While "informed" ethics can be imported from societies with other ethical frameworks that do not fit the desired ethics of this society. Worse yet people might think it's superior in some way just because it's educated and reasoned.
Why would you assume that the society a person was raised in is moral? It's demonstrably and indisputably true in many cases.
Why doesn't matter if local morality of any given society is moral or immoral when judged in a framework of some other culture?
Every society is immoral from the point of view of some other society.
Why does what matter, morality??
> We are talking about the fact that ethicists are dangerous because they use non-local moral frameworks
Dangerous? This discussion sounds a lot like the trial of Socrates. Would you put ethicists to death for "corrupting the youth"?
> Why doesn't matter if local morality of any given society is moral or immoral when judged in a framework of some other culture?
This sounds like anything-goes relativism. I've been trying to avoid invoking Godwin's law...
Anyway, societies change. They evolve. You apparently only want pollsters, but pollsters only reflect current opinion. Is it wrong for moral views to change?
I was referring to "Why would you assume that the society a person was raised in is moral?". Imho it doesn't matter if you deem that society as moral or immoral because it's a relative thing. What matters is how moral the behavior is in the moral framework of this particular society. And ethicists are straying for that and picking and choosing their own imported moral frameworks that let them justify any locally immoral deeds.
> Would you put ethicists to death for "corrupting the youth"?
Why make up the crime? I'd rather accuse them of corrupting academic integrity by faking research, like the recent examples have proven. I'd punish them accordingly and adjust expectations about their future behavior. As it is currently done.
> This sounds like anything-goes relativism.
Details of morality are obviously relative. They develop along with societies that use them. They differ.
> I've been trying to avoid invoking Godwin's law...
I'll do it for you then. If nazis have won, you'd have a bit different moral framework than you do and you'd be as sure about its universal correctness as you are now about yours.
Did you notice how when you read history, every time there was a conflict the good guys eventually won? Is that an amazing coincidence? Or do the winners decide who's good?
> Is it wrong for moral views to change?
It's perfectly normal and necessary, but we don't talk about that. Just that ethicist, due to their education are a bit too crafty about justifying stuff that current morality labels as bad.
There wasn't universal agreement about Nazi ideology even in Nazi Germany. They just violently suppressed any dissent.
> Did you notice how when you read history, every time there was a conflict the good guys eventually won?
No, I think I read a different history than you.
I think what's actually going on is people in industry just take a dim view of academic liberals, and so use a crypto anti-intellectual argument to rationalize against people with academic backgrounds.
Sure, there is a risk that the more one knows, the more they might use knowledge to rationalize. Academics (yes, academics) have pointed out this problem, from knowledge about psychology to knowledge about politics (and probably some dead philosopher has mentioned this issue as well!). But that is a risk and not a disqualification.