The $68,584 Question

_{Barry Arrington
September 3, 2014

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

There is such a thing as a professional “ethicist,” and as of this writing the median annual income of a clinical ethicist is $68,584. Here is one job description for such a position:

Offers guidance to patients, their families, and professional staff on ethical, legal and policy issues and concerns stemming from clinical interactions between health care professionals and patients. Provides guidance to the institutional ethics committee pertaining to policy formulation and educational and case review activities. Develops institutional policies concerning ethical issues such as “do-not-resuscitate” and “withdrawal of life-support”. Requires a master’s degree or doctorate related to health ethics and at least 5 years of experience in the field.

I can understand how a theist who believes in the objective reality of ethical norms could apply for such a position in good faith. By definition he believes certain actions are really wrong and other actions are really right, and therefore he often has something meaningful to say.

My question is how could a materialist apply for such a position in good faith? After all, for the materialist there is really no satisfactory answer to Arthur Leff’s “grand sez who” question that we have discussed on these pages before. See here for Philip Johnson’s informative take on the issue.

After all, when pushed to the wall to ground his ethical opinions in anything other than his personal opinion, the materialist ethicist has nothing to say. Why should I pay someone $68,584 to say there is no real ultimate ethical difference between one moral response and another because they must both lead ultimately to the same place – nothingness.

I am not being facetious here. I really do want to know why someone would pay someone to give them the “right answer” when that person asserts that the word “right” is ultimately meaningless.

Comments

SB #170 Just noticed this:
Mark, by your own account of his job description, the ethicist’s role is to help people find their own moral position and to refrain from imposing his own moral views. Accordingly, and again by your own account of his job description, the ethicist cannot pass judgment on Hitler’s subjective opinions about morality. Since Hitler has, indeed, found his own way, you can congratulate yourself for staying true to your job description–either for helping him form his moral code or for staying out of the way while he forms it on his own.
Why do you write make these rather obvious over-simplifications? Sometimes I think you just want to disagree for the sake of it. An ethicist is not some kind of moral life-coach. As I understand it he/she is there to deal with all the people involved in real medical problems. What I actually wrote was: a) help people interpret man-made laws and other rules and precedents b) help people come to a decision about ethically tricky decisions – very tricky as many people are involved with potentially different ideas about what is right and wrong. (Of course there must be lots more to the job – I bet much of it is quite routine and bureaucratic) * Laws and rules in most current regimes would preclude any euthanasia/eugenics law that Hitler might propose. If the laws and rules did permit/endorse a Hitlerian approach to euthanasia/eugenics then an ethicist might well have a moral problem working for that state/organisation. It would not be part of his/her job in that organisation to pass judgement on the laws and rules. * A real ethicist would need to take account of everyone involved not just the proto-Hitler and find a solution acceptable to everyone. In a medical situation one of the people involved is the person to be treated. I doubt they would accept Hitler’s version of what should happen to them.Mark Frank_{September 8, 2014
September
09
Sep
8
08
2014
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PST}

Talking about honesty, atheist philosopher A.Rosenberg:
First, nihilism can’t condemn Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or those who fomented the Armenian genocide or the Rwandan one. If there is no such thing as “morally forbidden,” then what Mohamed Atta did on September 11, 2001, was not morally forbidden. Of course, it was not permitted either. But still, don’t we want to have grounds to condemn these monsters? Nihilism seems to cut that ground out from under us. Second, if we admit to being nihilists, then people won’t trust us. We won’t be left alone when there is loose change around. We won’t be relied on to be sure small children stay out of trouble. Third, and worst of all, if nihilism gets any traction, society will be destroyed. We will find ourselves back in Thomas Hobbes’s famous state of nature, where “the life of man is solitary, mean, nasty, brutish and short.” Surely, we don’t want to be nihilists if we can possibly avoid it. (Or at least, we don’t want the other people around us to be nihilists.) Scientism can’t avoid nihilism. We need to make the best of it. For our own self-respect, we need to show that nihilism doesn’t have the three problems just mentioned—no grounds to condemn Hitler, lots of reasons for other people to distrust us, and even reasons why no one should trust anyone else. We need to be convinced that these unacceptable outcomes are not ones that atheism and scientism are committed to. Such outcomes would be more than merely a public relations nightmare for scientism. They might prevent us from swallowing nihilism ourselves, and that would start unraveling scientism. To avoid these outcomes, people have been searching for scientifically respectable justification of morality for least a century and a half. The trouble is that over the same 150 years or so, the reasons for nihilism have continued to mount. Both the failure to find an ethics that everyone can agree on and the scientific explanation of the origin and persistence of moral norms have made nihilism more and more plausible while remaining just as unappetizing. [A.Rosenberg, The Atheist Guide to Reality, ch.5]
HeKS #163, thank you for clarifying my unpolished argument. :)Box_{September 8, 2014
September
09
Sep
8
08
2014
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PST}

