Ethics Is Hard

I began a TEFL (Teaching English as a Foreign Language) Intensive class on Monday. Today we had the opportunity to observe some TESL (Teaching English as a Second Language) classes. (The difference, by the way, is where the class are taught. TEFL classes are taught in non-English countries and TESL classes are taught in English countries). Awesome experience. I loved it. We get to tutor some of these students later, and I absolutely cannot wait. Besides the practical experience, though, we have classroom time, which tends to include lots of exercises. These mainly act to reinforce the theory in our texts. This, too, I find valuable.

Today, we had to match teaching materials with the appropriate skill level. One of the reading materials centered around ethics and moral philosophy. There was a brief description of the subject and some etymology of its terms. Apparently this stuff is tougher than I thought because I underestimated the classification of its difficulty, which was at the highest level; the others were lower, and I guessed all of them correctly. Everyone else, of course, not steeped in moral theory, correctly assessed the difficulty of the ethics material. A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, right? Well, apparently, so is a lot of knowledge.

The Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Logicians

Matt Yglesias posted this awhile ago and it stuck with me. Choice excerpt:

The well-intentioned person, being well-intentioned, will try his best to ensure that bad things don't happen. If things that occur as a result of well-intentioned actions are defined as not-so-bad, however, then the well-intentioned person doesn't really need to try his best to ensure that bad things don't happen. After all, the person, being well-intentioned, by definition isn't going to do any very bad things. The things he does, after all, are all well-intentioned things, not bad things.

Matt Yglesias graduated magna cum laude with a degree in philosophy from Harvard University. Knowing this, I wasn't surprised to see him make this sort of argument. It's a pragmatic argument for consequentialism; and it's undeniably clever. The whole thing is worth a read.