t1_j1ah7u6 wrote
The Deuteronomy example and Texas jail example were just to highlight approaches to punishment. They are actually from a book called "The Puzzle of Ethics" by Peter Vardy and Paul Grosch. I am sorry I should have made that clear. It is a very open-ended book and doesn't lay out one philosophy. It does have religious overtones but I am not reading it for that purpose. It is just an overview of ethics so has everything from Kant, Mill, Plato to modern 19th century feminist philosophy as well as modern DNA theories. Anyway below are some of my personal views on the effectiveness or non-effectiveness of cultivating ethics.
Any change in a person is internal but there are moments when something external may bring about that change. A good example are people who have had near death illnesses or experiences whose previous behaviour can change literally to the opposite of what it was. Young soldiers who killed in a conflict may experience profound regret at their actions because of the birth of their child or the death of a parent.
Humans develop as they age and wisdom is just a word that describes the ethical changes a person undergoes as they age. If society is responsible for education then the State obviously finds it easier to inculcate young people into conforming to the State's political agenda which may or may not be ethical. As you age you develop a deeper understanding. Personally I am always suspicious of people who do not change and I describe this as "blocking". The people I have met who are blocked from changing are normally blocked by someone or something (usually parental rubbish) and I cannot strictly class them as agents with free-will.
Normally I delete my posts with zero votes or negative downvotes on the assumption that I have digressed from the original topic or I have made an error in my comment. This time I will leave the original comment and this reply.
So to keep on topic. Ethics is a lifetime study but not everyone will be able to follow a lifetime educational program due to "blocking". So ethics for all university graduates regardless of the course they choose would be desirable. Of course there are thousands of "blocked" university students but I would not want to be treated by a "blocked" doctor. I wonder how many operations have been deliberately bodged by a doctor who thinks he or she has the ethical right to do that to their patient because they may disagree with their patient's personal life, occupation or their behaviour while in hospital. It may be as simple as the doctor has heard a rumour that their patient is a paedophile when their patient is not a paedophile and the patient is completely unaware of the rumour and therefore is not in a position to defend themselves.
The problem with conformity is that it is too easy to persuade others of a load of rubbish. The problem of thinking that you do not need ethical training is that you don't develop the ethical tools to weigh the evidence if there is any evidence in the first place.
I agree with you that it is hard to change the ethical position of someone else but it is possible. Though it can only be the person themselves who makes the change. However you can try to guide others but as I said earlier some people have been blocked at a very early age. If being blocked helps them to navigate life then there is very little you can do. The point I made about doctors is very real and the ethical training they receive does not lessen the fact that they are just human beings with flaws.
phine-phurniture t1_j1jm5s9 wrote
To prolgate the status quo?
Where do all the liberal thinkers come from.... high school educated service workers living pay check to pay check?
XiphosAletheria t1_j1kj9ta wrote
No, from universities that teach them to believe all the beliefs that benefit the urban elite. That they think that believing in status quo bromides reflective only of blindly repeated talking points makes them clever critical thinkers is, of course, what makes them so intolerable to everyone else.
phine-phurniture t1_j1kmsvk wrote
Where did you go to school?
A business degree yes but a liberal arts approach creates according to our right wing fellow citizens communist lefties...
You have an ax to grind so statuse quo bromides means nothing. be specific you do have a position but this is no argument.
iiioiia t1_j1jfqhi wrote
> I somehow think it is not just the criminals who need ethical training.
Or ontological/epistemological training.
> Which means no one can cast a stone because everyone has sinned.
Not technically it doesn't.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments