I wish I could buy just the Guide section of the Saturday Guardian. I've been persisting with buying the paper but now it's mainly for the handy-sized TV guide it contains.
Today, the paper has a supplement of reactions to a pamphlet produced by Citizen Ethics. (You can read it online here; there's some more info on the project here.) This is a good idea. But whose reactions do they print? It's an election year, so we get one from each leader of the major political parties. These are desperate pleas for votes rather than considered reflections on what they take to be the central values behind the various budget cuts they will have to enforce if their particular gang gets to wave red suitcases around. Then there are reactions from some more contributors to the Comment is Free site mixed with others from a list of familiar contributors and worthies.
Here's the end of Mary Warnock's contribution :
Perhaps one important thing we might think about if we're wondering about ethics is the importance of thinking about thinking properly.
Today, the paper has a supplement of reactions to a pamphlet produced by Citizen Ethics. (You can read it online here; there's some more info on the project here.) This is a good idea. But whose reactions do they print? It's an election year, so we get one from each leader of the major political parties. These are desperate pleas for votes rather than considered reflections on what they take to be the central values behind the various budget cuts they will have to enforce if their particular gang gets to wave red suitcases around. Then there are reactions from some more contributors to the Comment is Free site mixed with others from a list of familiar contributors and worthies.
Here's the end of Mary Warnock's contribution :
We need to learn that just because someone is religious, doesn't mean they are a moral expert. There is no such thing in a democracy, for we can all become experts.The first sentence is true. But I have no idea how to understand the second one. I don't understand the inference it contains. (Is it: '1. Everyone can be F, so 2. there are no Fs'? I hope not.)
Perhaps one important thing we might think about if we're wondering about ethics is the importance of thinking about thinking properly.
2 comments:
I think the the charitable interpretation is to understand the 'a moral expert' in sentence 1 to mean something like 'exclusively morally expert'. The inference in 2 would then be 'Everyone can be F, so no one is exclusively F', making the inference less of a catastrophe. You might still think it false that we can all become moral 'experts'.
I also like the idea of re-punctuating to:
"We need to learn that just because someone is religious, doesn't mean they are amoral. Expert: There is no such thing in a democracy, for we can all become experts." :)
Charity indeed. It sounds as if even on your proposal 'exclusively' is doing double-duty. In the first case, moral expertise is not exclusive in the sense that everyone (not just the religious) can be a moral expert. In the second case, moral expertise is not exclusive because no one is solely a moral expert. Even so, it seems that the first sentence rejects the idea that being religious is a sufficient condition ('just because') for moral expertise, not that it is a necessary condition.
Post a Comment