Even moral philosophers are no more moral than the average person. You might expect that they would be more virtuous than other people because reasoning about ethical principles is their day job.
But the evidence suggests that they aren't. The philosopher Eric Schwitzgebel has investigated this. He used surveys and more surreptitious methods to measure how often moral philosophers give to charity, vote, call their mothers, donate blood, donate organs, clean up after themselves at philosophy conferences, and respond to e-mails purportedly from students. And in none of these ways are moral philosophers better than any other philosophers or professors in the field.
Schwitzgebel even scrounged up the missing-book lists from dozens of libraries and found that academic books on ethics, which are presumably borrowed mostly by ethicists, are more likely to be stolen or just never returned than books in other areas of philosophy.
In other words, expertise in moral reasoning does not seem to improve ethical behaviour, and it might even make it worse, perhaps by making them more adept at coming up with post-hoc justifications for their behaviour.
Schwitzgebel still has yet to find a single measure according to which moral philosophers behave better than others. philosophers.
Right. Back to trying to think up an infallible, a priori, analytic and purely deductive (as opposed to inductive and empirical) proof that Jacob Rees-Mogg is a complete and utter ****.