Ethical philosophy in schools.

[Stevie T]

Hi all,

as with many things I believe the problem with religion is ignorance, and that the "anti-religious" movements like the recent bus campaigns do little to help the cause.

I suggest that the best way to "enlighten" people is through education and to this end I have set up a 10 Downing street petition asking that ethical philosophy be included as part of the national curicullum.

http: //petitions.number10.gov.uk/Ethicaleducation/

When i was at school we had RE, and the constant idea that there are no morals or ethics without religion.

I chose not to believe in any God, but had no alternative upon which to base my personal moral structure, I therefore have a "rule set" based primerely on Christianity, the dominant religion in my area.

Now I'm too old and too lazy to be bothered with reading humanism etc. I have a life to get on with. But had ethical philosophy been a part of my education I would feel more defined in my moral structure and would have greater indipendance from religous "belief".

So please give our kids the chance to think for themselves while providing alternative moral/ethical structures.

Please sign the petition

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Ethicaleducation/

[Mulder]

Religions didn't start ethics - they appropriated them.

The principles of ethics derive mainly from the fact that humans survive and thrive best in groups. However, for such groups to prosper there must be rules. These were probably decided by a type of evolution or trial and error - the groups with the 'best' rules prospered while the others didn't. Various ancient civilisations prospered through adoption of such rules and generally fell when they became decadent and self indulgent. The idea that great empires were torn down by 'barbarians' is wrong. Empires generally declined by internal strife and the 'barbarians' often had far more sophisticated societies than they were given credit for.

Religions survive by appropriating succesful social ideas, like ethics, and claiming them for their own. They are also happy to merge with other religions or take them over, despite obvious doctrinal conflicts, simply to survive (what their gods think of this isn't recorded). I suppose you could say that religions are an example of evolution in practice!

[Stevie T]

Quite aware of all that, doesn't alter the fact that we need our education to be less biased towards religion and to provide an alternative for those who opt out of tranitional religious views.

It's only a small step, but it's an important one.

[Mulder]

I'm not sure philosophy is any more helpful than religion to young kids. A lot of it is confusing and contradictory (not unlike religion). What about teaching the 'history of religion' (you could call it the 'history of ideas')? That would stir things up ...

[Stevie T]

IMO Religion is generally helpful to young kids, that's why they subscribe to it.

I also don't think you could go full on with Philosophy, it would have to be "dumbed down" but then pretty much everything you get taught a secondary school is.

[Mulder]

In what way is religion helpful to kids? I'm not sure religion is helpful to anyone, apart from priests.

[Mulder]

Also, do kids 'subscribe' to religion or are they manipulated by propaganda?

[Tim the Mage]

I think ethical philosophy is a load of Kant. Give me the unethical kind - Hume, Hobbes, Nietsche (I know there's a 'z' in the somewhere), Wittgenstein rather than that grumpy old Prussian pleeese.

[Floppit]

In what way is religion helpful to kids?

Stevie can slap me if I'm wrong but I think what he was getting at is that in the absence of alternative discussion THEN (and only then) religion can be useful to kids.

I would be inclined to agree, although as my agreement is based purely on anecdote and personal experience I'm not going to slog away trying to prove my point.

I've worked with 'Hard to Reach Kids' (a PC euphemism for the ones no-one likes) for the best part of a decade - teenagers too! Despite the press they get once they get past their own bravado most talk freely about what's right and what's wrong, fairness, injustice, etc - ethical philosophy, perhaps home grown but none the less grown. Religion, whether for or against, often opens the topics and gives permission for some of the more bravado driven kids to say what they think, more than anything it gives a route in.

Above all the issues discussed the most important strikes me as fairness - ok, we might often wet our pants laughing at a teenagers badly organised argument as to why 'That's not fair!' but it's universally recognised as a fundemental part of growing up - both developing a sense of what fairness is and learning the world often isn't fair at all.

Of course there's the adult world - we're not above crying 'No fair!!'

I've read a little (I do mean little) ethical philosophy and it certainly serves to make me think about how I reason my own assumptions on morality, fairness, etc.

I think it's a fine idea but with no hope of success, because I reckon the massive majority care more about spouting their own sense of morality than will ever want to read another's. Maybe if when they were young they had chance that wouldn't be the case! I am so cynical, I wasn't always that way but I am now.

BTW - If you have contact with teenagers my guess is that more of them would sign the petition.

[Mulder]

We all have a strong sense of fairness, even if it is distorted in some individuals. It is another product of evolution designed to encourage cooperation between individuals for mutual benefit.

Innate ideas of fairness are a good place to start teaching kids about morailty and ethics. I see no good reason to shackle them with religion to 'introduce' such ideas.

Indeed, even religions don't claim fairness containing, as they do, obvious examples of unfairness. For instance, the Christian 'prodigal son' parable is self-evidently 'unfair'. It is really all about encouraging the recruitment of new followers, which shows the real agenda of religions.

[polomint38]

I was educated in a Roman Catholic school.

If you created this new subject, all that would happen in Catholic schools is it would become an RE lesson because.

1) The moral framework of home and primary education has given the pupils a Catholic view of ethical issues.
2) The teachers are primarily Catholic so their views are skewed towards Catholic doctrine.
3) For a pupil to stand up in class and giving alternate views would lead to ostracisation or at least a fear of ostracisation.

It would be similar in other faith schools.

Maybe in secular schools these lessons may work but remember pupils will bring up any religious beliefs they have been taught elsewhere. 8)

[Floppit]

Absolutely Mulder, I couldn't agree more - however it still remains an important part in growing up to make a stab at understanding the whats and whys of fairness and we do tend to do that through discussion (eg sex ed).

I would have a stab that fairness is the biological basis of human interest in ethics but I'm allergic to evolutionary psychology, it just bugs me 'cos it's often conjecture with intellectual whipped cream on top!

[Mulder]

A great way of demonstrating ethics is via game theory. You don't have to tell kids it's game theory (that might put them off) but you could devise actual games based on things like the prisoners dilemma. Not an evolutionary theory in sight ...

[Tim the Mage]

I have a big problem with the idea of 'fairness' - it is a very slippery word that is too often used to justify envy or an obsession with some absolute concept of equality. And it is the stock in tade of special pleading.

Are we to take John Rawls idea of fairness (http://www.iep.utm.edu/r/rawls.htm) or to look to economics for our understanding (http://everydayecon.wordpress.com/20...s-of-fairness/)?

Or are we seeking some sociological definition of fairness? (http://www.afs-socio.fr/ac-rappeva.pdf)

Or is it to remain as it is - an unspecified and exploited concept of little relevence or value?

[Mulder]

I have a big problem with the idea of 'fairness' - it is a very slippery word that is too often used to justify envy or an obsession with some absolute concept of equality. And it is the stock in tade of special pleading.

We all have a strong innate sense of 'fairness' that can be used as a starting point to discuss ethics. Obviously, what it means in practice varies considerably from person to person. I doubt I would share a sociopath's concept of fairness, for instance.

However, through game theory, a group of kids could be shown the benefits of cooperation, the problems caused by selfishness and so on. It is the sense of fairness that usually drives such games, however it is interpreted by individuals, allowing the group to develop ideas about morality.

It has to be better than saying if you disobey a lot of arbitrary rules you will go to hell!