Should Moral be taught in schools?

[Powman3]

Yeah, I guess it's fine. As long as they don't throw religion or PETA in it.

[look_its_rob]

to that person, stealing and stabbing people may be completely fine and moral. who are you to tell them its wrong just because you have different beliefs?

 

 

 

this may be an extreme example, but it works with anything.

 

 

 

if your saying as long as it doesn't hurt others, it shouldn't matter if someone else considers it to be moral or not, that wont always work.

 

 

 

 

 

I may think its fine to steal from a big name store like walgreens. To me, no one is getting hurt because the company wont even be able to tell that this one umbrella is missing. Does that make it moral?

[warri0r45]

Ethics and morality, yes, so long as the foundation of said 'classes' are not based on religion.

Word for word exactly what I was going to say.

 

 

 

Agreed. I think inspiring discussion is a good way to go too, not just "this is right, this is wrong".

 

 

 

On the other hand, I could see some positives on grabbing a few of the major holy texts and picking out some 'morals' and seeing if you think they are right or wrong. Chance of upsetting a few people? Sure, but who here or anywhere in a western school these days would see it as 'right' to kill your kids if they are bugging and disrespecting you?

 

 

 

You know the real interesting thing? We as humans, and even those who believe in an absolute morality, have the capacity to pick and choose what we believe to be right and wrong and the results seem to be pretty similar (in the western world at least) even though the very source of these absolute morals is the holy one himself. Who are we to question the very source of the absolute morals themselves if we don't begin to question the whole system? If we think we can pick and choose, why call the moral system absolute at all?

[BlueLancer]

to that person, stealing and stabbing people may be completely fine and moral. who are you to tell them its wrong just because you have different beliefs?

 

 

 

So if a guy from tip.it comes to your school tomorrow and shoots all your best friends, who are you to tell him he is wrong just because you believe "he shouldn't do so"?

 

 

 

Your argument doesn't work in the real world. Laws are based on universal, biologically inbuilt morals, such as the fact most normal people don't

 

 

 

1. Want to get hurt

 

2. Want to kill others

 

 

 

It doesn't take college religion class or upbringing. Even tribal people in remote villages can live amongst each other without killing people for small disputes, or refrain from stealing, because it gives those people a reason to steal back from you.

 

 

 

You can go and cause harm to an umbrella seller by stealing his goods he paid for, have fun explaining the judge you are justified to do it "because 1 umbrella wont hurt him anyways".

[warri0r45]

I'd just like to add my experience with ethics in school. I went to a Lutheran highschool and in grade 11 I believe, in our Christian Studies class, we did a couple week long unit on ethics. The teacher was a Christian and took us through a list of ethical situations and we had class discussions. I was really admirable of how he could be an objective moderator even though there were at times some pretty contentious issues coming up like stem cell research and the death penalty. I dunno, I just think with the right people and in the right framework, it could be really beneficial. It tought me to think about some moral situations and was above all really enjoyable.

 

 

 

I'd argue an absolutely crucial issue regarding an ethics class is that it gets you to think of the consequences to ethical scenarios. This, above all, could really see the decency of a person come out when they consider a possible unethical situation and they just think about it instead of relying on a narrow nonconsequentialist foresight (not trying to say deontology is wrong, I'm just saying thinking of consequences can be a crucial way to prevent what many would consider morally wrong actions).

[darkmage099]

to that person, stealing and stabbing people may be completely fine and moral. who are you to tell them its wrong just because you have different beliefs?

 

 

 

So if a guy from tip.it comes to your school tomorrow and shoots all your best friends, who are you to tell him he is wrong just because you believe "he shouldn't do so"?

 

 

 

Your argument doesn't work in the real world. Laws are based on universal, biologically inbuilt morals, such as the fact most normal people don't

 

 

 

1. Want to get hurt

 

2. Want to kill others

 

 

 

It doesn't take college religion class or upbringing. Even tribal people in remote villages can live amongst each other without killing people for small disputes, or refrain from stealing, because it gives those people a reason to steal back from you.

 

 

 

You can go and cause harm to an umbrella seller by stealing his goods he paid for, have fun explaining the judge you are justified to do it "because 1 umbrella wont hurt him anyways".

 

 

 

Yeah, Ok. We've established that people dont want to get hurt/killed. That's fact.

 

 

 

So what about manners? What about "how to live" ethics? Do we teach those? That's where it gets sketchy. How "kind" is kind? It's hard for schools to teach that because people can have legitimate disagreements about how to treat others.

[BlueLancer]

 

So what about manners? What about "how to live" ethics? Do we teach those? That's where it gets sketchy. How "kind" is kind? It's hard for schools to teach that because people can have legitimate disagreements about how to treat others.

 

 

 

Yeah, manners and lifestyle ethics are a real issue. I was just replying to rob's kind of ridiculous point about how kids in a school aren't allowed to file a complaint on the school bully just because "in his moral view it's correct to punch other kids and steal their lunch money".

 

 

 

Business colleges already teach young people how to behave in certain countries/with certain people, or what to do in certain situations. I think that's a great idea.

 

 

 

If we go to China for a business trip, we don't need to convert them to "our culture". We can respect theirs, and get used to their customs (such as if invited to a dinner, never eating your dish 100% empty, which signals to the host you were hungry and he failed by not giving you a big enough portion), and they can do the reverse for us.

 

 

 

There isn't a single "proper" way to live, eat or behave in certain situations. But some basic morals exist in every country and are punishable by law, such as hurting innocent people, stealing other people's valuables, etc... And some are strongly encouraged, such as helping hurt people, respecting the elderly, etc.