AB said:
But I argue that they are nothing more than a set of rules that various societies over the centuries have established because they are beneficial to an individual’s and a society’s ability to survive and thrive.
Beneficial how? According to whom, and by what standard? You say this as if there is some kind of objective standard of "beneficial" that a "society" refers to in order to determine what would be "beneficial".
If I chose whatever morals benefit me at any given time then I agree that this would be subjective morality. It would also make me a sociopath. But if I adopt a set of morals that society has shown to be effective in ensuring the long term survival of that society, then my morals have been selected objectively.
No, that's just you subjectively choosing the long-term survival of a society as the basis of your personal moral code. If someone else chooses religious scripture or political/social power for their group or "do as thou will" as the basis of their moral code, that's them doing the same thing as you - subjectively choosing the basis of their moral code. You're just trying to avoid the subjective nature of your choice of morality by insinuating there may be an objective means by which to evaluate its success; however, beyond the generic platitude of "beneficial to society" you have yet to define that benefit, where it comes from and how it is really measured, and who it really affects and how. It appears you are equating "long-term survival of society" with "beneficial to society"; does this mean that you can adopt any behavior as "moral" as long as it can be demonstrated to you to increase the survivability of a society? Also, please refer us to where you actually get your morals from and describe how you came to have them? If they are based on some objective scientific literature, as you seem to be claiming, then certainly you can define them and refer us to their objective support of whatever morals you have. A question: if convincing evidence could be shown to you that the long-term survival of your society would benefit by eliminating the concept of individual freedom and personal rights, outlawing political dissent and religious practices; having strict, militarized border security, and developing a strong nationalistic identity through childhood education, could you adopt that "morality" as your own?
If morals are truly objective and given by god, why do different religions, and even different sects within the same religion, not have the same objective morals?
Because humans misinterpret and misunderstand objectively real things all the time. Why should morality be any different?
I would be lying if i tried to claim that my morals are not strongly influenced by Christian morals. But I simply don’t believe that they were dictated by any god.
You might refine your understanding of theistic morality. Not all theists hold that god "dictates" morality. Some, like me, believe that morality is an absolute characteristic of god and so is not commanded or dictated, but rather is sewn into the nature of existence. IOW, it's a natural law morality, something god cannot change, and something humans do their best to interpret and understand but often fail at and make mistakes.William J Murray_{September 8, 2014
September
09
Sep
8
08
2014
03:39 AM
3
03
39
AM
PST}

