Search News


Browse Archives

News

Do as I Say, Not as I Do

June 16, 2009

So much for trusting your local ethicist.

According to a paper written by two philosophy professors, Eric Schwitzgebel of the University of California at Riverside and Joshua Rust of Stetson University, a college professorship in ethics does not necessary translate into moral behavior. At least, that’s what the people who work with ethicists say.

“One might suppose,” Schwitzgebel writes in the paper, which has been accepted for publication by the journal Mind, “that ethicists would behave with particular moral scruple. After all, they devote their careers to studying and teaching about morality. Presumably, many of them care deeply about it. And if they care deeply about it, it is not unreasonable to expect them to act on it.”

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Maybe not. Equipped with free Ghirardelli chocolate to entice potential survey-takers, Schwitzgebel set out to test that assumption at a 2007 meeting of the American Philosophical Association by distributing questionnaires asking how well philosophers presumed their peers in ethics behave. Not any better than the next guy, they said.

Most of the 277 survey respondents reported no positive correlation between a professional focus on ethics and actual moral behavior. Respondents who were ethicists themselves shied away from saying that ethicists behave worse than those outside the discipline – generally reporting that ethicists behave either the same or better – but non-ethicists were mostly split between reporting that ethicists behave the same as or worse than others.

Even those ethicists who did rank their peers’ behavior as better than average said their moral behavior is just barely better than average – hardly a ringing endorsement.

Of course, Schwitzgebel said, the usual caveats apply here: small-ish sample size, possible in-group bias, the chance that respondents are more likely to remember their vicious ethicist colleagues than the well-behaved ones. But if the majority is right – that studying ethics does not translate to more ethical behavior – Schwitzgebel said he’d be a little disheartened.

“If actually thinking about ethics philosophically does not help you behave any better, if that is the right conclusion to draw, I do find that disappointing,” Schwitzgebel said. “I would have to hope that philosophical moral reflection is morally improving … that it pushes you toward the good.”

If being pushed toward the good means not stealing, ethicists might not be feeling the push. In another of Schwitzgebel’s papers forthcoming in a peer review journal, he looks at whether ethics books are more likely to be missing from libraries than non-ethics books. Focusing on the especially obscure ethics texts that only specialized professors or graduate students would go looking for, Schwitzgebel found the ethics books to be slightly more likely to be unaccounted for. It’s hardly proof of theft, Schwitzgebel admits, but it is an attempt at gathering convergent evidence of a certain – possibly morally unethical – behavior trend among those who study ethical behavior.

What does it all mean for ethics department come evaluation time? It’s no reason to cast it from the curriculum, Schwitzgebel says.

There is, at the very least, an intrinsic interest in studying ethics, he continued – much like, say, metaphysics, where there is not much of practical import. Ethicists contribute to public discourse, and they might inspire others to behave more morally, even if they don’t themselves. Plus many who teach ethics resist – perhaps out of modesty – saying their aim is to change the moral character of a student, Schwitzgebel said.

But with humanities apologists regularly having to defend their significance against the tightening of college purse strings, an ethics class that does not promote ethics could eat away at that philosophy course’s justification.

“People do sometimes justify ethics courses on the assumption that taking ethics courses will improve students’ behavior down the road,” Schwitzgebel said, noting legal and business ethics as examples, although they are separate from ethics courses in the philosophy department. “I think there is a potential this line of research could undercut the justification for those classes.”

But, as Schwitzgebel was quick to point out, his study does not imply that. The jump from ethics professors’ immoral behavior to students’ benefiting (or not) from ethics courses is a long one to make, he said. What Schwitzgebel – who has been teaching a college ethics course for seven years – hopes might come out of his work is a better understanding of the nuances in studying and teaching ethics.

“There are certain ways of teaching ethics and thinking about ethics philosophically that can lead to moral improvement,” Schwitzgebel said. He wants to find them.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Do as I Say, Not as I Do

  • Posted by Astraea on June 16, 2009 at 7:15am EDT
  • I had to call our local ethicist on his behavior. I quit our faculty discussion group, and when he asked me why, I said, well, you know I'm not as smart about these things as you, but when you call me a dismissive name (feminist) because you don't like my arguments, is that critical thinking or ethical behavior?

