From: lee@wang.com (Lee Story)
Subject: Re: frightening ignorance
Organization: Wang Laboratories, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: 21 Jul 92 15:00:34
	<LEE.92Jul20111456@meercat.wang.com>
	<1992Jul20.174754.5253@news.eng.convex.com>

In article <1992Jul20.174754.5253@news.eng.convex.com> cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:

   In article <LEE.92Jul20111456@meercat.wang.com> lee@wang.com (Lee Story) writes:
   >In article <WRIGHT.92Jul19162357@rain.cs.odu.edu> wright@rain.cs.odu.edu (GENTLEMAN) appears to advocate instruction in morality in the schools:

   >   First of all, would you agree that ALL humans share common
   >   principles in their pursuit of morality?  For example, don't
   >   all moral humans (and let's just assume "all humans" refers to
   >   those in the USA) support the respect of other humans to live?
   >   (e.g. we should not kill one another or it is immoral to walk
   >   away from a human in need for help in order to remain alive,
   >   etc.)  I am only offering a few areas that I think all moral
   >   humans share (whether they are believers in Jesus, Aristotle's
   >   view of morality, or Mohammed's.)  I only state these as a
   >   guideline so that you understand my premise that all humans
   >   share common principles in their pursuit of morality.  whether
   >   or not the above situations are true for all americans I wish
   >   not to argue.

   >   Secondly, perhaps it could be agreed upon that since all humans
   >   believe on "such and such" moral values, than it is these values
   >   that should be instilled in our students.  However, the task of
   >   finding common beliefs for all might be an impossible one, but one
   >   never knows.

   >I appreciate the beneficent sentiment expressed here, but think
   >Dr.Wright is right (indeed) to suspect that there may be no common
   >morals.  The definition of usury is highly circumstantial.  What is
   >adultery in one culture is expected behavior in another.  

   That's irrelevant to the question at issue (which is "Should morality be
   taught in schools?"). Wright invites this mistake by suggesting that "all
   humans share common principles..."; in fact, whether or not all humans
   share such principles is also irrelevant to the point. What is relevant is
   only whether _our_ society shares a common morality. The answer is, of
   course, that it does--no society can continue to exist without such a
   common morality. And it is, of course, the responsibility of parents and of
   the schools to provide a moral education for children.

Well, perhaps you choose to make that narrow issue the only subject of
this thread, but it appeared to me that Wright made two claims (common
morality and the desirability of "instilling" it) which were more
general, more interesting, and largely subsuming the question of whether
we should instill it in schools.

   Surely you don't expect children to _deduce_ for themselves what is right
   and wrong, do you? Well, maybe you do; I suppose this kind of thinking is
   fashionable in some circles.

Nice condescending rhetoric, Peter, but children _do_ observe a larger
society than that of one sandbox (per your amusing example), and it
has appeared to me that they learn socially acceptable patterns of
behavior by example, and very rarely through the explicitly didactic
presentation of arbitrary moral "rules".  In that sense a kindly and
hard-working teacher _is_ teaching morals in the school, and I'll
thank her not to confuse the lesson with Judeo-Christian dogma.  I
repeat: children "deduce for themselves" everything that they know or
believe!

                                  But people who think like this have never
   watched little kids play in a sand-box. (They're also probably too young to
   have kids.) Try it some time. When Sandy wants the truck Joe is playing
   with, what does she do? Does she politely ask to borrow it? And does Joe
   hand it over with a smile? Noooo. She tries to grab the truck. Joe grabs
   back. Sandy hits Joe over the head with a shovel. That's immorality. Your
   job, should you choose to become a parent, is to teach Sandy and Joe
   morality. You have to teach them about the difference between "mine" and
   "yours", about sharing, about not resorting to force when there is a
   difference of opinion.

The parts of my previous post mentioning war and nationalism were
(pretty clearly, I'd thought) meant to show by example what a terrible
job our culture/society/whatever has done of teaching them "about not
resorting to force when there is a difference of opinion."  Indeed,
isn't its clearest lesson about the virtue and efficacy of such force,
at least when you have "god" on your side.  Morality:  "Do unto others as
you would have that they do unto you, except when you are told by
someone in authority to bayonet or poison them."

   That's a hard job--it's hard not because it strains the brain to figure out
   a "common morality",

I notice you don't offer one (nor do any of those of you who insist that
we already have one).  I think it's fantastically hard, and undesirable
even were it easy.  And I won't be referred to a religion, since it seems
more than arguable that in our diverse culture there is no absolute
majority for any or all of them.

   but because kids are such fundamentally immoral
   creatures.

Well, I've raised three and known many others, and have found in my
children at least as much consideration and fellow-feeling as in most
adults evince (despite, or perhaps in resolution of, the occasional
sandbox spat).  I suspect that this may be because their social
accords are more direct (I'm tempted to use "genuine") solutions of
real problems, and not merely lists of rules which are supposed to
be "for the greater good" according to some long-dead and unquestioned
prophet or demigod.

