Is Moral Expertise Possible? My Response

See video

The challenge in addressing Quillette’s interesting, although not unique, question is that we do not have a singular theoretical framework for normative morality. As identified in the first essay of this four-essay article, there are three main theories in the West—virtue ethics, deontology, and consequentialism. There are other theories as well (e.g. care ethics).??And then there’s the East. While each is a helpful guide, on its own, it is widely accepted that humans espouse and enact a pluralistic moral orientation. In other words, when determining what is right and good we rationally and emotionally, knowingly and intuitively consider, for example, what a good person would do (virtue ethics), what one is obligated to do (deontology), potential outcomes and consequences of various options (consequentialism), and/or the status of relationships (care ethics).

Yet, in addressing this question we tend to draw on a particular theoretical or conceptual position, with its own biases and assumptions. We are each in a forest, maybe the same, maybe not; talking about trees, maybe the same, maybe not; and advancing our own interests, understandings, and areas of experience. The 1st?and 4th essays, for example, seem to assume a position of moral relativism; the 2nd?and 4th?focus on qualities of expertise; the 3rd?uses a framework of Christian virtue ethics.??All thoughtful essays, but within different contexts.

My attempt to answer this question begins with a broad and holistic definition of normative morality that includes behaviour, conduct, practices, skills, knowledge, wisdom, insights, understandings, foresight, thought, judgement, emotion, attitude, perspectives, relationships, motivations, obligations, duties, and rights. (Is there anything more comprehensive in the human experience?)??Here goes:?

Normative morality is the pursuit of what is good and right over what is bad and wrong with respect to the avoidance of harm, the flourishing of humanity and human relationships, and the welfare and wellbeing of our social and natural worlds.

Since I define normative morality as a?pursuit, my answer to this yes/no question is “no”. There is no such thing as moral expertise—for humans anyway—because there is no end that might be achieved. Higher levels of competence, awareness, motivation etc. are always possible and always just out of reach, a moving target. Life circumstances and situations are ever-changing and uniquely challenging. Dilemmas present us with more than a single good and right option from which we might choose. And we fail morally, particularly when we are tired, frustrated, and angry. Yet, to call someone an?expert?implies that one has achieved the highest standard possible in?all? areas of morality, that the highest plateau has been reached from which there is no going back—once an expert, always an expert.

I will suggest, however, that some people are more morally enlightened than others, as cognitive and behavioural psychologists have noted. They are further along in the pursuit of goodness. Those are people, for example, with the motivation to do what is good and right and to avoid harm, who go about their day attempting just that; with the insight to judge what is good and right over bad and wrong; with the self-awareness to know where and when they fall short; and with the sensitivity to nurture genuine relationships. We instinctively know when encountering such people. Secular and religious communities acknowledge them by their efforts and intentions, by the outcomes of those efforts, and by their ability to inspire goodness in others, for example. But not as moral experts.

It is a dangerous suggestion that humans can be or become moral experts.

• It risks setting a low bar for morality;
• It risks a narrow definition of morality;
• It risks perpetuating moral relativism, rather than a single human moral code (Note: moral relativism is not the same as a pluralistic moral orientation, as per the first paragraph);
• It risks undervaluing small acts of goodness and badness;
• It risks overvaluing the contributions of celebrities and those with stature and power;
• It risks idolizing people, particularly while they are alive;
• It risks moral credentialing;
• And ultimately, it risks stunting individual and collective human potential.

I would like to pose another question, instead, one that I feel offers more opportunity for debate and is of more significance to the human experience: Is moral?progress?possible??

What are your thoughts on this question?

PS: All four essayists in the original article identify as male. There is evidence that gender is relevant in discussions of morality. Something to consider going forward.