Introduction
Marino Gordon, in a rather amused and sarcastic tone, does not hide his skepticism with the so-called ‘ethics’ education. But, fortunately for ethics maestros, he does not categorically dismiss them and their efforts. He is realistic in accepting that this new field of study is here now and is not going away. So in spite of his outspoken skepticism, he gives a helping hand, offering advice on the right way to do it if it has to be done. This paper will take a critical look at Marino’s paper and the arguments therein.
The Basics Premises of Marino’s Article
The credibility of ethics education
This seems to be Marino’s key theme in the whole article. On this, Marino questions what it takes for one to be considered an expert in matters to do with morals. He uses the transformation of Randy Cohen from a comedian writer to an ethics columnist (‘the Ethicist in ‘the New York Times) as an example to laugh off the notion of ethical expertise.
While Marino goes on to offer new guidelines for ethics studies, they only further his skepticism on the system. It is in considering his guidelines that Marino seems to argue that there can be a sense of credibility in the fruits that ethics studies bear in its students. Thus, he says, “ethics education should include the study of self-deception” (Marino, 2004). By saying this, Marino recognizes the fact that people do find a way to evade their moral obligations, especially in cases where such obligations clash with their self-interest. In such cases, people decide to postpone acting on such dilemmas by arguing, ‘we shall look at it tomorrow’ (Marino, 2004). The problem, therefore, is not in expanding knowledge on the theories and concepts of ethics but in putting into actual practice what is already known as morals.
Ethics education should teach one to detect his/her inner reflections
Here, Marino is arguing against dismissing other practicalities in the name of moral/ethical obligation. For example, he reproaches overlooking a homeless man’s pleas for food under the justification that he may use the money he is given to buy drugs. Ethics education must allow for such practical reflections.
The Moral Challenge
Marino argues that the moral challenge is not on having more theories on morals and ethics but on the ability to abide by the moral obligations. His examples in the article imply how, in spite of extensive knowledge in the discipline of morals, one may still have personal moral wars which result in ‘we shall look at it tomorrow’ kind of thinking.
‘We Shall Look At It Tomorrow’
Marino seems to say that ‘we shall look at it tomorrow’ is an attempt to distance oneself from all moral knowledge. But I don’t think this is true. This is because Marino goes on to say conscience is what guides people’s response to their moral obligations. Conscience, therefore, is the innate moral knowledge. ‘We shall look at it tomorrow,’ in spite of being one of the many efforts used by people to find a way around cases where moral obligations meet self-interest, does not save one from the guilt (a reflection of conscience) that follows it. ‘We shall look at it tomorrow’ is the only defiance that happens at the great price of being constantly chided by the conscience (moral knowledge).
Reference
Marino, G. 2004. Before Teaching Ethics, Stop Kidding Yourself. Chronicle of higher education, 50 (24): pp. 5-6.