3 edits
Originally posted by lepomisAnd that is the point. Schools are prohibited from teaching religious based values but this and of itself is teaching a type of morality all in itself. There is no way around teaching morality to children, rather, it merely boils down to whose morality is superior. Is it religion based or secular based? Judging from the way things are now after teaching years of secular based morality in the States today, how does it compare to the way our youth culture turned out in years past? Are things getting worse or better in terms of moralistic values in your view? Which morality is superior? Is it religion based or secular based?
Schools in the US teach a form of skewed morality as well as socialistic, anti religious, anti parent and anti US ideas everyday.... All to indoctrinate 'prefect' children of the welfare state... how this happened I have NO idea, but I have to listen to my 6 yr old daughter tell me how I am messing up EARTH DAY... because I drove her to school... and didnt walk her there... 6 miles...
Originally posted by whodeyI would say that children are not better off... I would like to see if there is difference between children raised in a religious school compared to state run schools... even if it is just a % that made it to prison. I see a skewed sense of entitlement and lack of personal responsibility as problems... I do not know how or when this started to happen. I do my best to talk to my daughter and find out what she is learning... mind you she is only in kindergarten. I am a bit worried what she will tell me in the years to come.
And that is the point. Schools are prohibited from teaching religious based values but this and of itself is teaching a type of morality all in itself. There is no way around teaching morality to children, rather, it merely boils down to whose morality is superior. Is it religion based or secular based? Judging from the way things are now after teaching y ...[text shortened]... listic values in your view? Which morality is superior? Is it religion based or secular based?
Originally posted by whodeyEvery ethical theory has some core tenets in common. Both secular and religious ethical theories have general prohibitions against lying, stealing, hurting others, etc. What distinguishes different ethical theories are the explanations they give for why, ultimately, these sorts of things are morally wrong; that is, they expain the nature of rightness and wrongness in diferent ways. So, you don't really need to settle the theoretical issues about which ethical system is best justified in order to have schools teach general rules of proper conduct, compassion and respect for others, etc. If curious students want to know more about why this or that is wrong, the teacher can certainly give an opinion, but should direct that child to the parent.
And that is the point. Schools are prohibited from teaching religious based values but this and of itself is teaching a type of morality all in itself. There is no way around teaching morality to children, rather, it merely boils down to whose morality is superior. Is it religion based or secular based? Judging from the way things are now after teaching y ...[text shortened]... listic values in your view? Which morality is superior? Is it religion based or secular based?
Originally posted by Bad wolfi think you are borderline nazi.
I think that parents (well everyone actually) should be banned from indoctrinating children with religious beliefs.
Bringing children up with certain beliefs is brainwashing, they should be allowed to make their own informed choices as an adult, without the skewed nonsense parents (and others) usually bring into the equation.
[b]I'd ban
1. All re ...[text shortened]... is an argument about banning religion, but not really talking about religion itself)[/b]
all education is some form of brainwashing. if you say that religion takes away the child right to choose, then so does teaching a child not to smoke and drink alcoohol.
just because you have a different religion it doesn't mean religion is bad.(just the way it is taught by some)
too bad i found this thread so late, i would have loved to yell at you. the 1->4 points of your idea are purely retarded and denies a lot more freedoms than parent teaching religion to their children would supposedly do
Originally posted by bbarrI don't know of any classes that teach morality within the secular public school system, do you? Granted, there are rules of conduct and there is a moral code implied within these rules of conduct, but I think it a far cry from teaching children right from wrong. I view the implied secular code of conduct as simple rules children need to follow in order not to get into trouble at school more than I do a code of conduct they feel compelled to follow in their daily lives. For me, it is like teaching children how to read by writing the alphabet on the chalk board but never really discussing its application and I think we can see the results of the differences in comparing todays culture from cultures of the past.
Every ethical theory has some core tenets in common. Both secular and religious ethical theories have general prohibitions against lying, stealing, hurting others, etc. What distinguishes different ethical theories are the explanations they give for why, ultimately, these sorts of things are morally wrong; that is, they expain the nature of rightness and wro ...[text shortened]... s wrong, the teacher can certainly give an opinion, but should direct that child to the parent.
I suppose leaving the moral upbringing up to the parent is one approach, however, in all reality many kids are lucky to be given such attention. For me, an education should include moral instruction and, in fact, may be the most important educational factor in a childs development. I say the most dangerous people in the world today are the most educated and brightest of the educated who have little to no moral conscience.
