One of the advantages of teaching a course in professional ethics is that it lets me take an occasional step back and try to look at the big picture. And, in the process of teaching the course, expose my students to some of the bigger questions, including how we even make ethical and moral decisions, and the interplay between ethics, law, and public policy.
Steve Pinker in the Chicago Sun-Times has an article about 'dangerous ideas;' ideas that (quoting from the comments to the comments at Reason mag):
the kind of idea Pinker is talking about has at least some supporting evidence from a non-crackpot advocate. However, the claim (not that is is necessarily true, of course) is such that discussing it tends to be shunned by many people for reasons not related to the actual research or facts.
Yes, I think we've just found something else for the "this ought to generate some good discussion" file... Good stuff. Well worth reading.
[Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan]
No comments:
Post a Comment