Until I cared for my parents (both of whom had dementia), I had never given much thought to caring, or to those who do the caring. Having become a carer myself I realised that there was a whole wealth of experience to which I had previously been oblivious.
Twist: Talbot's job, as a Director of Studies, is basically to care for children . She's never given this much thought. Maybe because she doesn't see the students as human beings.
Twist: Talbot's job, as a philosopher, is to think abstractly. her expertise is supposed to be something like not being oblivious without personal experience.
I admit to being glad my caring days are over. But I wouldn’t have missed them for the world.
It was so great that she'd never ever do it again. What a typical and transparent lie.
 her job is a lot more like "care for children" than a typical teacher. here is the intrusive and nasty stuff a "Director of Studies" does:
The job involves, "a level of academic support not routinely provided by [most] other universities." The whole description is a big "WE CARE!" (and therefore we meddle). It's paternalistic and overbearing (and disgusting and evil).
BTW, I tried to check what her job is (the linked description is from a different person with the same job title), but Talbot is too stupid to answer a simple, direct question. It's really fucked up – but typical – that an educator doesn't answer the question asked. How that frustrates students!
I asked if her job was like this description. (She has chosen not to explain her job on her website or on Oxford's website. Don't students need to know?) She didn't say anything meaningful about that question, and wrote back with a very vague statement about what her job is. She did use the phrase that she "makes sure" her will is done, though, which is a major red flag for authority and coercion.
on a related note, Talbot considers the children she deals with to be no more important than animals:
(b) Humans are no more important than other animals
why? relativism and skepticism. their claim is a lack of objective foundations for any knowledge of anything:
This means the claim that humans are more important than animals makes no sense because there is no standpoint from which to make such a claim.
as usual with these things, it applies to itself. by their standards, there is no standpoint from which to make the claim: "This means the claim that humans are more important than animals makes no sense because there is no standpoint from which to make such a claim."
How would we justify such a claim? We do not, and cannot, know how important animals’ lives are to animals.
no doubt they are grossly inconsistent. they demand justification (which is impossible – or in the alternative, assigned arbitrarily) when they want to reject something. but then they lower their standards at other times to accept ideas.
We know animals’ lives are important to animals. Animals will, for example, chew off their own limbs if caught in a trap.
in addition to anti-human, they are stupid. this is a pathetically stupid argument parading as prestigious intellectualism.
a robot could be programmed to perform that action. that wouldn't prove the robot cares about its life (or is alive).