Originally posted by whodeyOne of my teaching jobs is as an ethics instructor for the Early Entrance Program at the University of Washington. Before graduate school, I taught ethics at the Nova Project, which is an alternative high school in Seattle. So, yes, I know of classes that teach ethics within the secular public schools. Of course, these classes approach ethics in a theoretical manner, and then try to show how one can apply theory to particular cases. The hope is that the classes will help people get clear on their own moral intuitions, to minimize inconsistency within their set of moral beliefs, and to get them to think about how to engage in moral reflection and deliberation.
I don't know of any classes that teach morality within the secular public school system, do you? Granted, there are rules of conduct and there is a moral code implied within these rules of conduct, but I think it a far cry from teaching children right from wrong. I view the implied secular code of conduct as simple rules children need to follow in order not ...[text shortened]... day are the most educated and brightest of the educated who have little to no moral conscience.
But I wasn't really talking above about teaching ethics in the schools. I was more talking about teachers making normative claims, and talking about what's right and what's wrong, to students within the course of a normal school day. I see no reason to think that a teacher who engages in such embedded moral instruction must thereby exclude any particular ethical theory that is not completely insane (e.g., one that thinks it's O.K. to hurt others for no reason, or that there is no prima facie reason to tell the truth, treat others with respect, etc.).
So, I'm not talking about leaving the moral instruction of children completely to their parents. I am talking about engaging in the moral instruction of children, but recognizing that parents will have radically different theoretical views about what makes some acts right or wrong. Schools can help teach children to respect others. They can get children to reflect on how they themselves would like to be treated. But they should be wary of trying to teach children why, ultimately, some acts are right and some are wrong. For instance, they should be wary to teaching children that lying is wrong because God says so, or because an institution of honesty is necessary for the procurement of certain social goods, or because cultivating an honest disposition is a necessary condition for having certain relationships that are partially constitutive of flourishing, or that lying is failure the respect the autonomy of another. It is at this level of discourse; the foundational level, that the Christians and Secular folk mostly disagree, and it is here that teachers should be concerned about stepping on parents' toes.
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrHow would you differentiate between a theory “that is not completely insane” between one that is sane?
I see no reason to think that a teacher who engages in such embedded moral instruction must thereby exclude any particular ethical theory that is not completely insane (e.g., one that thinks it's O.K. to hurt others for no reason, or that there is no prima facie reason to tell the truth, treat others with respect, etc.).
Is there reason to teach and implicitly give credence to theories that are not completely insane even though they are false?
Originally posted by YugaInsane ethical theories do not even minimally accord with our first-order moral intuitions (e.g., tortuing for fun is wrong, deceit or coersion without regard for others is wrong, etc.). You can teach an ethical theory without giving credence to the theory (even implicilty), and even incorrect but sane ethical theories often are motivated by good arguments that students should be aware of. Further, these incorrect but sane ethical theories often go astray by highlighting the importance of some range of considerations (like Kant does with respect for autonomy) while failing to countenance other important considerations (like the role of the emotions in our ascriptions of moral worth to acts and agents).
How would you differentiate between a theory “that is not completely insane” between one that is sane?
Is there reason to teach and implicitly give credence to theories that are not completely insane even though they are false?
1 edit
Originally posted by Bad wolf🙂
Bringing children up with certain beliefs is brainwashing, they should be allowed to make their own informed choices as an adult, without the skewed nonsense others usually bring into the equation. By using skewed, biased, even unbelievably inaccurate science text books (think evolution).
[b]No exceptions - schools are essential in my plan, as is explained later.[/b]
Very interesting. I am curious about how you could put such an idea into practice. What would you have children believe? Consider the stance below.
"I'm for truth, no matter who tells it. I'm for justice, no matter who it's for or against." - Malcolm X
Would you agree with such a stance? If so, what is truth? What is justice?
Why do you think people believe in whatever they choose to believe?
Why would your plan would result in people making more informed choices?
Why should we care about your plan?
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrVery well answered. I agree that one can teach an ethical theory without giving credence to the theory and also that sane ethical theories may be not be entirely credible (or as you said "often go astray" ) by not taking into account all considerations. 🙂
Insane ethical theories do not even minimally accord with our first-order moral intuitions (e.g., tortuing for fun is wrong, deceit or coersion without regard for others is wrong, etc.).
