Article Text
Abstract
It is not unknown for participants in discussions of ethics to prefix their claims with a profession of their religious faith—to say, for instance, “Well, I’m a Christian/Muslim/whatever, so I think that …”. Other participants in the debate may well worry about how to respond without the risk of giving offence or appearing ad hominem. Within a teaching environment, the worry may be even more acute. Nevertheless, it is suggested in this paper that such worries should not be allowed to impede debate; moreover, a teacher who let such prefixes pass without critique would be considered a poor teacher. In fact, a kind of duty for a teacher of ethics is to be contrary and to play the apostate.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
-
↵i An elaboration of this claim and a consideration of how we might ever be able to ascribe truth to any moral claim whatsoever—this is no small problem—is given in my forthcoming Truth and normativity.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- The religious beliefs of students and the teaching of medical ethics: a comment on Brassington
- How Danes evaluate moral claims related to abortion: a questionnaire survey
- Abortion and Ectogenesis: Moral Compromise
- Is there a ‘new ethics of abortion’?
- Clinicians’ criteria for fetal moral status: viability and relationality, not sentience
- Dotting the I's and crossing the T's: autonomy and/or beneficence? The ‘fetus as a patient’ in maternal–fetal surgery
- Conscientious commitment, professional obligations and abortion provision after the reversal of Roe v Wade
- Why is it possible to enhance moral status and why doing so is wrong?
- Fetuses, newborns, & parental responsibility
- A Moorean argument for the full moral status of those with profound intellectual disability