[Link] “Status in academic ethics” (Charles Foster)

http://​​blog.prac­ti­calethics.ox.ac.uk/​​2019/​​11/​​re­ward­ing-what-mat­ters-sta­tus-in-aca­demic-ethics/​​ (a)

The open­ing:


Not ev­ery­thing mat­ters equally. If aca­demic ethics is to be use­ful – if, in­deed, it is to be eth­i­cal – it should ad­dress it­self more to the things that mat­ter most than to things that mat­ter less.
It is hard to imag­ine a pair of sen­tences more un­con­tro­ver­sial – no, down­right trite – than the two above. And yet not only are these ba­sic prin­ci­ples not ac­knowl­edged, they are of­ten re­versed: of­ten the man­i­festly least im­por­tant work in aca­demic ethics gets the most ap­plause and recog­ni­tion. This may be be­cause it is more ar­cane and there­fore per­ceived as re­quiring greater clev­er­ness.
This needs to stop, and that de­mands a sys­tem whereby im­por­tant and use­ful work is in­cen­tivised by en­hanced sta­tus and fund­ing.

His pro­posed Tier One (the tiers de­crease from there):


Tier 1
Mat­ters to do with the main­te­nance of the planet and of the hu­man species, e.g. the ethics of cli­mate change, and the pre­ven­tion of catas­trophic war.
Com­ment: If there is no planet, all other con­cerns, eth­i­cal and oth­er­wise, are ir­rele­vant. Like­wise if there are no hu­mans to ar­gue about ethics, or to be the sub­ject of its con­cern.