People do subscribe to ethical theories that some may consider sane, but you may consider such theories insane. Behavior is a combination of both intuitions based on genetics and worldly experience. Thus, our "first-order moral intuitions" are subjective and considering an ethical theory sane or insane would merely be judgment call.
Is there a definitive foundation in philosophy for our first order moral intuitions? (i.e. philosophy functions under the assumptions that people are characterized by "x" first-order moral intuitions) If so, I suppose then one can properly deduce an ethical theory as sane or insane.
- I tried looking for the answer for the question online, still looking, and sincerely interested.
Originally posted by YugaOur first-order moral intuitions are subjective in that they are our own intuitions, just as our beliefs are subjective in that they are the beliefs of particular subjects. But it certainly doesn't follow from this that our first-order moral intuitions aren't true, just as it doesn't follow from the fact that our beliefs are the beliefs of subjects that our beliefs aren't true. In short, I think that you are running together two different notions of "subjective". An intution may be subjective in the sense that it is a mental state of a subject, or it may be subjective in that its truth conditions (if it has them) are mind-dependent. If the best justified ethical theory entails that there are objective moral facts about the world, then it would follow that when our moral intuitions are correct, they are objectively correct.
Very well answered. I agree that one can teach an ethical theory without giving credence to the theory and also that sane ethical theories may be not be entirely credible (or as you said "often go astray" ) by not taking into account all considerations. 🙂
People do subscribe to ethical theories that some may consider sane, but you may consider such theorie ...[text shortened]... d looking for the answer for the question online, still looking, and sincerely interested.
I don't know what you mean by a "definitive foundation". You can deduce our first-order moral intuitions if you choose the right principles as premises, but somebody could always question the premises. The reason we take our actual first-order moral intuitions seriously is that they reflect what we overwhelmingly take to be important restrictions on action (and because they reflect our conception of value, virtue, and other related ethical concepts). If you are looking for a priori, self-evident premises from which to deduce our intuitions, then your search will be fruitless. But if this is a problem, it is a problem for every single theory ever created, including mathematical and scientific theories.
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrI was not looking for a priori; surely a priori is not necessary for viable theories, given that theories are complete and consistent within certain parameters. My question regarding a “definitive foundation in philosophy for our first-order moral intuitions” was intended to pertain to how philosophy deduces our first-order moral intuitions. That was what I was searching for; I now better understand that “they reflect our conception of value, virtue, [etc.],” implying that moral questions have objective answers.
Our first-order moral intuitions are subjective in that they are our own intuitions, just as our beliefs are subjective in that they are the beliefs of particular subjects. But it certainly doesn't follow from this that our first-order moral intuitions aren't true, just as it doesn't follow from the fact that our beliefs are the beliefs of subjects that our b it would follow that when our moral intuitions are correct, they are objectively correct.
“An intuition may be subjective in the sense that it is a mental state of a subject, or it may be subjective in that its truth conditions (if it has them) are mind-dependent.” - bbarr
My understanding of first-order moral intuitions refers to what we intuitively feel as good, bad, right or wrong. I think I see how the mental state of a subject can be intuitively subjective, hence objectively incorrect. Let’s consider the mental state of the typical chess player as “perverted.” Ethical theories set certain objective standards of moral objectivity; thus one can compare one’s intuition with the commonly accepted intuition. So if an objective, rational ethical theory states that “thou shalt not be perverted,” the typical chess player would be objectively incorrect in having a perverted mental state.
I believe I can see how intuition may be “subjective in that its truth conditions are mind-dependent” as one may have bias when setting moral standards for oneself.
I’m still somewhat confused on what you are trying to say regarding how intuition may be subjective; did I interpret the reasoning behind what you wrote correctly?
As I understand it, ethics discounts moral subjectivism, which is a good thing since morality has a basis in reasoning. My confusion stemmed from the false premise that if our moral intuitions are inherently subjective, then ethics would concordantly be subjective, since ethics is largely based on intuitions. Fortunately rational ethical theories are founded on “our [accepted] conception of value and virtue; (e.g., torturing for fun is wrong, deceit or coercion without regard for others is wrong, etc.)” and so then moral questions may have objective answers.
Your understanding of ethics far transcends mine, so I appreciate that any discussion on the topic primarily benefits me and whoever else reads your posts on the topic, and not necessarily yourself. So thanks for the responses; I think I learned something.