How relevant is knowledge of moral theory to acting morally? Are philosophers "better" people than non-philosophers? Thanks for your time.

Comments

It would be great if the answer to your second question was 'yes'!

But, despite the authority of Plato, I doubt that it is.

Let us distinguish between knowing why, knowing that, andcharacter. 'Knowing why' is the moral theorist: he or she understandsthe relationship among principles, the various avenues ofjustification, the standard arguments and objections, and so forth.'Knowing that' is someone who has an accurate grasp of what is good,although he or she might not be able to explain 'why', or evenrecognise the need to do so. (I won't dwell on what 'accurate' mightmean here, for the same reason presumably as you put 'better' intoscare-quotes!) 'Character' is the capacity (the will, the strength,whatever) to turn moral knowledge into action. Clearly, neither ofthe first two is any good without the last. Moreover, I can see nogood reason why the 'knowing why' individual is any more likely tohave a virtuous character than a 'knowing that' – indeed, it mightbe the reverse.

However, all is not lost.

First of all, there may be certaintypes of moral training that DO connect a 'knowing why' individualwith character. In such as case, moral theory is not a disinterestedacademic activity, but a way of living. For an obvious historicalexample, see the last major division of Kant's Critiqueof Practical Reason, entitled 'The Methodology of PurePractical Reason'.

Secondly, moral theory may be morelikely than people who just 'know that' to influence others, andchange wider public attitudes.

Thirdly, precisely because it insistson justification, those who 'know why' may be less susceptible to thecommon sense of their era than those who 'know that'.

Read another response by Douglas Burnham

Read another response about Ethics, Philosophy