While experts are people with a rich , specialized knowledge , gained academic studies and research that we are able to provide relevant information and therefore we have in this area a compelling reason to listen and take it seriously , intellectuals understood rather as akin arbitrators values in public debates , respectively . influential and eloquent moldable public discourse . Intellectual often enters the public debate precisely position an expert , it is his renown scholar , a man with specialized knowledge , which is why he is on the public paid attention . Expert intellectual and thus may initially appear to overlap . Thoroughbred intellectuals but it does at the moment it leaves their professional sphere . Successful adaptation to intellectual function usually requires some talent . May be rhetorical , stylistic , it can be easily charisma - but at the moment the expert leaves his domain expert knowledge , his or her looks on foreign soil knowledge can not be attributed to greater cognitive Any other weight than the studied layman . In general, we do not trust each expert anything from a plumber can give advice in the repair of stuck pipe , the engineer can leave assess the statics of the building , but as soon as we seriously installer obey the design of immigration policy , and engineer some words about vaccine safety can not be taken too seriously . In its non - convincing the expert actually aspire to intellectuals and is basically just the openness of their audience and their own convincing , because they are successful in this endeavor . If the intellectual particularly convincing , and in their public appearances gaining our attention , we can say that it has a greater impact than the average person on the formation of public opinion , however, the extent of its direct impact on political events is potentially result in the same way as any other citizen . Our skepticism can legitimately increase especially in the declarations of morality and values , that is, in areas where we are all more or less amateurs . With the exception of Peter Singer seems now we find moral philosophy , which held that moral experts exist but Singer believes that it is the philosophers who are fully engaged in reflection on issues of morality , are trained to think and argue logically about moral concepts and as well as have better knowledge and better access to moral truths than anyone else . Moral experts certainly do not think people who know a lot of moral theories , ie moral philosophers themselves - it would be nonsense to deny their existence . The very notion of moral experts - people claiming more and more knowledge and assessment of morality , and which therefore makes sense to listen - most of us , however, raises an intuitive resistance. One of the reasons for the legitimate skepticism is that , unlike science , or even aesthetic experts moral experts can not prove their reliability , have no available non-controversial attributes of individual expertise . Equally unable to point or to its impartiality and neutrality. And all of that is essential for a good life and self-fulfillment everyone unlike scientific theories , the values and seem to be much more accessible to the masses and širšie widespread , often in the form of various intuitions , or common sense . He , the strongest argument against expertnosti of morality we find the idea of autonomy of all people . For citizens in a democracy , who together engage in discussions about values and what it means to lead a good life , it is therefore extremely important that these fundamental questions reflect themselves and are not subject to the illusion that someone somewhere knows better than they how they lead your life .
Posted on: Sun, 02 Feb 2014 06:44:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015