Skip to main content
Log in

Ethical expertise: The good agent and the good citizen

  • Discussion
  • Published:
Zeitschrift für Ethik und Moralphilosophie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

I consider whether political deference by a citizen within a liberal democracy to moral experts is morally problematic. I compare and contrast deference in the political and personal domains. I set to one side consequentialist worries about political deference and evaluate its possible intrinsic wrongness, expressed as a worry that deference is inconsistent with the grant to individuals of the power exercised in a democratic vote, just as personal deference is inconsistent with the grant of a power of moral choice. I consider several possible versions of such inconsistency: that a vote to delegate decision-making to experts is self-defeating, that it is unfree, or is blind to the significance of exercising a political choice, or is a denial of democratic equality. I conclude that the worries are ill-founded and that political deference is not in itself morally troubling.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Notes

  1. I endorse broadly Millian reasons to worry that the exercise of ethical expertise weakens the capacities of citizens to sustain a flourishing democracy, see Archard 2011, 127.

  2. I distinguish between a self-abrogating and a merely self-abridging exercise of freedom (and of democratic voting), see Archard 1990.

References

  • Archard, David. 1990. ‘Freedom Not to be Free’: The Case of the Slavery Contract in J. S. Mill’s on Liberty. The Philosophical Quarterly 40, No. 161, 453-465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archard, David. 2011. Why Moral Philosophers are not and should not be Moral Experts. Bioethics, 25:3: 119-127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brink, David. 1989. Moral Realism and the Foundations of Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, Joshua. 2003. For a Democratic Society. In The Cambridge Companion to Rawls. Ed. Samuel Freeman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 86-138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich, Frank. 2012. Moral Expertise and Democratic Legitimacy. Analyse und Kritik 2: 275-284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutman, Amy. 2003. Rawls on the Relationship between Liberalism and Democracy. In The Cambridge Companion to Rawls. Ed. Samuel Freeman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 168-199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hills, Alison. 2012. Comment on Karen Jones and Francois Schroeter. Analyse und Kritik 2: 231-236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, Robert. 2007. What is wrong with moral testimony? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74/3: 611-634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howell, Robert. 2014. Google Morals, Virtue and the Asymmetry of Deference. Nous, 48 (3): 389-415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrath, Susan. 2011. Skepticism about moral expertise as a puzzle for moral realism. The Journal of Philosophy, 108:3, 111-137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, R.S. 1958. Authority. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supp. Vol. 32: 207-224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, John. 1993. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tocqueville, Alexis de. 2010. Democracy in America [1835]. Edited by Eduardo Nolla. Translated from the French by James T. Schliefer. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Archard.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Archard, D. Ethical expertise: The good agent and the good citizen. ZEMO 3, 337–344 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42048-020-00074-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42048-020-00074-4

Keywords

Navigation