1 / 27

The Moral Behavior of Ethicists

The Moral Behavior of Ethicists. Eric Schwitzgebel Dept. of Philosophy U.C. Riverside in collaboration with Joshua Rust, soon of Stetson College. Informal Poll. Do ethicists behave morally better than non-ethicists? about the same? worse? In conversation with me: About 10%, 55%, 35%.

brewster-neumann
Download Presentation

The Moral Behavior of Ethicists

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Moral Behavior of Ethicists Eric Schwitzgebel Dept. of Philosophy U.C. Riverside in collaboration with Joshua Rust, soon of Stetson College

  2. Informal Poll Do ethicists behave • morally better than non-ethicists? • about the same? • worse? In conversation with me: About 10%, 55%, 35%. So do ethicists behave about the same, or even morally worse, than non-ethicists?

  3. Why Expect Ethicists to Be Better? (1.) Philosophical ethics improves (or selects for) moral reasoning. (2.) Improved (or professional habits of) moral reasoning tends to lead either to (a.) better moral knowledge, or (at least) (b.) more frequent moral reflection. (3.) (a) and (b) tend to cause better moral behavior. Therefore, (ceteris paribus) ethicists will behave better than non-ethicists. And if they don’t…?

  4. Relevance The justification of ethics courses. Understanding moral behavior. Aiming to improve our own or others’ moral behavior. Haidt (2001): Emotion is the dog, reasoning is the tail. But how do you study the moral behavior of ethics professors?

  5. Formal Poll Pacific APA, 2007, Version 1 Do ethicists behave morally better, worse or about the same as philosophers not specializing in ethics? (1-7 scale) Do ethicists behave morally better, worse, or about the same as non-academics of similar social background? (1-7 scale) Comparison questions for M&E specialists.

  6. Version 1, Ethicist Results “about the same” = 4; “substantially morally better” = 1 Ethicist respondents: * ethicists vs. other philosophers: 3.4 (p = .01) * ethicists vs. non-academics: 3.1 (p = .00) * M&E vs. other philosophers: 4.3 (p = .01) * M&E vs. non-academics: 3.8 (p = .20) Ethicists think ethicists behave better.

  7. Version 1,Non-Ethicist Results “about the same” = 4; “substantially morally better” = 1 Non-ethicist respondents: * ethicists vs. other philosophers: 4.0 (p = 1.00) * ethicists vs. non-academics: 3.7 (p = .47) * M&E vs. other philosophers: 4.0 (p = .73) * M&E vs. non-academics: 3.6 (p = .00) Non-ethicists think ethicists behave about the same.

  8. General Opinions About Ethicists

  9. Another Way of Looking at the Data 65% of ethicists and 68% of non-ethicists said ethicists behaved either about the same as, or worse than, non-ethicist philosophers. So: Most philosophers see no positive correlation between a professional focus on ethics and actual moral behavior. Among 11 non-academic respondents (staff, spouses): None said ethicists behaved better than non-academics, 6 said they behaved the same, and 5 said worse.

  10. Version 2: Particular Ethicists Those results could be an effect of general theories rather than remembered experience of ethicists’ behavior. Version 2 asks about the particular ethicist and M&E specialist in your department whose name comes next after yours in alphabetical order (looping Z to A if req’d). Compared to: (a.) non-ethicists in dept. and (b.) non-academics of similar social background.

  11. Version 2, Ethicist Results “about the same” = 4; “substantially morally better” = 1 Ethicist respondents: * ethicist vs. others in dept.: 3.4 (p = .01) * ethicists vs. non-academics: 3.3 (p = .00) * M&E vs. others in dept.: 4.0 (p = .90) * M&E vs. non-academics: 3.6 (p = .12) Again, ethicists think ethicists behave better.

  12. Version 2, Non-Ethicist Results “about the same” = 4; “substantially morally better” = 1 Non-ethicist respondents: * ethicists vs. others in dept.: 3.6 (p = .07) * ethicists vs. non-academics: 3.3 (p = .00) * M&E vs. others in dept.: 3.5 (p = .01) * M&E vs. non-academics: 3.4 (p = .00) Bias to rate individuals better than groups. Non-ethicists think ethicists behave about the same as M&E specialists.

  13. Opinions About Particular Ethicists

  14. Actual Behavior Are ethicists right that ethicists behave, on average, slightly better than non-ethicists? Or is it in-group bias? How to measure philosophers’ moral behavior more directly? One measure: The treatment of library books.

