Don't worry if you don't yet know anything about this subject. You're about to find out. Here is the abstract of a recent article from the journal Philosophical Psychology:
If philosophical moral reflection tends to promote moral behavior, one might think that professional ethicists would behave morally better than do socially comparable non-ethicists. We examined three types of courteous and discourteous behavior at American Philosophical Association conferences: talking audibly while the speaker is talking (versus remaining silent), allowing the door to slam shut while entering or exiting mid-session (versus attempting to close the door quietly), and leaving behind clutter at the end of a session (versus leaving one's seat tidy). By these three measures, audiences in ethics sessions did not appear to behave any more courteously than did audiences in non-ethics sessions.
I am unable to access the article as a whole, so I cannot assess the methodology used by the authors. However, I would like to know two things. What were these ethicists like before they became ethicists? Maybe they were real hooligans - like just totally. Second, have the authors tested to see how ethicists and non-ethicists compare when judged on more serious delinquencies, such as: throwing rotten fruit at the speaker; elbowing others aside and knocking them down so as to get to, or out of, the door first; smashing up the furniture?
Please do not take these questions as offered in a spirit of apologia; they are meant with serious scientific intent. The ethicists studied are clearly at fault (except for any who weren't aware the door would spring shut loudly behind them, rather than being slowed to a gentle settlement by a suitable slowing mechanism).
