Ethicists who advocate moral principles without trying to live by them will generally have a deficient understanding of what they recommend, for two reasons. First, abstract mottos like "act on the maxim you can will to be a universal law", "maximize good consequences", or "be generous" lack specific practical content without an array of concrete examples to flesh them out. For broad principles that can be lived by, everyday choices are generally the best source of such examples. Paragraph-length thought experiments are impoverished in comparison. Second, even a principle with fairly specific practical content, such as "don't eat meat", is difficult to fully understand without living by it: A meat-eating professor who recommends vegetarianism will generally have only a thin grasp of the way of life they recommend. These limitations give us reason to discount the understanding of ethicists who don't attempt to live by their principles, even when their arguments are beautiful on the page.

Or email eschwitz at domain: ucr.edu for a copy of this paper.

Return to Eric Schwitzgebel's homepage.