Philosophy Now Forum

In the first part of our mini-series on moral education, Michael Hand considers whether schools should be involved in trying to make children moral.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/127/Making_Children_Moral

As long as it doesn't involve a political agenda.

Michael Hand failed to provide a convincing reason why to teach morality in schools.

He has shown that not all objections to teaching it are valid.

He has shown that schools are a fertile ground to teach morals.

But that's all he's shown. He agrees that moral norms are not absolute, and they can be debated. He agrees that basic moral values exist. He contradicts himself right there. But mostly he fails to see why it would be a good thing to teach morality in schools. His only argument is that it would be an easy place to teach it.

But what morality? That to eat your enemy's heart is an honourable thing to do? That Jewish people are sub-human? That Tootsies are sub-human? That we must sacrifice a female virgin each spring to appease the gods and secure a good harvest? To throw the most beautiful woman overboard in times of a dangerous sea-storm, to save the rest of the people on board? To mix in the blood of the builder's wife into the mortar when you erect a building to make it last?

These are not our basic normal moral norms. Not in North America, not in Europe. But they used to be, and the present ones shall come to pass too.

So should we teach the present ones? Why? the current moral norms are unavoidably learned by all members of society. There is no reason to teach them in school.

So should we open a debate on morality in schools? What debate? ten-year-olds debating against other ten-year-olds, or else ten-year-olds debating against authoritarian thirty-five-year olds?

This guy, Michael Hand, gets published because he is a Ph.D. and publishers need manuscripts by Ph.D.s to promote the acceptability of their publications. But if you ask me, Michael Hand's article here was not worth reading, much less publishing.

the morals of nihilism are being taught

obey

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 11:32 pm the morals of nihilism are being taught

obey

-Imp

"Obey" is nihilism? It is selfish and controlling. It is something. Nihilism is nothing.

I agree that tyranny and social hierarchy is taught to kids. If not at all in the curriculum, then in the structure of learning in schools for sure.

-1- wrote: ↑Wed Dec 12, 2018 1:36 pm

Impenitent wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 11:32 pm the morals of nihilism are being taught

obey

-Imp

"Obey" is nihilism? It is selfish and controlling. It is something. Nihilism is nothing.

I agree that tyranny and social hierarchy is taught to kids. If not at all in the curriculum, then in the structure of learning in schools for sure.

you can't mention god (at least the christian one) or morals in a public school (the aclu sues the offenders) thus nihilism

"obey" is what they have the drones for the "liberal democrat" state, which public schools are supposed to produce, do

-Imp

Philosophy Now wrote: ↑Tue Dec 11, 2018 12:28 am In the first part of our mini-series on moral education, Michael Hand considers whether schools should be involved in trying to make children moral.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/127/Ma ... dren_Moral

The problem is misstated .. All morality has an emotional basis which is a much as saying an irrational basis.. A logic may be found for morality generally, but no logic can defend any moral action since morality is the form of relationship between each, and their community, often involving risk, and usually involving sacrifice while reason is an individual pursuit, with the aim of ease or survival for the individual alone.. Morality is community, but it is not logical and moral bonds are formed pre-rationally, while reason is individualistic and follows later in the development of the individual.. To express it correctly, all injustice is justified.. Moral behavior is just on its face, obviously so, and needs no justification.. Ultimately all morality is based upon the bond of child to mother, and from there it expand to nations, and then to humanity.. So, the problem is not how to make children moral.. They are moral.. Rather, the problem lies in keeping reason from dominating the thinking of children to the extent that any conceivable justification can be employed in pursuit of injustice.. Morality and reason are enemies..

Young children are moral.

Adults are immoral.

The only ones that need to be "made" moral are adults.

How this can, and WILL, happen is when adults just SHUT UP and Truly LISTEN, to young children.

I posted the following in another thread and they are also relevant to this thread;

• The Moral Life of Babies
  Yale Psychology Professor Paul Bloom finds the origins of morality in infants
  https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/

Re the above, DNA wise all humans are endowed with a faculty of morality with an inherent propensity to progress.

Unfortunately since the advent of humans, I note the collective moral manifestation of this moral faculty has been progressing very slowly like [analogy to] those of stalagmites and stalactites. Re moral wise, humanity is progressing on a very slow net-positive trend, not in any sense of overflowing.

Morality is about 'good' versus 'evil.'
What is needed for humanity at the present is to be knowledgeable of the principles and mechanics of the inherent moral faculty and expedite its processes and results on a continual improvement basis.

The question is what, when, who, what and HOW?

Since DNA wise the moral faculty potential is inherent and thus manifesting in babies, we should start with babies and children and nurture their moral propensity in alignment with its intrinsic purposes.

If we are to start with children, the present circumstances is such that we have to focus on educating the parents the right moral direction first so that they can nurture the babies and children to start the right moral cycle for future generations.

To do so, humanity need to establish an effective Framework and System of Morality and Ethics to guide the essential overall implementation processes. The process is very complex and complicated, so I will not venture into the details here. A good guideline will to use the Kantian Framework as a starter to be refined into a generic framework and system.

Age wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:56 am Young children are moral.

Adults are immoral. ...

At what age do these children become 'immoral'?

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 9:26 pm

Age wrote: ↑Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:56 am Young children are moral.

Adults are immoral. ...

At what age do these children become 'immoral'?

as soon as they learn to use language

-Imp

How so and does that mean dumb or deaf children can't be immoral?

I'm thinking that the way to go is to show the children - and other disempowered beings - mercy, kindness, forgiveness and helpfulness and hope the impressions stick. You can tell kids all manner of things but if you don't walk the walk, so to speak, then at best they'll see you as unreliable at worst they'll be victims of gaslighting.

To be moral is to behave, so teach kids to behave. Proper behavior does not suppress the child. Knowing how to behave properly in new situations provides the framework which is necessary for understanding appropriateness and the nature of being conditioned. What's old is new again.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Wed Jan 16, 2019 10:33 am How so and does that mean dumb or deaf children can't be immoral?

"I didn't do it"

you understand there is language that is not limited to speaking, seeing or hearing

-Imp