Skip to main content

Expecting Moral Philosophers to be Reliable


This post is by James Andow (pictured above), a Lecturer in Moral Philosophy at the University of Reading. James’s research interests are in philosophical methodology, in particular, on intuitions and experimental philosophy. In this post he summarises his paper ‘Expecting Moral Philosophers to be Reliable’. You can read the paper in draft form here.

 Consider the following case:

A bomb is about to go off. It’s a big one. If this bomb goes off, every single living thing will die instantaneously and painlessly, and the universe will be rendered incapable of ever supporting life again. There is but one way to stop the bomb: pushing a big red button. Pushing the button would stop the bomb from going off. Pushing the button would also cure all disease, eradicate poverty, remove the Tories from government, provide everyone with a free kitten, stop climate change, and bring Duke Ellington back.

Is it morally permissible to push the button?

If you thought of an answer, you just had what philosophers sometimes call an intuition. In a recent paper, ‘Expecting Moral Philosophers to be Reliable’, I try to say something in favour of the idea that philosophers have better intuitions than ordinary people when it comes to cases like these. (The argument is a bit more subtle than that and you should read the paper for the full story. But that is the gist.)

The idea that experts in a field have more reliable intuitions than those with no experience in the field is not generally very controversial. Mathematicians have better intuitions than me about proof strategies. Chess grandmasters have better intuitions than me about which moves are good moves.


But, the analogy between expertise in other fields and expertise in philosophy (especially ethics) has recently been claimed to break down in two ways.

  1. It only makes sense to expect experts to have better intuitions if their experience in their field changes their intuitions. Experts in maths and chess have different intuitions than a novice like me. However, philosophical training does not change what intuitions philosophers have.
  2. It only makes sense to expect experts to have better intuitions if their experience in their field improves their intuitions. Training in maths and chess involves lots of feedback on the quality of one’s intuitions. However, there is no such feedback available for philosophers.
I won’t bore you with the whole argument. However, my point in the paper is to show that the analogy actually holds up pretty well. I think it is pretty plausible that philosophers’ intuitions are a causal product of their experience in the field (even if some other factors, e.g., genetics, play a role as well). Moreover, I argue that philosophers get quite enough feedback on the quality of their intuitions from indirect sources that we should expect their intuitions to be improved by it. In brief, philosophers can get feedback from (i) the successful or unsuccessful application of their theories in other fields, (ii) their greater sensitivity to when intuitions are more and less reliable, and (iii) careful consideration of how intuitions are generated.

(As I say, the argument is a little more subtle than that, and, in the end, my defence of the superiority of philosophers’ intuitions is a pretty limited one. But, if you want to cast doubt on the idea that experts in philosophy have more reliable intuitions, you need to do more than argue that the analogy breaks down in these ways.)

(By the way, if you think that pushing the button is probably the way to go, then you should probably reject a theory called negative utilitarianism. That is… so long as your intuitions are reliable.)
Labels:

Popular posts from this blog

Delusions in the DSM 5

This post is by Lisa Bortolotti. How has the definition of delusions changed in the DSM 5? Here are some first impressions. In the DSM-IV (Glossary) delusions were defined as follows: Delusion. A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith). When a false belief involves a value judgment, it is regarded as a delusion only when the judgment is so extreme as to defy credibility.
Read more

Rationalization: Why your intelligence, vigilance and expertise probably don't protect you

Today's post is by Jonathan Ellis , Associate Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Center for Public Philosophy at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and Eric Schwitzgebel , Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Riverside. This is the first in a two-part contribution on their paper "Rationalization in Moral and Philosophical thought" in Moral Inferences , eds. J. F. Bonnefon and B. Trémolière (Psychology Press, 2017). We’ve all been there. You’re arguing with someone – about politics, or a policy at work, or about whose turn it is to do the dishes – and they keep finding all kinds of self-serving justifications for their view. When one of their arguments is defeated, rather than rethinking their position they just leap to another argument, then maybe another. They’re rationalizing –coming up with convenient defenses for what they want to believe, rather than responding even-handedly to the points you're making. Yo...
Read more

Models of Madness

In today's post John Read  (in the picture above) presents the recent book he co-authored with Jacqui Dillon , titled Models of Madness: Psychological, Social and Biological Approaches to Psychosis. My name is John Read. After 20 years working as a Clinical Psychologist and manager of mental health services in the UK and the USA, mostly with people experiencing psychosis, I joined the University of Auckland, New Zealand, in 1994. There I published over 100 papers in research journals, primarily on the relationship between adverse life events (e.g., child abuse/neglect, poverty etc.) and psychosis. I also research the negative effects of bio-genetic causal explanations on prejudice, and the role of the pharmaceutical industry in mental health. In February I moved to Melbourne and I now work at Swinburne University of Technology.  I am on the on the Executive Committee of the International Society for Psychological and Social Approaches to Psychosis and am the Editor...
Read more