David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Everyone agrees, I think, that there is something fishy about moral deference and expertise, but that's where consensus ends. This paper has two aims – the first is to mount a defense of moral deference, and the second is to offer a (non-debunking) diagnosis of its fishiness. I defend moral deference by connecting the discussion of moral deference to the recent discussion of the appropriate response to uncertainty. It is, I argue, morally obligatory to minimize the risk of one's wrongdoing (at least when all other things are held equal), and this moral requirement entails that deferring to a moral expert is sometimes not just morally permissible but also admirable, and indeed morally required. If moral deference is often justified, why is it fishy? I offer an explanation in terms of the emotions moral judgments are often related to, and their nature (roughly speaking) as directed at the good or bad, right or wrong, de re rather than de dicto. The combination of this vindication of moral deference and diagnosis of its fishiness nicely accommodates, I argue, some related phenomena, like the (neglected) fact that our uneasiness with moral deference is actually a particular instance of uneasiness with opaque evidence in general when it comes to morality, and the (familiar) fact that the scope of this uneasiness is wider than the moral as it includes other normative domains.
|Keywords||Moral Deference Moral Expertise Moral Uncertainty|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Anthony Preus (1984). Respect for the Dead and Dying. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 9 (4):409-416.
Kimberley Brownlee (2008). Legal Obligation as a Duty of Deference. Law and Philosophy 27 (6):583 - 597.
Laurence Thomas (1993). Moral Flourishing in an Unjust World. Journal of Moral Education 22 (2):83-96.
Sarah McGrath (2009). The Puzzle of Pure Moral Deference1. Philosophical Perspectives 23 (1):321-344.
Julia Markovits (2012). Saints, Heroes, Sages, and Villains. Philosophical Studies 158 (2):289-311.
Michael Cholbi (2007). Moral Expertise and the Credentials Problem. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 10 (4):323-334.
Julia Driver (2006). Autonomy and the Asymmetry Problem for Moral Expertise. Philosophical Studies 128 (3):619 - 644.
David Archard (2011). Why Moral Philosophers Are Not and Should Not Be Moral Experts. Bioethics 25 (3):119-127.
Peter Miller (1975). Who Are the Moral Experts? Journal of Moral Education 5 (1):3-12.
C. Daniel Batson (2011). What’s Wrong with Morality? Emotion Review 3 (3):230-236.
S. Godlovitch (1988). Aging and Moral Deference. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 4 (2):55-61.
Lei Zhong (2012). An Explanatory Challenge to Moral Reductionism. Theoria 78 (4):309-325.
Christopher Cowley (2011). Expertise, Wisdom and Moral Philosophers: A Response to Gesang. Bioethics 26 (6):337-342.
Luke Robinson (2011). Moral Principles As Moral Dispositions. Philosophical Studies 156 (2):289-309.
Grenville Wall (1975). Moral Authority and Moral Education. Journal of Moral Education 4 (2):95-99.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2012-10-16
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?