> Jerry Mitchell wrote:
> >
> > > Mark Walker writes
> > >
> > > This is uselessly confusing IMO. Why not just avoid using the "M"
> > > word, e.g., never say "That's immoral!!", "we much teach morality
> > > in the school", etc.? A quite unnecessary (to me, at least until
> > > you enlighten me) semantic quagmire opens up under us whenever we
> > > try to discuss the "M" word in the abstract, instead of much more
> > > usefully attacking the things we dislike or think are harmful to
> > > people, e.g., adultery, disloyalty, brutality, political
> correctness,
> > > divisiveness, racism, diversity, separatism, zenophobia, etc.
> > >
> > > I guess I have to go along with those who say that m******* is
> > > relative, because that's closer to abandoning the term, and
> > > doesn't allude to something in the universe that no one has
> > > ever seen.
> > >
> > > Lee
> > >
> >
> > I agree with the not teaching morality in school point you made, its
> > unworkable with the public school system, but it would work
> with a private
> > one though. On the other hand, failure to identity evil
> only benefits evil.
>
> There is no reason why public schools cannot teach children how to
> develop their own morality and ethics. Children are not
> objects, not the
> property of their parents. It is an abuse of parental
> responsibility to
> claim that parents have the absolute right to teach their kids as they
> see fit. Kids are not clones, not robots. Furthermore, how
> can a parent
> be truly confident that their own morality or ethics are really 'true'
> if their kids are not free to determine and test the truth of them for
> themselves? As I've said many times: "Virtuous behavior is only such
> when it is freely chosen."
>
While I do believe there is "A" correct morality, there is no way I can
justify using force to remove someone's property to finance teaching their
children a morality they don't believe, even if I think their wrong. This is
the inherent problem with public schools, you'll always use the state power
of force to undermined someone's choices. Private schools avoid this this
predicament. There is NO way to fund a school by forced theft and then try
to please everyone with the way you spend those funds, even if a majority
agrees. If a single person doesn't agree with the methods and things taught,
you have compounded the evil beyond simple theft, and now added a brand new
crime to the equation. Also, you stated children are not objects. Why is it
ok for the state to teach your children and not me? or the killer down the
street? or that southern Baptist next door? I mean you cant expect to hold
absolute right to teach your child can ya? Matter of fact, we need to add
Cuba, Paraguay, and Nigeria to the list of people and groups that have the
right to educate your child.
> > There are those of us that believe in an "objective"
> morality based on
> > reason. Participants in this philosophy are more then
> welcome to identify an
> > evil and explain why it is so. Trying to obscure an immoral
> act is in effect
> > immoral. The semantic quagmire you speak of is a problem
> and I'm not sure
> > how to get around it as long as people of different base
> philosophies are
> > talking. You cant agree on the definition of racism (sound
> familiar) if you
> > cant even agree if existence is objective or relative (or
> on your axioms).
>
> Yes, but this is all a matter of disagreement over facts, a sort of
> Bayesian exchange. If two actors cannot agree on the facts of an
> exchange, then no Bayesian interaction will occur.
My point is simply if you don't act upon what you believe to be an evil
action, when you can in fact act on it, within reason, you defacto sanction
it. The important phrase here is IF you can act on it, and IF its within
reason to do so without risking something of greater value (your life,
families life, etc...)
Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:18 MDT