This paper argues that applied ethics can itself be morally problematic. As illustrated by the case of Peter Singer’s criticism of social practice, morally loaded communication by applied ethicists can lead to protests, backlashes, and aggression. By reviewing the psychological literature on self-image, collective identity, and motivated reasoning three categories of morally problematic consequences of ethical criticism by applied ethicists are identified: serious psychological discomfort, moral backfiring, and hostile conflict. The most worrisome is moral backfiring: psychological research suggests that ethical criticism of people’s central moral convictions can reinforce exactly those attitudes. Therefore, applied ethicists unintentionally can contribute to a consolidation of precisely those social circumstances that they condemn to be unethical. Furthermore, I argue that the normative concerns raised in this paper are not dependent on the commitment to one specific paradigm in moral philosophy. Utilitarianism, Aristotelian virtue ethics, and Rawlsian contractarianism all provide sound reasons to take morally problematic consequences of ethical criticism seriously. Only the case of deontological ethics is less clear-cut. Finally, I point out that the issues raised in this paper provide an excellent opportunity for further interdisciplinary collaboration between applied ethics and social sciences. I also propose strategies for communicating ethics effectively.

本文认为，应用伦理本身可能在道德上是有问题的。正如彼得·辛格（Peter Singer）对社会实践的批评所表明的那样，应用伦理学家在道德上进行的沟通可能导致抗议，强烈反对和侵略。通过回顾关于自我形象，集体身份和动机推理的心理学文献，可以确定应用伦理学家对道德批评所产生的道德问题的三类后果：严重的心理不适，道德反燃和敌对冲突。最令人担忧的是道德上的反省：心理学研究表明，对人们的核心道德信念的道德批评可以确切地强化这些态度。因此，应用伦理学家会无意间为巩固他们认为不道德的社会环境做出贡献。此外，我认为本文提出的规范性关注点并不取决于对道德哲学的一种特定范式的承诺。功利主义，亚里士多德的德性伦理学和罗尔斯的契约主义主义都为认真对待伦理学批评的道德问题后果提供了合理的理由。只有道义伦理学的情况才是不明确的。最后，我指出，本文提出的问题为应用伦理学与社会科学之间的进一步跨学科合作提供了极好的机会。我还提出了有效沟通道德的策略。罗尔斯契约主义和罗尔斯契约主义都为认真对待伦理批评的道德问题提供了合理的理由。只有道义学伦理学的案例不那么明确。最后，我指出，本文提出的问题为应用伦理学与社会科学之间的进一步跨学科合作提供了极好的机会。我还提出了有效沟通道德的策略。罗尔斯契约主义和罗尔斯契约主义都为认真对待伦理批评的道德问题提供了合理的理由。只有道义学伦理学的案例不那么明确。最后，我指出，本文提出的问题为应用伦理学与社会科学之间的进一步跨学科合作提供了极好的机会。我还提出了有效沟通道德的策略。