Ethics

Who is a better judge of what is right or wrong: the person who considers an ethical dilemma in the abstract, or the person is actually faced with making the dilemma? On the one hand, armchair philosophizing can leave us blind to the subtleties that come into play when actually making the decision. But on the other hand, the person who actually makes the decision can be subject to the cognitive biases that come with having a dog in the fight. Which of these problems is worse?

Comments

I don't think there can be a general answer to this question. Despite your singular ("the person") you are talking about very large sets of decisions, and it just isn't the case that all decisions in one set are better than all decisions in the other. You are certainly right that both factors (lack of practical experience and personal interest) can lead to poor judgments. Fortunately, it is possible to avoid both simultaneously, for example by getting well acquainted with a problem, with the people who deal with it, and with the larger context in which it arises. For example, rather than trying to solve medical ethics dilemmas from your desk in a philosophy department, you can also try to address them after talking with doctors, nurses, patients and their relatives, and perhaps after understanding a lot about relevant medical technologies, treatments, and the operation of hospitals.

Read another response by Thomas Pogge

Read another response about Ethics