The Moral Behavior of Ethicists

Eric Schwitzgebel

Dept. of Philosophy

U.C. Riverside

(in collaboration with Joshua Rust)

Informal Poll

Do ethicists behave

1. morally better than non-ethicists?

2. about the same?

3. worse?

In conversation with me: About 10%, 55%, 35%.

So do ethicists behave about the same, or even morally worse, than non-ethicists?

Why Expect Ethicists to Behave Better?

Potential argument:(1.) Philosophical ethics improves (or selects for)

moral reasoning.(2.) Improved (or professional habits of) moral

reasoning tends to lead either to (a.) better moral knowledge, or (at least) (b.) more frequent moral reflection.

(3.) (a) and (b) tend to cause better moral behavior.

Therefore, (ceteris paribus) ethicists will behave better than non-ethicists.

And if they don’t…?

Formal Poll

Pacific APA, 2007, Version 1

Do ethicists behave morally better, worse or about the same as philosophers not specializing in ethics? (1-7 scale)

Do ethicists behave morally better, worse, or about the same as non-academics of similar social background? (1-7 scale)

Comparison questions for M&E specialists.

Peer Opinion, Version 1better (1-3) same (4) worse (5-7)

Ethicists vs. Other Phil

Ethicist Respondents 12 (35%) 18 (53%) 4 (12%)

Secondary Interest 14 (44%) 14 (44%) 4 (13%)

Non-ethicist Phil-ers 15 (32%) 18 (38%) 14 (30%)

Ethicists vs. Non-Acad

Ethicist Respondents 19 (56%) 11 (32%) 4 (12%)

Secondary Interest 17 (55%) 9 (29%) 5 (16%)

Non-ethicist Phil-ers 19 (41%) 16 (35%) 11 (24%)

Peer Opinion, Version 2

Ethicist in department whose last name comes next after yours in alphabetical order (looping around from Z to A if necessary), compared to:

Non-ethicists in the departmentNon-academics of similar social backgroundSame 1-7 scale.Comparison question about M&E specialists.

Peer Opinion, Version 2

respondents’ specialization

selected ethicist rated

better

rated the same

selected M&E rated

better

ethicist respondents

21 (53%)* 10 (25%) 9 (23%)

secondary interest

14 (43%) 11 (31%) 9 (26%)

non-ethicist phil-ers

19 (38%) 12 (24%) 19 (38%)

Do Ethicists Steal More Books?

Books reviewed in Phil Review 1990-2001, excluding those published before 1985 and those appearing at least five times in the SEP.

Looked at rates at which they were missing from leading academic libraries in the U.S. and Britain.

Also looked at classic pre-20th-c. philosophy texts in U.S. libraries.

Ethics Books, ResultsEthics Books (126 titles):

– Holdings: 4,964 (39.4/title)– Out or missing: 778 (6.17/title)– Overdue or missing: 94 (0.75/title)– Missing (incl. 1 year overdue): 66 (0.52/title)

Non-Ethics Books (149 titles [1/3 selection]):– Holdings: 5,628 (37.8/title)– Out or missing: 910 (6.11/title)– Overdue or missing: 91 (0.61/title)– Missing (incl. 1 year overdue): 52 (0.35/title)

Missing, as a percentage of those off-shelf:– Ethics: 8.5%; Non-ethics: 5.7%

Odds Ratio: Ethics % missing : Non-ethics % missing: 1.48 (p = .03)

Could It Be Law Students?

Excluding books with 10% or more of their U.S. holdings in law libraries:– missing as percentage of off shelf:

• ethics: 8.4%, non-ethics: 5.7%• odds ratio: 1.47 (p = .04)

– ethics books in four U.S. law libraries, missing as percentage of off shelf: 7.0%

Classic Non-Ethics TextsMissing as a percentage of off shelf (books with

<25 checkouts in small type):Bacon, New Organon 3.4%(Berkeley, Principles 9.5%)(Brentano, Psychology from an Empirical 0.0%)

Descartes, Meditations 5.6%(Frege, Grundlagen 26.3%)(Frege, Philosophical Writings 0.0%)

James, Principles of Psychology 7.1%Kant, First Critique 10.6%Kant, Third Critique 3.8%Locke: ECHU 12.1%

Classic Ethics TextsAquinas, Summa 5.9%

Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics 14.8%(Bentham, Principles of Morals 11.1%)

Hobbes, Leviathan 15.0%

Locke, Two Treatises 23.8%

Kant, Groundwork 16.2%(Kant, Metaphysics of Morals 10.0%)

Kant, Second Critique 10.3%

Mill, On Liberty 23.2%

Mill, Utilitarianism 31.3%

Plato, Republic 15.8%

Rousseau, Social Contract 23.5%

Classic Texts(p = .01)

Are Ethicists More Likely to Vote?

Votes per year since 2000 or first recorded vote, in 5 U.S. states (tenure-track only):

Ethicists: 0.95 votes/year- political philers: 0.96 votes/year

Non-ethicist philers: 1.01 votes/yearPolitical scientists: 1.10 votes/year *Other professors: 0.98 votes/yearAnd: variance identical between the groups.

Responsiveness to Undergraduate Emails

Two fictional emails sent to hundreds of professors.