F/N: I again don't have much time, it's crunch time -- even on insomnia power. But, the attempt above to use street corner pundit caricatures of theism in order to poison the well need a reminder on historically relevant matters. Y'see, modern liberal democracy was a designed system of gov't and Locke was a chief architect. He understood that rights, justice and governance are deeply pervaded by ethical issues and considerations. And so, when he addressed grounding core government values and visions in his famous 2nd Treatise on Civil Govt, in ch 2 sect 5, he cited as follows from "the judicious [Anglican Canon, Richard] Hooker" in his 1594+ Ecclesiastical Polity:
. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant . . . [[Hooker then continues, citing Aristotle in The Nicomachean Ethics, Bk 8:] as namely, That because we would take no harm, we must therefore do none; That since we would not be in any thing extremely dealt with, we must ourselves avoid all extremity in our dealings; That from all violence and wrong we are utterly to abstain, with such-like . . . ] [[Eccl. Polity,preface, Bk I, "ch." 8, p.80]
That is a very good in a nutshell argument of core Judaeo-Christian ethics, complete with the insight that it is evident to the normal man or woman of reasonably clean and functioning conscience and mind. You have to benumb and cow and blind and warp people for them to become ignorant of this. Which is exactly what is happening in our civilisation at the hands of those whose ethics boils down to might and manipulation make 'right.' (As a litmus test of this, see if such are willing to acknowledge the substance and significance of Hooker's summary as cited by Locke, or more to the point whether they can show passing familiarity with what Jesus of Nazareth taught the world in the Sermon on The Mount. If they fail this test and instead resort to litanies of well-poisoning and ad hominem or mocking ridicule laced strawman caricatures, let them know that you see exactly what they are doing, what, and what this reveals about what they are . . . and who they inadvertently serve.) KF PS: Hitler on the relativist ethicist's office couch circa 1936 - 9, is a good test of the espoused principles . . . and it seems to have been clearly failed. The example is actually based on stuff I looked at for curriculum architecting of Engineering Programmes, where one of the pivotal case studies was the abuse of engineering and science for aggressive war and genocide. Someone, designed the rifles, machine guns, arty pieces, aircraft, tanks, rockets, propellants and explosives . . . defensible as needed in a world of possible aggressors, but then perverted into aggression. Someone developed Zyklon B and Sarin etc, IIRC originally as insecticides, but then toxicity to humans emerged (was there KZ prisoner testing?) and someone turned Zyklon B into the gas used at Auschwitz, and Tabun and Sarin into the first notorious nerve gases. (BTW, guess what Baygon is, though not so toxic to humans . . . but read the label warnings!) Someone adapted trucks to gas people in the back compartments. Someone designed the fake shower system at Auschwitz. And more. I came away from the exercise concluding that every scientist or engineer, medical doctor, Lawyer, Journalist, Educator etc in training should do an "X in Society" course, addressing ethics, professional principles informed by ethics, and linked civics with real life historical cases. For instance, was it okay to work for a firm building slaver ships 250 years ago? Or, to work in a cigarette factory today? Or, to promote abortion of millions of unborn children on demand mislabelled as "choice" and even "reproductive rights"? Or, to indoctrinate in scientism and evolutionary materialist ideology dressed up in a lab coat, complete with loaded redefinitions of science? Or, to pretend that there is no material difference between Adam marrying Eve and his "marriage" to Steve, or to both, or even to Fido? Or, or, or . . . ?kairosfocus_{September 8, 2014
September
09
Sep
8
08
2014
02:26 AM
2
02
26
AM
PST}

SB
The ethicist’s job is not what you think it is. From Wikipedia: “An ethicist is one whose judgment on ethics and ethical codes has come to be trusted by a specific community, and (importantly) is expressed in some way that makes it possible for others to mimic or approximate that judgement.” You have tried to re-define the ethicist’s role as that of a moral relativist and then claim–surprise, surprise–that a moral relativist would do a better job of being a moral relativist than a theist. On the contrary, it is not the ethicist’s job to avoid taking moral stands or refrain from giving ethical advice. That would be like defining an umpire as someone who avoids calling balls and strikes.
I made it very clear that my statement was based on an assumption about what the ethicist’s job is. If you want to discuss whether that is an accurate description of the job that is a different dispute. My conditional claim remains true.
It is impossible for an ethicist to function as a moral relativist. Among other things, he must support the purpose of the organization, which always has a moral component.
A moral relativist is perfectly capable of supporting the moral purposes of an organisation – indeed he/she is better equipped to do this than a moral objectivist as this involves making moral decisions relative to the moral framework of the organisation. (In practice moral relativists do have their own views and may find their subjective opinion differs from that of the organisation – but they are likely to find it easier than an obectivist to put aside their moral views and work according to the organisation’s).
Among other things, he must pass judgment on the civil laws that affect the organization, all of which have a moral component. No one who believes that morality is a subjective opinion could function in that kind of environment.
Whatever his job I am sure he doesn’t have to pass judgement on the law. That’s political campaigning! Turning to the interesting issue of what medical ethicists actually do. I am surprised that all of a sudden Wikipedia is taken to be an authoritative source given the things the ID community has said about it in the past. However, the definition you refer to is of the generic term ethicist which is not even a job much less the specific job medical ethicist. There is no entry for medical ethicist in Wikipedia although there is one for medical ethics. So looking elsewhere: http://www.sharecare.com/health/health-care-basics/whatis-medical-ethicist
Katrina Bramstedt, PhD, Health Education, answered A medical ethicist is also sometimes called a clinical ethicist or bioethicist. These are healthcare professionals with either a PhD or MD/DO and advanced fellowship training who specialize in helping patients, families, and medical teams solve medical ethics dilemmas. …… Patients, families and medical teams can request an ethics consultation whenever they need help with moral distress or ethical decision-making.
Or this blog entry which appears to be written by a medical ethicist: http://www.amc.edu/BioethicsBlog/post.cfm/is-there-a-philosophy-of-clinical-ethics-what-does-a-clinical-ethicist-do
Clinical ethicists should not act as final judges about what is right or wrong in a specific case. Instead, they should function as informers and guides about the case’s ethical dimensions, as well as the ethical supportability of different solutions.
Mark Frank_{September 8, 2014
September
09
Sep
8
08
2014
01:44 AM
1
01
44
AM
PST}

