Is ethics consultation dangerous?

Area of Science:

• Philosophy of Ethics
• Moral Relativism
• Normative Ethics

Background:

• Critique of Scofield's article on ethical decision-making.
• Scofield's position advocates for value subjectivism and radical relativism.
• Challenges the concept of moral expertise in ethical judgments.

Purpose of the Study:

• To analyze and critique Scofield's philosophical stance on ethics.
• To examine the implications of Scofield's views on normative ethics.
• To assert the existence of better and worse value judgments.

Main Methods:

• Philosophical argumentation and critical analysis of Scofield's claims.
• Examination of the logical consequences of value subjectivism.
• Contrast between Scofield's position and common-sense ethical understanding.

Main Results:

• Scofield's argument, though well-articulated, is deemed philosophically unsound.
• His position leads to a radical relativism where all value judgments are equally valid.
• This view negates the possibility of objective correctness or incorrectness in ethical decisions.

Conclusions:

• Scofield's denial of moral expertise fundamentally undermines normative ethics.
• The article highlights the philosophical dangers of extreme value relativism.
• Common sense and ethical practice support the idea that some value judgments are superior to others.