May I suggest Michael Oakeshott's essay "Tower of Babel." It somewhat describes the true process of moral education. It can be found in the book titled "Rationalism In Politics."
Good post! One very small disagreement: I think a short introductory course to everyday ethics has high value, in the way that a simple map of NYC would be useful to someone seeking to bike around the city. Giving a person the general categories or lay of the land equips one to then do one's own practical research and development, which you lay out so eloquently. So for example, is it worth spending 30 minutes on the distinction between sympathy and empathy? And maybe an hour on the different definitions of "fairness" (e.g. allowing the disable girl to join the cheerleading squad is "fair" to her but possibly "unfair" to the other members, for two different reasons). If one doesn't even know the basic categories and options, it will be hard to think about them. But I'd stop there, indeed!
What you offer in the second half is moral philosophy no? Maybe the moral philosophers we are brought up studying were misguided in some ways but I don’t see this essay as a refutation of moral philosophy in general? But rather offering a different paradigm of moral philosophy— of which I think there is an academic lineage, just less established
I mean to argue mostly against the lineage of analytic ethicists who emphasize thought and propositional knowledge over other forms of knowledge. If e.g. virtue ethics inspires everyday engagement, then I say keep engaging with it
May I suggest Michael Oakeshott's essay "Tower of Babel." It somewhat describes the true process of moral education. It can be found in the book titled "Rationalism In Politics."
I enjoyed reading your essay.
Good post! One very small disagreement: I think a short introductory course to everyday ethics has high value, in the way that a simple map of NYC would be useful to someone seeking to bike around the city. Giving a person the general categories or lay of the land equips one to then do one's own practical research and development, which you lay out so eloquently. So for example, is it worth spending 30 minutes on the distinction between sympathy and empathy? And maybe an hour on the different definitions of "fairness" (e.g. allowing the disable girl to join the cheerleading squad is "fair" to her but possibly "unfair" to the other members, for two different reasons). If one doesn't even know the basic categories and options, it will be hard to think about them. But I'd stop there, indeed!
What you offer in the second half is moral philosophy no? Maybe the moral philosophers we are brought up studying were misguided in some ways but I don’t see this essay as a refutation of moral philosophy in general? But rather offering a different paradigm of moral philosophy— of which I think there is an academic lineage, just less established
I mean to argue mostly against the lineage of analytic ethicists who emphasize thought and propositional knowledge over other forms of knowledge. If e.g. virtue ethics inspires everyday engagement, then I say keep engaging with it