  • Posted by bystander on June 16, 2009 at 8:00am EDT
  • There is a difference between a theoretical study of something and an applied study of something. Take the chocolates over to the psychology department and see if the clinical psychology professors are mentally healthier than their colleagues who teach cognitive psychology. (My working hypothesis: it could just as well go the other way.) Take the chocolates over to the physics department--I am predicting every single physicist is rated exactly equally subject to gravity, whether applied or theoretical. Maybe the closest applied ethics comparison would be with the divinity school--perhaps those faculty and graduates would score better than the others, for they must translate theory into problems of day to day living. The last place to take the chocolates and questionnaire would be the law school! They would find a way to get your chocolates and damages, too, for causing them to get cavities, and I'll bet all legal. Maybe not ethical, though, but what do I know about it?

  • The point?
  • Posted by bp , Philosophy on June 16, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • That colleagues think ethicists are no more or less ethical than other colleagues shows us next to nothing. First, if everyone else in philosophy is more or less "ethical"--which one would expect in the main, given the weight of professional and institutional pressures--then it stands to reason that ethicists would have no special claim to being ethical. Second, we seem to be assuming that teaching ethics is a prescriptive enterprise--professors telling themselves, students and each other how best to act. It isn't. I wonder how the "anti-ethicists" or the Levinasians fare in this survey. I'd wager no better than the ethicists. Or maybe somewhat better (and those of you who have had an "ethicist" bellowing in your ear about how unethical you are, leaving you with the distinct feeling that that was an unethical thing to do, will know what I mean). Finally, if philosophers are arguing for their relevance on the basis of some idea that ethicists are the ones who turn the tide of immorality, they hardly understand their own discipline.

  • Anecdotal, I know, but...
  • Posted by AK on June 16, 2009 at 10:45am EDT
  • ...the ethicists I've known have been some pretty shady characters. I theorize that they go into ethics for the same reason most of us choose our disciplines: to try to solve interesting problems. If you don't perceive ethical issues as problematic, then why study them?

    For similar reasons, you see some amazingly colorful meltdowns in seminaries. I'm just sayin'.

  • Sounds like junk to me
  • Posted by Greg on June 16, 2009 at 3:30pm EDT
  • Perhaps we should start relying on hearsay in criminal trials, too? This study just seems rather lazy to me. Rather than asking people whether they think ethicists are more ethical, perhaps we could actually test it? This is a waste of time, in my opinion.

  • Duh!
  • Posted by Dr. Anonymous on June 16, 2009 at 6:45pm EDT
  • Of course philosophers in general, and ethicists in particular, do not lead better lives. Who is the fool who thinks that they would? A stupid idea for research and for IHE to cover (I know, it the summer, but still...)? It reminds me of a sociologist, thirty years ago more or less, who received a $3,000,000 grant to find out whether tenured professors are happier than untenured professored. Guess what? They are.

  • a questionable study, imho
  • Posted by Pavel Davydov on June 16, 2009 at 9:00pm EDT
  • If you're interested in a longish critical response to Schwitzgebel and Rust (from a non-ethicist's perspective), mine can be found at:
    http://spontaneousabstraction.blogspot.com/2009/06/of-surveys-and-chocolate.html

  • Yes, but..
  • Posted by Corey on June 17, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • Of course, the reason this study is potentially of interest is because various philosophers have been claiming at least since Socrates that the reason to undertake philosophy is to improve oneself--at least among some notable philosophers, we study ethics in order to become good (Aristotle was a notable exception, since he said that study of ethics can't make us good--we have to have some inclination toward the good before ethical study will do any good). But Socrates said at his trial that he was trying to get men to care for their souls, and, despite Aristotle's (at least implicit) disagreement, Socrates' sentiment has had a lasting impact, even once philosophy become professionalized in the modern period.

  • Specious Study
  • Posted by Philosopher & Social Scientist on June 17, 2009 at 2:15pm EDT
  • Philosophers have zero empirical research methods training. Opinion surveys from philosopher natives of philosopher informants tell us NOTHING. Shame on Mind for legitimating this specious exercise.

  • Ethics in the Ethics classroom
  • Posted by Stan Dundon , Emeritus Philosophy/Lecturer Environmental Studies at California State University, Sacramento on June 18, 2009 at 5:45am EDT
  • Well, I remember the time when I worked very hard to put together a reader for a course in "Ethics of Animal Use" at a nearby Ag. School. It cost $70 to reproduce. My copy was stolen of the desk while I conversed with students after the first class.
    At my home institution I taught Business Ethics and therefore my tenants got super careful treatment. I didn't want anyone to say: " Professor Dundon is a slum-lord." Less than noble a motivation but whatever works to keep us landlords honest is all for the good. Also I wanted to give a good example to my kids. I guess this amounts to an admission that this particular ethics professor is not "intrinsically" more moral than most people. Actually I hope they are better than me, it will make for a better world, the kind I want to live in.