kairosfocus:
Your ethics practice client (presumably, lying on the couch) is Adolf Hitler, and he is seeking support on the euthanasia-eugenics law that was at the time linked to the Scientific “consensus,” but in several years on our time line would lead to genocide. On what principles and with what objectivity and neutrality about the IS-OUGHT grounding issue would he be advised.
Mark
I don’t recognise this job – it doesn’t seem to bear much relationship to the job of ethicist as I understand it. You seem to be inventing a job which is to give ethical direction to people and using that to replay the old objective/subjective debate. I am sorry I have played that too many times.
Mark, by your own account of his job description, the ethicist's role is to help people find their own moral position and to refrain from imposing his own moral views. Accordingly, and again by your own account of his job description, the ethicist cannot pass judgment on Hitler's subjective opinions about morality. Since Hitler has, indeed, found his own way, you can congratulate yourself for staying true to your job description--either for helping him form his moral code or for staying out of the way while he forms it on his own.StephenB_{September 8, 2014
September
09
Sep
8
08
2014
01:27 AM
1
01
27
AM
PST}

Mark
I think my point is made.
No, your point has been refuted.
If the ethicist’s job is what I think it is then someone who believes that morality is at heart a subjective opinion (which is not the same as having no rational justification) would actually be better suited to the job than someone who was convinced there was an objective moral truth and they knew what that truth was.
The ethicist's job is not what you think it is. From Wikipedia: "An ethicist is one whose judgment on ethics and ethical codes has come to be trusted by a specific community, and (importantly) is expressed in some way that makes it possible for others to mimic or approximate that judgement." You have tried to re-define the ethicist's role as that of a moral relativist and then claim--surprise, surprise--that a moral relativist would do a better job of being a moral relativist than a theist. On the contrary, it is not the ethicist's job to avoid taking moral stands or refrain from giving ethical advice. That would be like defining an umpire as someone who avoids calling balls and strikes. It is impossible for an ethicist to function as a moral relativist. Among other things, he must support the purpose of the organization, which always has a moral component. Among other things, he must pass judgment on the civil laws that affect the organization, all of which have a moral component. No one who believes that morality is a subjective opinion could function in that kind of environment.StephenB_{September 8, 2014
September
09
Sep
8
08
2014
01:08 AM
1
01
08
AM
PST}

KF
I have one minute. Your ethics practice client (presumably, lying on the couch) is Adolf Hitler, and he is seeking support on the euthanasia-eugenics law that was at the time linked to the Scientific “consensus,” but in several years on our time line would lead to genocide. On what principles and with what objectivity and neutrality about the IS-OUGHT grounding issue would he be advised.
I don’t recognise this job – it doesn’t seem to bear much relationship to the job of ethicist as I understand it. You seem to be inventing a job which is to give ethical direction to people and using that to replay the old objective/subjective debate. I am sorry I have played that too many times.Mark Frank_{September 7, 2014
September
09
Sep
7
07
2014
11:51 PM
11
11
51
PM
PST}

SB:
But to answer your question, no. I would only be comfortable if I could help people to understand what they ought to do and encourage them to do it. …… If I could not tell the truth about objective morality, I would want no part of it.

I don’t think that an atheist who doesn’t believe in moral truths would be very effective at explaining the option of sacrificing everything–including one’s career, reputation, or even one’s life–for the sake of a moral truth.
That may be true. But that was not the question I asked. I think my point is made. If the ethicist’s job is what I think it is then someone who believes that morality is at heart a subjective opinion (which is not the same as having no rational justification) would actually be better suited to the job than someone who was convinced there was an objective moral truth and they knew what that truth was.Mark Frank_{September 7, 2014
September
09
Sep
7
07
2014
10:31 PM
10
10
31
PM
PST}

A_b: The Moral Yardstick 1 case . . . it is self evidently wrong to kidnap, torture, rape and murder a young child for sexual gratification and pleasure is based on the shocking fate of a young boy I knew. Take a trip with me to visit with the still grieving -- and formidable -- father, the surviving brothers and friends and explain in their presence that binding rights were not really violated, we are not really under moral government, and they need to just get over it. (All you are doing is underscoring the moral absurdity of evolutionary materialism and how it is forced to hold that there is nothing more than might and manipulation make 'right.') KFkairosfocus_{September 7, 2014
September
09
Sep
7
07
2014
07:21 PM
7
07
21
PM
PST}

MF: I have one minute. Your ethics practice client (presumably, lying on the couch) is Adolf Hitler, and he is seeking support on the euthanasia-eugenics law that was at the time linked to the Scientific "consensus," but in several years on our time line would lead to genocide. On what principles and with what objectivity and neutrality about the IS-OUGHT grounding issue would he be advised. KFkairosfocus_{September 7, 2014
September
09
Sep
7
07
2014
07:15 PM
7
07
15
PM
PST}

HeKS, I accept the fact that theists believe that god provided objective morality is real. But I argue that they are nothing more than a set of rules that various societies over the centuries have established because they are beneficial to an individual's and a society's ability to survive and thrive. If I chose whatever morals benefit me at any given time then I agree that this would be subjective morality. It would also make me a sociopath. But if I adopt a set of morals that society has shown to be effective in ensuring the long term survival of that society, then my morals have been selected objectively. If morals are truly objective and given by god, why do different religions, and even different sects within the same religion, not have the same objective morals? I would be lying if i tried to claim that my morals are not strongly influenced by Christian morals. But I simply don't believe that they were dictated by any god.Acartia_bogart_{September 7, 2014
September
09
Sep
7
07
2014
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PST}

@Acartia_bogart #159

Box: “An honest atheist, advising his clients, would say: listen up people, there is no right and wrong, so it doesn’t matter at all what your decision will be. So do whatever the hell you want, or don’t.”
I am constantly amazed about how ignorant some theists can be about atheists and their motives/ethics/morals/purpose/etc., yet how thoroughly complete they think their understanding of us is. It must be comforting to know everything.
A_b, While I can't speak definitively for Box, it seems to me his (her?) comments should be understood in the context of the issue raised in the OP. In other words, in referring to an "honest atheist", I don't think Box is referring simply to an atheist who truly admits their own personal opinion about morality, in which case he would be implying that all atheists think objective morality doesn't exist and those who don't admit that are lying. Rather, by "honest atheist", I think Box means an atheist who has truly thought through and accepted the logically necessary implications of their basic, materialist worldview and are subsequently open about those implications to others. As an example we might cite someone like Will Provine, who has rejected any notion of objective morality or free will not because that is simply his personal opinion but because he rightly recognizes it as the necessary conclusion of his atheistic, materialist, evolutionary worldview. Provine further acknowledges that Darwin himself recognized these to be the logically necessary conclusions of his own theory about the history of life. Provine is an "honest atheist" in the sense Box uses that term because he has unflinchingly considered what his worldview demands that he conclude and he is very open about those implications to anyone he talks to about the subject. Take care, HeKSHeKS_{September 7, 2014
September
09
Sep
7
07
2014
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PST}

Mark
Assuming the ethicists job is as I describe – help people come to their own ethical decision and avoid imposing your own ethical views.

a Would you be comfortable doing the job?
It's interesting that you characterize the act of sharing one's ethical views as "imposing" one's ethical views. Impose ---force (something unwelcome or unfamiliar) to be accepted ---take advantage of someone by demanding their attention or commitment. To share, to persuade, or to provide good reasons for believing in an idea is not to "impose" that belief. Liberal atheists use that word to chill speech and intimidate those who would dare disagree with them about objective morality--even as those same liberal atheists remake secular institutions so that they can impose their own world view of subjective morality on everyone else. But to answer your question, no. I would only be comfortable if I could help people to understand what they ought to do and encourage them to do it. (Notice that I didn't say I would try to force them to do it or impose my views on them.) The real intellectual challenge is not to teach people the natural moral law. They already know it, at least in some primitive form. The real challenge is to help them better understand that law and apply it in complex situations where there is more than one possible moral solution. If I could not tell the truth about objective morality, I would want no part of it.
b Do you think an atheist would be less good at it than a theist?
I don't think that an atheist who doesn't believe in moral truths would be very effective at explaining the option of sacrificing everything--including one's career, reputation, or even one's life--for the sake of a moral truth.StephenB_{September 7, 2014
September
09
Sep
7
07
2014
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PST}

It must be comforting to know everything. It's a God-given gift.Daniel King_{September 7, 2014
September
09
Sep
7
07
2014
04:20 PM
4
04
20
PM
PST}

Box: "An honest atheist, advising his clients, would say: listen up people, there is no right and wrong, so it doesn’t matter at all what your decision will be. So do whatever the hell you want, or don’t." I am constantly amazed about how ignorant some theists can be about atheists and their motives/ethics/morals/purpose/etc., yet how thoroughly complete they think their understanding of us is. It must be comforting to know everything.Acartia_bogart_{September 7, 2014
September
09
Sep
7
07
2014
02:27 PM
2
02
27
PM
PST}

Mark Frank: Do you think an atheist would be less good at it than a theist?
An honest atheist, advising his clients, would say: listen up people, there is no right and wrong, so it doesn't matter at all what your decision will be. So do whatever the hell you want, or don't.Box_{September 7, 2014
September
09
Sep
7
07
2014
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PST}

KF, SB I am intrigued. Assuming the ethicists job is as I describe - help people come to their own ethical decision and avoid imposing your own ethical views a Would you be comfortable doing the job? b Do you think an atheist would be less good at it than a theist?Mark Frank_{September 7, 2014
September
09
Sep
7
07
2014
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PST}

SB continues to be right. KFkairosfocus_{September 7, 2014
September
09
Sep
7
07
2014
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PST}

#152 SB
A job description that calls for an ethicist to abstain from taking any moral position is, itself, a moral position.
That may be true. But that is the moral position of the person who wrote the job description, or the organisation, not the ethicist. The ethicist could have moral principles which are totally at odd with the job description. My inclination would be to say that someone with strong a priori moral principles such as yourself would be very uncomfortable performing a job which involved setting your own moral principles aside.Mark Frank_{September 7, 2014
September
09
Sep
7
07
2014
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PST}

Kairos focus #141: "Pardon some painful words, but they are necessary..," I guess the point is, painful for whom? And necessary for whom? Or is it 'who'? I am never sure. Since I think that you are wrong in your belief of the existence of objective values dispensed from on high, the rest of your words are meaningless to me. But let's go right back to Barry's original point: "I can understand how a theist who believes in the objective reality of ethical norms could apply for such a position in good faith... My question is how could a materialist apply for such a position in good faith? " Since most hospitals do things that are counter to some theistic rules (e.g., abortions, tubal ligation, vasectomies, stem cell research, blood transfusions, not telling a husband about a wife's medical treatments, etc.), the bigger question would be how a theist could apply for this position in good faith. After all, everything I listed violated the rules of one theistic belief or another. However, a non-theist, who believes that ethical norms are, and should be, determined by society, which admittedly includes a religious component, could apply for this position in good 'faith' (using the secular use of the word, not the religious).Acartia_bogart_{September 7, 2014
September
09
Sep
7
07
2014
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PST}

You added the weasel word “rational” which then leads to a tedious debate about what justifications are rational and the same old stereotyped positions. I don’t want to go down that route.
“Rational” is the definitive term. The materialist has no rational grounding for his position. He can only appeal to his feelings and preferences. His alleged morality is totally without foundation. It isn’t a question about whether you want to go down that route. There is no route for you to travel. There is no argument to be made.StephenB_{September 7, 2014
September
09
Sep
7
07
2014
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PST}

SB: Even if the ethicist believes that he should provide only factual and conceptual input and refrain from taking a moral position, he has, by virtue of that decision, taken a moral position, namely that he shouldn’t inject his morality into the situation.
That is not a moral position. It is the job description.
A job description that calls for an ethicist to abstain from taking any moral position is, itself, a moral position. First, it prevents the ethicist from giving moral direction by imposing an official policy of moral relativism on him and his clients. Second, it requires him to remain silent about the justice of the civil laws that his organization is being asked to follow. Third, it ignores the fact that the job description serves a broader and more important purpose---the organization's reason for being, which always has a moral component. An ethicist cannot avoid taking a moral position. It is not possible. A materialist ethicist, therefore, who cannot avoid taking a moral position, should not accept payment for his services since he can provide no rational justification for any position he takes.
He may think he is morally bound to have an opinion but his job description says otherwise. It is not uncommon for jobs to require people to do things they think immoral.
His job description supports the organization's purpose, which always has a moral component. ..
until you can grasp the difference between what someone is required to do as part of their job and what they think is morally right I think we can make little progress.
We are not discussing "someone," we are discussing a professional ethicist. SB: A materialist can provide no rational justification for any moral position he takes. If you would like to argue against the point, feel free to do so.
You added the weasel word “rational” which then leads to a tedious debate about what justifications are rational and the same old stereotyped positions. I don’t want to go down that route. "Rational" is the definitive term. The materialist has no rational grounding for his position. He can only appeal to his feelings and preferences. His alleged morality is totally without foundation. It isn't a question about whether you want to go down that route. There is no route for you to travel. There is no argument to be made.
StephenB_{September 7, 2014
September
09
Sep
7
07
2014
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PST}

Does it make sense for a person who is colorblind to apply for a job as color adviser?
That would depend on the job description.
Does it make sense for a blind person to apply for a job as traffic control officer?
That too would depend on the job description. ;)Mung_{September 7, 2014
September
09
Sep
7
07
2014
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PST}

HeKS - at the very bottom of that page there is a link (the very last link) for the author and you'll find the address there.Silver Asiatic_{September 7, 2014
September
09
Sep
7
07
2014
09:20 AM
9
09
20
AM
PST}

@kairosfocus #140 I'm not seeing any contact link when I click on your name. I get taken to a website, but I don't see a contact link.HeKS_{September 7, 2014
September
09
Sep
7
07
2014
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PST}

BA77@65 I believe Paul is a YLC (Young Life Creationist) based on Genesis 1:1-2 among other things; 1 In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth -- 2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters. YLT A YLC believes that life on earth is approximately 6000 years old. The Bible does not say how long what became “earth” had existed, just that it did exist before Day . A plain reading of the text solves many problems.Josh_{September 7, 2014
September
09
Sep
7
07
2014
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PST}

Mark Frank: help people come to a decision about ethically tricky decisions – very tricky as many people are involved with potentially different ideas about what is right and wrong.
While discussing 'ethically tricky decisions', the reflective materialist is staring in the abyss - he believes that whatever is discussed is totally nonsensical and whatever he says carries no weight whatsoever. A materialist discussing ethically tricky decisions is as absurd as a colorblind person discussing pastel tints.Box_{September 7, 2014
September
09
Sep
7
07
2014
06:30 AM
6
06
30
AM
PST}

KF #144 Your comment is short and comprehensible - thanks. However, like SB you seem not to be able to differentiate between what an ethicist is expected to do as part of their job and what they (or anyone else) believes to be morally right. I am saying that as I understand it an ethicist's job is not to have an opinion about what is right or wrong but a) help people interpret man-made laws and other rules and precedents b) help people come to a decision about ethically tricky decisions - very tricky as many people are involved with potentially different ideas about what is right and wrong. It may help to imagine that the ethicist has a very clear cut set of ethical beliefs based on their religion - like you, StephenB and Barry. The ethicist's job (as I understand it) would require such a person to put those beliefs to one side and listen to the ethical beliefs of the participants - including hospital boards and the law of the land. You might argue that this is a moral stance but let's be clear it is not the moral stance of the person being employed - it is the moral stance of the person who wrote the job description. Given that job description, it would appear that someone without very strong a priori views on right and wrong would be better equipped to do the job - but it is not necessary.Mark Frank_{September 7, 2014
September
09
Sep
7
07
2014
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PST}

Does it make sense for a blind person to apply for a job as traffic control officer?Box_{September 7, 2014
September
09
Sep
7
07
2014
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PST}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply