I heard today about a proposal for an international course on ethics, to be conducted virtually from several time zones, to take advantage of far flung expertise. The proposal raised many questions. Is expertise what is needed for teaching ethics? How does one identify the right mix of ethical experts, so as to determine that we just have to have this person in Lithuania? And what kind of progress can even the best high level discussion make -- assuming a structure that focusses questions so that participants are actually talking about the same thing? There are surely topics for which one can assemble a dream team, and put to that team the perfect question, and make a decade's progress in an hour. I can imagine that, anyhow, with some kinds of topics. Further, it is true that sometimes a new person in an ethical discussion can bring everyone to see the problem in a new way, can break a deadlock. But can one identify the deadlock-breakers reliably enough in advance to structure the perfect discussion? Or is it more important just to have lots and lots of chance discussions and see what comes out of them?
Imagine a young billionaire, trying to decide whether to lose his virginity or save himself for marriage, hiring the Harvard Philosophy Department to organize a satellite teleconference on the matter from 7 to 10 pm, after which he would decide whether to curl up or cavort.
I don't know my way around here.
Posted by shea0017 at January 21, 2005 9:00 PM