Moral Competence of Philosophers: Useful Applications QUALIFIED moral philosophers actually possess (to a limited extent) a level of moral competence. This applies to all individuals who have dedicated a lot of time to specific topics; in the hope of solving the problems faced by the world as a whole (the main focus here will be associated with medicine). Especially when compared to individuals who are not involved in the practice of philosophy and therefore lack such in-depth knowledge. Emphasized competence leads to a basic morality that solicits responses to ethically controversial issues. Furthermore, through expert philosophical approaches, it is possible to gain acceptance of a wide variety of proposals regarding what is moral and immoral. Philosophers have privileged moral expertise when attempting to propose solutions to medical controversies (examples: abortion and human-embryo subjects). In short, David Archard bases his claim that moral philosophers should not be moral experts on commonsense morality. (Archard) For this reason alone the response to Archard, by John-Stewart Gordon, should be more convincing. To set out this reasoning, I will briefly elucidate what exactly Archard and Gordon argue. Archard believes that moral philosophers should not expect non-philosophers to defer solely because of their supposed expertise. (Archard) This competence alone is not sufficient to make claims that conform to morality. Archard provides four statements to better support his position, which will not be discussed in detail here. A short description taken from Gordon's essay illustrates these claims well: “Archard objects to the four arguments proposed in the debate, namely the idea of ​​extreme disagreement... in the middle of the paper... very abortion is prohibited by principles of justice and non-maleficence. (Finnis pg. 17) Put another way, those who believe in abortion despise justice and advocate harming human beings, especially embryos (I use the word embryo to provide correct diction, but keep in mind , every time I use the term I am specifying a fetus/human being). Put this way, the word abortion is not very far from the meaning of the term murder. Of course, any abortion supporter would hopefully refute this. An embryo is nothing more than an accumulation of cells for those who support the procedure. There is some truth in this statement, but at the same time this statement is arbitrary. Whatever one thinks of an embryo, an embryo has an unexpressed potential, or rather, the ability to achieve what is necessary to be considered a human being (so says Finnis).