There are some kinds of expertise that are defined more by the risks you take than by the skills with which you tackle those risks.
-
Show this thread
-
This often gets conflated with the theory/practice divide but isn't the same. Eg: a really good marksman who lacks the courage to go on the battlefield isn't a "theorist" exactly, but has the wrong balance of risk-taking and skill.
2 replies 0 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
You want more bravery in a soldier even if you have to give up some marksmanship.
1 reply 0 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
This is one reason I can't take "ethicist" seriously... it's one of those roles. Real ethicists take risks that can, in the worst case, get them killed, like Aaron Swartz. An academic ethicist who insists on their "expertise" from having studied ethics theories is...
3 replies 1 retweet 36 likesShow this thread -
It's closer to skin in the game, but that's not the essence of it. It's modeling the fact that recognizing the right thing to do is not as hard as actually doing it.
2 replies 0 retweets 19 likesShow this thread -
Subtweet inspired by the growing cottage industries of "ethicists" of various kinds. AI ethicists, design ethicists, blah blah blah. The diff between grifty posturing in service of ethics theaters, and actual risk-taking is pretty stark.
2 replies 2 retweets 19 likesShow this thread
Most applied ethics requires putting yourself in inherently problematic positions then mitigating the consequences of that. The average theoretical ethicist will just not go to dark places.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.