   Moral education isn't about the fine points--it isn't even about
   things like adultery (or usury, for heaven's sake). It's about the
   fundamental stuff--about the stuff that makes it possible to get along with
   one another. Adultery and usury are corollaries of the Basic Moral Laws of
   the Sandbox. 

I agree in part (as above).  I would argue that "corollary" is much too
strong.  The supplementary rules vary in their effect between regulation
(adultery, usury) and regimentation (dietary prohibitions, infallibility
of the chief Boobah-boobah) of a society.  They don't "follow" from the
primary moral statements (golden rule) as corollaries.

   >Taxation is
   >viewed as theft (and thus "immoral") by some people on the net.  

   Who gives a piffle what some people on the net think? Are you going to be
   morally paralyzed because someone, somewhere, might disagree with you? 

Absolutely not.  All I'd ask is that you give each person's views
reasonable consideration before you claim that there already is a
common morality.  Viewing morality as interpersonal and social convention
(no perjorative intended there---I do believe that such convention is
a necessity to make this world bearable), I don't see it as wholly
pre-rational or intuitive, and certainly not as "revealed" to the members
of certain Abramic religions.  Viewing taxation as theft _might_ be
useful to us, and it might not; I'll consider it just as I'll consider
the usefulness of Mosaic or Islamic law.

   >Even
   >the preservation of life and the corresponding minimal charity which
   >it suggests are not universals in any large society.  

   Oh sure--let's appoint Jeffrey Dahmer to a special consultantcy in moral
   education--we must make sure that his viewpoint is represented. 

Dahmer's viewpoint _should_ be represented, at least by a "devil's
advocate", and rejected as dysfunctional.  Children should learn to
reason to consequences, not merely to follow archaic codes.  (I'm getting
redundant...oh well...)

   >To abandon the
   >attempt to slaughter the government-designated "enemy" is "desertion".
   >To protect this enemy from fire is "treason".  These are capital
   >crimes under military and civil law.  Many if not most students and
   >their families accept these laws as being in accord with their moral
   >sense.  Are you going to teach them to the contrary in your school?

   I'm not sure I follow you. Are you a pacifist? If so, our laws
   accommodate you.

A peculiar notion of "accommodate".  If you simply don't fight, they
merely jail you.  But if you attempt to prevent all death in war
(including that of the enemy---say by giving warning to the
inhabitants of Dresden, Hanoi, etc.) they call you a "traitor"
(perhaps the most honorable title possible) and shoot you.  You may
find some limited protection by becoming a darling of the people
(Gandhi did, but was still assassinated; Jesus of Nazareth did not,
and was strung up by the authorities).  A fine accommodation.

   In any case, I don't see how it follows from the fact that some folks
   disagree about the role of military obligation in our society that no moral
   education is possible. One can have moral disagreements within a society,
   and still have a broad spectrum of moral agreement.

Sure.  I can believe that I have a special mandate from a diety (or from
the Greatest Nation On Earth) to exterminate you, and you can believe you
must do the same to me; yet we can agree on every other element of our
"morality".  So what?

   >There's also the possibility that, however horrible the effects of
   >xenophobic war, the prospect of unbridled population growth would be
   >more horrible still.  

   Now you seem to have really gone non-linear. I fail to see what this has to
   do with the point at issue.

Yes, it was reaching a bit.  But having used the conflict between
"thou shalt not kill" and usual social practice (war) as an example of
the conflict in our supposed moral "teachings", I wanted to point out
that the prohibition on killing might conceivably not be the best
thing for social survival even in peacetime (i.e., that Wright's moral
rule which he assumed we all agree with might actually be _wrong_).

   >For more elegant and elaborate examples of the "inversion" of what we
   >might consider normal morals (without abandoning the intention to
   >benefit humanity), I suggest reading the late works of Nietzsche.

   So Nietzsche had inverted morals. What has this got to do with it? 

   What truly does frighten me is that you--and many who think like you--are
   quite serious about this.

I am absolutely serious about it.  Concerning your "fright", see below.

   You think morality can't be (or shouldn't be) taught.

I don't.  I _do_ think the utility of morality (though I'd really rather
use a less religiously-loaded word like "ethics") can be _shown_.

   If your way of thinking wins out (and given the intellectual
   caliber of the people who run our educational institutions, this is quite
   possible), we are going to cease to exist as a society in the near future. 

"We...CEASE TO EXIST"?  "As a society"??  Forboding words which don't seem
to meet your usual demands for clarity, Peter.  Do they mean "I'm afraid
that if people actually think for themselves about important human
interactions, instead of relying on received gospel, there will be a
revolution of sorts"?  I don't see anything particularly bad about
threatening your (and my) security like that.
   -- 
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
               |      Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist.     |
  Peter Cash   |       (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein)      |cash@convex.com
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Lee Story (lee@wang.com) Wang Laboratories, Inc.
              (Merrimack Valley Paddlers)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc