“…The nature, possibility, and implications of ethics expertise (or moral expertise) in general and of bioethics expertise in particular have been debated extensively for over 30 years (e.g., Singer, 1972;Frey, 1978;Noble, 1982;Weinstein, 1994;Yoder, 1998;Cowley, 2005;Crosthwaite, 2005;Cholbi, 2007;Varelius, 2008;Archard, 2011;Cowley, 2012).…”
Section: The Nature Possibility and Implications Of Ethics Expertismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Even if we establish the connection, or lack thereof, between training in moral philosophy and ethics expertise, we might still ask: what is the relationship between being virtuous or behaving ethically and being an ethics expert? Or, must ethics experts be motivated to follow their own advice and behave ethically (Cholbi, 2007)?…”
Section: The Nature Possibility and Implications Of Ethics Expertismentioning
“…The nature, possibility, and implications of ethics expertise (or moral expertise) in general and of bioethics expertise in particular have been debated extensively for over 30 years (e.g., Singer, 1972;Frey, 1978;Noble, 1982;Weinstein, 1994;Yoder, 1998;Cowley, 2005;Crosthwaite, 2005;Cholbi, 2007;Varelius, 2008;Archard, 2011;Cowley, 2012).…”
Section: The Nature Possibility and Implications Of Ethics Expertismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Even if we establish the connection, or lack thereof, between training in moral philosophy and ethics expertise, we might still ask: what is the relationship between being virtuous or behaving ethically and being an ethics expert? Or, must ethics experts be motivated to follow their own advice and behave ethically (Cholbi, 2007)?…”
Section: The Nature Possibility and Implications Of Ethics Expertismentioning
“…Although the metaphysical argument is more robust than the charge of ignorance makes it out to be, we can assume that there are moral experts and move on to the epistemological problem associated with deferring to them in the context of critically thinking about controversial and publicly discussed issues. In the epistemological case we face the credentials problem presented by LeBarge (), and defended by Cholbi ():[A]nyone sincerely in pursuit of expert advice [in the moral domain] is handicapped by her own lack of moral knowledge, since the very need to draw upon other's moral expertise means that one lacks sufficient moral knowledge to evaluate the credibility of at least some moral judgments made by putative experts. This suggests that assessing someone's claims to moral expertise falls prey to the following dilemma: The expert's expertise might best be judged by the moral advice she provides, but a non‐expert is in no position to appraise the content of that advice.…”
Section: Critical Thinking Controversial Issues and Moral Expertisementioning
confidence: 99%
“…This suggests that assessing someone's claims to moral expertise falls prey to the following dilemma: The expert's expertise might best be judged by the moral advice she provides, but a non‐expert is in no position to appraise the content of that advice. (Cholbi , 325)…”
Section: Critical Thinking Controversial Issues and Moral Expertisementioning
Should we always engage in critical thinking about issues of public policy, such as health care, gun control, and LGBT rights? Michael Huemer (2005) has argued for the claim that in some cases it is not epistemically responsible to engage in critical thinking on these issues. His argument is based on a reliabilist conception of the value of critical thinking. This article analyzes Huemer's argument against the epistemic responsibility of critical thinking by engaging it critically. It presents an alternative account of the value of critical thinking that is tied to the notion of forming and deploying a critical identity. And it develops an account of our epistemic responsibility to engage in critical thinking that is not dependent on reliability considerations alone. The primary purpose of the article is to provide critical thinking students, or those that wish to reflect on the value of critical thinking, with an opportunity to think metacritically about critical thinking by examining an argument that engages the question of whether it is epistemically responsible for one to engage in critical thinking.
“…We are aware that there is a lively debate whether moral or ethical expertise can exist and what this expertise should entail (see forexample Singer 1972;Cholbi 2007;Varelius 2008). We are not going into this debate but assume that people who have experience in identifying ethical issues and have some formal education in ethics could act as ethicists in the way presented here.…”
Different methods have been developed to address ethical issues during research. Most of these methods were developed at universities. In this article ethical parallel research within a Research and Technology Organization is described. Within a European project about perceived security, CPSI, the ethical issues were identified by ethicists cooperating in the project. The project CPSI was aimed at developing a research method that can be used by (local) government to monitor or assess perceived and actual security. Together with the researchers a way was sought to address the ethical issues. Several issues could be addressed by choices with regard to the design of the validation study, in this case a survey. The ethical and legal reasons that were relevant for choices in the design of the validation study were made an integral part of these decisions. Some issues were already identified during the writing of the proposal others were only identified during the research. Participating in the research gave the ethicists access to all relevant information. It made it possible to address the ethical issues when they became relevant. Ethical reasons were part of some of the discussions on research method. It proved possible to address most ethical issues satisfactorily during the research project.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
