On bioethicists and world domination
“Bioethics has always been about granting ‘experts’ in the field tremendous influence over public policy. And now, one of the most prominent practitioners in the field… has urged that bioethicists expand their ‘expert’ advocacy to issues of ‘global’ importance.” - Center for Human Exceptionalism
- 65 views
First, I find it comforting that different cohorts of experts want to rule the world. This is why experts don’t rule the world and never will. They are not of one mind, nor are “the experts” a single organization.
Second, it’s not helpful to lump people doing good bioethics work in with people doing bad bioethics work as though they were all one in the same (Smith just barely grants that good bioethics exists). When you lump whole disciplines of thought and study together like that, you end up effectively preaching obscurantism or whatever the term is for “love of mediocrity”/anti-excellence. Maybe that word is populism. Healthy skepticism toward experts is one thing. Being anti-expertise is the same as being anti-knowledge, which ultimately is the same thing as being anti-truth. There’s nothing conservative or Christian about that.
Third, would those opining against “rule by experts” really prefer “rule by people lacking knowledge and skills”? If rule by experts is elitism, what is the word for “rule by people who don’t have a clue what they’re doing”? My point is that the diatribes against rule by experts are usually not accompanied by a case for what alternative would be better. I guess “anybody but alleged experts”? Smith…
It seems to me that the best approach to the policy opinions of mainstream bioethicists is to consider the source, shrug, and carry on. Their opinions are no more — or less — important than yours or mine.
Why would that be better? (I think we’re supposed to assume that “yours or mine” are people who have the same beliefs and values? But why would that be the case? The nonexperts in any given field are literally everybody who is untrained in that field, and most who are trained as well. So we’re basically saying “the 99%.” When did 99% agree on anything or demonstrate superior wisdom?)
The real problem here is groups of experts overreaching their disciplines. Bioethics isn’t foreign policy or global politics or sociology. So—and maybe this is what Smith is trying to say—bioethicists don’t know foreign policy any better than electricians, farmers, actors, or popstars do. They are no better in these areas of expertise than anyone else. They also don’t know less.
What if United Auto Workers or some other blue collar organization decided to advocate internationally for solving global social problems? Would they be better than bioethicists? They would be no less ignorant. It would be the same problem. This is really not about the experts vs. the folks.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion