Originally posted by lucifershammer
Children are the adults of tomorrow, after all.

I have to admit incredulity at your account of being shown Holocaust films in school if you're trying to tell me that your teachers made absolutely no moral statements on the matter prior to, during, or after such films were screened. No uses of words like "terrible", "atrocities", "cruelty", "barbari ...[text shortened]... things through in arguing that schools should play no part in moral education.

My teacher may have used those terms, but I honestly don't remember. As they say, "a picture is worth a thousand words."

But I am thinking these things through. Prior to seeing these films I was given good guidance at home so it was not a stretch for me to see the barbarity in the holocost.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Children are the adults of tomorrow, after all.

I have to admit incredulity at your account of being shown Holocaust films in school if you're trying to tell me that your teachers made absolutely no moral statements on the matter prior to, during, or after such films were screened. No uses of words like "terrible", "atrocities", "cruelty", "barbari ...[text shortened]... things through in arguing that schools should play no part in moral education.

Are you arguing that a “moral theory” class should be a part of a secondary school education? Would you admit coverage of all the main theories (e.g., virtue theory, Kantian deontology, social contract theory, natural law theory)? Should DCT be given any more weight than the others? Should variations in DCT across religions be discussed? Should the teacher use his/her position of authority (e.g., the one who grades the exams) to influence the students toward his/her preferred moral view?

At what age should public schools begin teaching morality, rather than simply imposing moral rules on children’s behavior, e.g., for the sake of maintaining order? At what age should students be encouraged to question/debate the prevailing moral rules of their culture/society—rather than simply being told by a person in authority that X is right or wrong?

The issue seems to me to far more complex than a simple “schools should/should not ‘teach morality’.” I don’t even know exactly what that phrase means—but it likely does not mean the same thing, or should not, for a sixth-grade class, as it might for a 11th or 12th grade high-school class—hence the above questions.

Originally posted by vistesd
Are you arguing that a “moral theory” class should be a part of a secondary school education? Would you admit coverage of all the main theories (e.g., virtue theory, Kantian deontology, social contract theory, natural law theory)? Should DCT be given any more weight than the others? Should variations in DCT across religions be discussed? Should the teach ...[text shortened]... h-grade class, as it might for a 11th or 12th grade high-school class—hence the above questions.

As a matter of fact, I did have a "moral science" class from Grade 1 all the way through to Grade 12. In theory, the classes were intended to encourage moral/civic behaviour; in practice, they mostly ended up being "free hours" where we could study, play chess, read novels, have debates etc. (as long as we kept the noise down!). But, on the rare occasion where we did discuss morality, I remember the classes being quite energetic and illuminating. I would've welcomed the introduction and comparison of various moral theories.

So, to answer your questions:

Are you arguing that a “moral theory” class should be a part of a secondary school education?

I would certainly recommend it.

Would you admit coverage of all the main theories (e.g., virtue theory, Kantian deontology, social contract theory, natural law theory)?

Certainly.

Should DCT be given any more weight than the others?

Not necessarily.

Should variations in DCT across religions be discussed?

There aren't that many variations of DCT as a moral theory. What is commanded may vary between religions (but all based on the same philosophical foundation of DCT). I certainly think those variations should be taught, but maybe not in this class. Perhaps a comparative religion class would be more appropriate.

Should the teacher use his/her position of authority (e.g., the one who grades the exams) to influence the students toward his/her preferred moral view?

That's a tough one. But I would say it presents a problem in other areas as well. Should a biology teacher use his/her position to slam a student who presents a defence of ID? Should a history teacher use his/her position to quash a student whose reading of history reflects an anti-Semitic viewpoint?

Broadly speaking, I think such situations can be minimised (if not avoided) in a moral theory class if the question is framed correctly. Rather than "Was slavery immoral?", one could ask "Would slavery be immoral in virtue ethics?" (in Aristotle's original, it wasn't) or some such.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
As a matter of fact, I did have a "moral science" class from Grade 1 all the way through to Grade 12. In theory, the classes were intended to encourage moral/civic behaviour; in practice, they mostly ended up being "free hours" where we could study, play chess, read novels, have debates etc. (as long as we kept the noise down!). But, on the rare occas ...[text shortened]... ry be immoral in virtue ethics?" (in Aristotle's original, it wasn't) or some such.

Okay.

Originally posted by kirksey957
I'm sure that there are many many parents with children who feel the way you do. Is it your experience or feeling that you are "isolationist" as you think about this issue. I almost get the sense that you don't want to mingle with the "unclean."

Is being an isolationist mean not wanting my child raised by people who do not share my moral beliefs? If so, then I am an isolationist.

Originally posted by whodey
Is being an isolationist mean not wanting my child raised by people who do not share my moral beliefs? If so, then I am an isolationist.

Would you allow your child to be treated by a Jewish or Muslim physician?

Originally posted by vistesd
Just a couple of side-points, Whodey—

First of all, public education is not “free.” It is paid for through taxation (generally property taxes).

Where I live, the available private schools (including the Christian ones, which are predominant) are hugely expensive (I mean an annual tuition approaching my annual household income; a few-thousand-do ...[text shortened]... rivate school, by all means do so (if you want). But somebody is going to have to pay for it...

As you point out the school system is financed mainly through property taxes and such. This means that the rich kids who live in areas of high priced real estate get a decent education and the poor children get a less than desirable education. As we all know the majority of poor children are minorities. Thus the system to date is the greatest proponent of class/race segregation in the US. The Supreme Court may have allowed minorities to intermingle with the white folk to some extent in our public school systems, but the minorities are still largely segregated and no one seems to recognize this fact. I would not have nearly the hesitation of sending my child to a "rich" school system where gaurds and metal detectors are not required to keep my child safe as I would a poorer school district where they are required. The only lesson learned in the inner city public schools, moral or otherwise, is survival at any cost. The children are taught to do what they have to do to survive even if the morality conflicts with societal norms.

I have not even begun to look at the economics of my solution to the problem listed above. However, I am sure there is a way to make schools compete for our children and not blindly throw money into failing school systems. I am equally as confident that parents could be given more of a say as to where their children attend school than they currently do. To just throw up your hands and embrace the status quo may be easier, but it is not the best alternative. It seems the state is only pro-choice when it comes to killing off our offspring and not when it comes to educating them? Then again, perhaps abortion is a round about way to solve the economic plight of the poor folk and the education of their children.

Originally posted by kirksey957
Would you allow your child to be treated by a Jewish or Muslim physician?

Sure. It is not exposre to other morals and beliefs that I am opposed to, rather, it is having my child raised by and exposed to such people for extended period of time. For example, would you want your child taught or raised by a drug dealer? My child will probably and inevitably be exposed to such people, but this does not mean I want such people being a moral authority over my child in any way. As the good book says in Proverbs 22:6, "Train up a child in the way he should go; and when he is old, he will not depart from it." It is not exposure, rather it is the "training". After all, it is my parental responsibility to train my child to live the way I feel is best for him or her. To do otherwise is to be neglecting this great responsibility.

Originally posted by kirksey957
Would you allow your child to be treated by a Jewish or Muslim physician?

Why not, I would take my car to get worked on by someone who is
Jewish or Muslim too. I'm not interested in their belief just the job
they do. If they are just doing the job that is all that matters.
When I'm at work I don't push my faith, I'm not getting paid to
push my faith, but do my job. If it comes up in a discussions I will
share but while at work, the reason I'm there is do the job I am
being paid to do for the people I work for. I don't think sharing is
a crime, but there is a time and place for everything. If I took
my job to be a place to share with those that are there to work
and that was my main goal I would not be doing my job, everything
needs to be done properly and in order. When it is time to share,
share, when it is time to work, work.
Kelly

Originally posted by kirksey957
Would you allow your child to be treated by a Jewish or Muslim physician?

Treating a child and raising a child are two different things (as he points out above).

Originally posted by whodey
Sure. It is not exposre to other morals and beliefs that I am opposed to, rather, it is having my child raised by and exposed to such people for extended period of time. For example, would you want your child taught or raised by a drug dealer? My child will probably and inevitably be exposed to such people, but this does not mean I want such people being a ...[text shortened]... feel is best for him or her. To do otherwise is to be neglecting this great responsibility.

When you ask"would you want your child raised or taught by a drug addict" you simply paint the world as a very dark place. It's like you equate atheists, agnostics, non-Christians as similar to drug addicts.

Originally posted by kirksey957
When you ask"would you want your child raised or taught by a drug addict" you simply paint the world as a very dark place. It's like you equate atheists, agnostics, non-Christians as similar to drug addicts.

Funny, I equate religious zealots with drug addicts...and I would not like my child to be educated by one.

Originally posted by kirksey957
When you ask"would you want your child raised or taught by a drug addict" you simply paint the world as a very dark place. It's like you equate atheists, agnostics, non-Christians as similar to drug addicts.

I think you're being unfair here.

He didn't equate atheists, agnostics, non-Christians etc. to drug addicts. I don't even see he was talking about mere atheists, agnostics, non-Christians etc. He was talking about a subset of these who would inculcate his child with morals that are grossly opposed to his.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Funny, I equate religious zealots with drug addicts...and I would not like my child to be educated by one.

It would appear you know neither religious zealots nor drug addicts well from that statement.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
It would appear you know neither religious zealots nor drug addicts well from that statement.

Zealots are addicted to control; junkies are addicted to drugs. The algebra of need.