Response rates (any response):

email1 email2• Ethicists: 59.0% 53.6%• Non-ethicist philers: 58.0% 49.8%• Comparison profs: 54.6% 54.1%

[χ2, p= .51, .60]

Email: Self-Reports about Responsiveness

Based on survey sent to 980 professors (1/3 ethicists, 1/3 non-ethicist philosophers, 1/3 non-philosophers). (resp: 58.2%)

Two email-related questions:

We asked them to rate the morality of "not consistently responding to student emails" on a nine point scale from "very morally bad" through "neutral" to "very morally good".

We also asked "About what percentage of student emails do you respond to?" followed by a blank for them to enter a percentage.

Email: Self-Reports vs. Actual Response

50.6% claimed to respond to 100% of student emails. 92.7% claimed to respond to at least 90%.

Those claiming 100% were more likely to have responded to the second email, but not the first.

email1 email2

Reported 100% 63.6% 63.2%

Reported <100% 61.1% 50.9%

[χ2, p = .56, .02]

Ethicists’ response patterns were the same as other groups’.

Email: Normative Attitudes vs. Actual Response

83% rated “not consistently responding to student emails” toward the morally bad end of the scale (no difference between groups).

No relationship between self-reported normative attitude and response rate. On email2 those who said it was bad not to respond actually trended toward responding less (55.3% vs. 65.5%, top of 95% CI: 3.2%).

Among ethicists who said it was bad not to respond to undergrad emails, 39.0% responded to all (one or two) emails received, vs. 40.5% and 36.8% for the other groups.

Charity: Normative Attitudes

Based on same survey.Q.: About what percentage of income should the

typical professor donate to charity?Ethicists: 5.9% (logarithmic mean, excl

0’s)Other Phil-ers: 4.8%Non Phil-ers: 4.8%

[ANOVA, p = .03]Percentage entering 0%:Ethicists: 9.0%Other Phil-ers: 24.2%Non Phil-ers: 25.2% [χ2, p < .001]

Charity: Self-Described Behavior

Ethicists: 3.7% (logarithmic mean, excl 0’s)

Other Phil-ers: 2.6%

Non Phil-ers: 3.7%

[ANOVA, p = .004]

Reporting 0%:

Ethicists: 3.9%

Other Phil-ers: 10.0%

Non Phil-ers: 9.9%

[χ2, p = .055]

Charity: Relationship of Normative Attitude and Behavior

Normative attitude and self-described behavior were pretty well correlated (r = .44, p < .001, excl 0’s), but the ethicists actually reported lower correlations between attitude and behavior:

Ethicists: .33Other phil-ers: .46Non phil-ers: .62

Among those denying an obligation to donate, those who said they actually did not donate:

Ethicists: 25%Other phil-ers: 25%Non phil-ers: 18% [χ2, p = .75]

Charity: Group Responsiveness to Charity Incentive

Half the questionnaires included a charity incentive: $10 to respondents’ selected charity (for 10 minute survey).

The charity incentive made little difference:Resp rate with incentive: 60.2%Resp rate without incentive: 56.0%

(one-tailed z, p = .09)And especially not for the ethicists:

with withoutEthicists: 58.8% 58.8% (p = .50)Other Phil-ers: 67.4% 58.6% (p = .048)Non Phil-ers: 53.9% 50.6% (p = .28)

Charity: SummaryEthicists said professors should give more to charity

than did the other groups (fewer 0%’s, higher target %’s among the non-0%’s).

Their self-reported behavior was more generous than the other philosophers’ but not more generous than the non-philosophers’.

The one measure of actual behavior – responsiveness to the survey’s charity incentive – seemed to move the other philosophers but not the ethicists.

Ethicists showed the least coherence between espoused view and self-reported behavior.

Vegetarianism: Normative Attitudes

Same survey. Percentage rating “regularly eating the meat of mammals such as beef of pork” on the “morally bad” side of the 9-point scale:

Ethicists: 60.1%

Other phil-ers: 45.1%

Non phil-ers: 18.9% [χ2, p < .001]

Vegetarianism: Self-Reported BehaviorMeals per week at which eat meat of a mammal

(median):Ethicists: 3.0 meals/weekOther phil-ers: 4.0 meals/weekNon phil-ers: 4.5 meals/week

(pairwise Mann-Whitney, only eth-non sig.)But when asked if they ate a mammal at their last

evening meal, ethicists were intermediate:Ethicists: 37.3%Other phil-ers: 34.0%Non phil-ers: 45.7% [χ2, p = .07]

The latter is presumably the more accurate measure; the former was designed to be a difficult question, prone to fudging.

Summary of FindingsEthicists were split about evenly between saying ethicists

behave better than non-ethicists and saying they behave about the same. Non-ethicists were split about evenly between better, same, and worse.

Ethics books, including obscure specialists’ texts, were more likely to be missing from academic libraries than were other philosophy books,.

Ethicists (including political philosophers) were no more likely to vote than non-ethicists.

Ethicists were no more responsive to student emails.Ethicists reported giving no more to charity than non-

philosophers and unlike other philosophers they did not appear to respond to the charity incentive.

Ethicists reported eating less mammalian meat per week but were just as likely to report having eaten it the previous night.

Ethicists showed no more coherence between attitude and behavior than non-ethicists.

Why Expect Ethicists to Be Better? (Revisited)

(1.) Philosophical ethics improves (or selects for) moral reasoning.

(2.) Improved (or professional habits of) moral reasoning tends to lead either to (a.) better moral knowledge, or (at least) (b.) more frequent moral reflection.

(3.) (a) and (b) tend to cause better moral behavior.

Therefore, (ceteris paribus) ethicists will behave better than non-ethicists.