  15. Do Ethicists Steal More Books? I examined rates at which ethics books vs. non-ethics books are missing from academic libraries. Libraries: 13 leading U.S. academic libraries (Harvard, Berkeley, etc.) and 19 leading British libraries (Oxford, Cambridge, etc.) Books: Approx. 200 ethics and non-ethics books, 1960 or later, reviewed in Phil Review, 1990-2001, or appearing in at least 5 SEP bibliographies.

  16. Raw Numbers Ethics Books (206 books): • Holdings: 14,517 • Out or missing: 3,721 • Overdue or missing: 498 • Missing (incl. 1 year overdue): 323 Non-Ethics Books (213 books): • Holdings: 9,608 • Out or missing: 1,775 • Overdue or missing: 186 • Missing (incl. 1 year overdue): 123

  17. Percentages and Ratios Overdue or missing, as a percentage of those off-shelf: • Ethics: 13.4% • Non-ethics: 10.5% Missing, as a percentage of those off-shelf: • Ethics: 8.7% • Non-ethics: 6.9% Odds Ratio: • Ethics % missing : Non-ethics % missing: 1.25 (p = .02)

  18. But… (1.) Older books were more likely to be missing and ethics books had a slightly higher weighted mean age. (2.) Ethics books were more likely to be checked out, and highly checked-out books have a higher percentage missing. (3.) It might be those pesky law students!

  19. Responses to Concerns Re. older books. Excluding pre-1985 books: • weighted mean age of book: ethics: 1993.0, non-ethics: 1992.7 • missing as percentage of off shelf: • ethics: 7.7%, non-ethics: 5.7% • odds ratio: 1.35 (p = .01) Re. more popular books. Excluding also books occurring 5+ times in SEP: • off-shelf as a percent of holdings: • ethics: 15.5%, non-ethics: 16.1% • missing as a percentage of off shelf: • ethics: 8.5%, non-ethics: 5.7% • odds ratio: 1.48 (p = .03)

  20. Responses to Concerns Re. Law Students. Excluding also books with 10% or more of their U.S. holdings in law libraries: • missing as percentage of off shelf: • ethics: 8.3%, non-ethics: 5.7% • odds ratio: 1.45 (p = .04) • ethics books in four U.S. law libraries, missing as percentage of off shelf: 7.0%

  21. Missing Books in Academic Libraries(all ratios p < .05)

  22. Classic Texts I also looked at 12 classic (pre-1900) ethics texts and 10 classic non-ethics texts; 13 U.S. libraries.

  23. Non-Ethics Texts Missing as a percentage of off shelf (books with <25 checkouts in small type): Bacon, New Organon 3.4% (Berkeley, Principles 9.5%) (Brentano, Psychology from an Empirical 0.0%) Descartes, Meditations 5.6% (Frege, Grundlagen 26.3%) (Frege, Philosophical Writings 0.0%) James, Principles of Psycholgy 7.1% Kant, First Critique 10.6% Kant, Third Critique 3.8% Locke: ECHU 12.1%

  24. Ethics Texts Aquinas, Summa 5.9% Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics 14.8% (Bentham, Principles of Morals 11.1%) Hobbes, Leviathan 15.0% Locke, Two Treatises 23.8% Kant, Groundwork 16.2% (Kant, Metaphysics of Morals 10.0%) Kant, Second Critique 10.3% Mill, On Liberty 23.2% Mill, Utilitarianism 31.3% Plato, Republic 15.8% Rousseau, Social Contract 23.5%

  25. Classic Texts(p = .01)

  26. Why Expect Ethicists to Be Better? (Revisited) (1.) Philosophical ethics improves (or selects for) moral reasoning. (2.) Improved (or professional habits of) moral reasoning tends to lead either to (a.) better moral knowledge, or (at least) (b.) more frequent moral reflection. (3.) (a) and (b) tend to cause better moral behavior. Therefore, (ceteris paribus) ethicists will behave better than non-ethicists.

  27. Conclusions If it turns out, generally, that ethicists behave no better than non-ethicists, then: Reject (1): Philosophical ethics does not improve moral reasoning. Reject (2): Moral reasoning does not improve moral knowledge or increase rates of moral reflection. Reject (3): Improved moral knowledge and moral reflection do not increase rates of moral behavior. Or spring ceteris paribus clause: Ethicists start out morally worse? Or ethicists are less likely to engage in other morality-improving practices?

More Related