[AThousandLies]

to that person, stealing and stabbing people may be completely fine and moral. who are you to tell them its wrong just because you have different beliefs?

 

 

 

So if a guy from tip.it comes to your school tomorrow and shoots all your best friends, who are you to tell him he is wrong just because you believe "he shouldn't do so"?

 

 

 

Your argument doesn't work in the real world. Laws are based on universal, biologically inbuilt morals, such as the fact most normal people don't

 

 

 

1. Want to get hurt

 

2. Want to kill others

 

 

 

It doesn't take college religion class or upbringing. Even tribal people in remote villages can live amongst each other without killing people for small disputes, or refrain from stealing, because it gives those people a reason to steal back from you.

 

 

 

You can go and cause harm to an umbrella seller by stealing his goods he paid for, have fun explaining the judge you are justified to do it "because 1 umbrella wont hurt him anyways".

 

 

 

I don't mean to skew the topic here, but this is an issue that I've been questioning myself for the past few months. Now, if someone came up and shot all of my friends, I obviously would tell him that he was wrong and do what I can to stop it, because my morals are that killing (in most contexts, such as that one) is wrong. However, what is the basis for such a moral position? Why is killing wrong? "Because it hurts other people." Why is hurting other people wrong? "Because it just is." In my own attempt to comprehend this issue, I've found that virtually all moral arguments boil down to right and wrong being right and wrong simply because they "just are". From my secular point of view, I cannot find any absolution in morality. My morals are informed by society and my personal environment (and I suppose myself, if I can be categorically disconnected from society and the environment), which are informed by religious doctrine (in the case of the West, Catholic teachings). But ultimately I can't find any absolute reason for anything. I hate to go all modernist/nihilist, but I cannot see any one truth about morality, right and wrong.

 

 

 

This brings up a point with regards to dominant social morality. Laws are a product of social beliefs, which change over time. It was only a couple of decades ago that homosexuality was considered a disorder by WHO, and it is still considered a crime in many Asian and African countries. In the West a century or so ago it was (to my knowledge) entirely unacceptable, but fast forward 100 years and it's less and less of a social taboo.

 

 

 

I'm going off-track here, but what I'm trying to say is that morality seems to change. Social attitudes shift and common law seems to shift with it. In this respect, there does not seem to really be any moral absolution or consistency.

 

 

 

You made an interesting point, BlueLancer, about 'biological' and 'in-built' morals. But, do we really know if these things are a part of our innate, inherent human nature? Do we all want to do good and please people? Are we all born as good, pure and innocent, or are we a blank canvas subject only to the influence of our environment? I really don't know.

[BlueLancer]

But, do we really know if these things are a part of our innate, inherent human nature? Do we all want to do good and please people? Are we all born as good, pure and innocent, or are we a blank canvas subject only to the influence of our environment? I really don't know.

 

 

 

It's human inbuilt nature to desire survival. By hurting and killing others, you greatly decrease your own chance of survival because other innocent people will not tolerate it.

 

 

 

Why wont normal people tolerate a killer, stealer or rapist? Because if he picks targets at random, anyone in the society could be his next victim. And most of the people in society do not want to be killed, stolen from, or raped. They want to survive and live life normally.

 

 

 

However, what is the basis for such a moral position? Why is killing wrong? "Because it hurts other people." Why is hurting other people wrong? "Because it just is."

 

 

 

Why is hurting other people wrong?

 

Because those other people did not give you the permission to hurt them.

 

 

 

Why is it wrong to hurt other people without their permission?

 

Because the person hurting others wouldn't want to get hurt himself in the first place. He clearly isn't doing unto others as he wishes to be done to himself.

 

 

 

Killing an innocent person is a logical fallacy. On the exception of being suicidal, humans don't want to kill themselves. Why would you kill another person then, making yourself vulnerable to be killed by other people who don't want to be your next victim, and protect themselves by killing you?

[vleademir]

Although I am a supporter of doing the right thing, the right thing to me may very well differ form another persons views, therefore cannot really be taught.

[AThousandLies]

But, do we really know if these things are a part of our innate, inherent human nature? Do we all want to do good and please people? Are we all born as good, pure and innocent, or are we a blank canvas subject only to the influence of our environment? I really don't know.

 

 

 

It's human inbuilt nature to desire survival. By hurting and killing others, you greatly decrease your own chance of survival because other innocent people will not tolerate it.

 

 

 

Why wont normal people tolerate a killer, stealer or rapist? Because if he picks targets at random, anyone in the society could be his next victim. And most of the people in society do not want to be killed, stolen from, or raped. They want to survive and live life normally.

 

 

 

However, what is the basis for such a moral position? Why is killing wrong? "Because it hurts other people." Why is hurting other people wrong? "Because it just is."

 

 

 

Why is hurting other people wrong?

 

Because those other people did not give you the permission to hurt them.

 

 

 

Why is it wrong to hurt other people without their permission?

 

Because the person hurting others wouldn't want to get hurt himself in the first place. He clearly isn't doing unto others as he wishes to be done to himself.

 

 

 

Killing an innocent person is a logical fallacy. On the exception of being suicidal, humans don't want to kill themselves. Why would you kill another person then, making yourself vulnerable to be killed by other people who don't want to be your next victim, and protect themselves by killing you?

 

 

 

But I'm not talking about a logical conundrum here. I'm talking about moral stances. Logically, it is (99% of the time) in a human's best interest

 

to not kill someone, as it will most likely result in their own seclusion, isolation, punishment, death etc. However, if such threats did not exist - if I could kill anyone and not fear punishment - then the only thing stopping me would be morals. The basis of those morals is ever changing, depending on social conditions. What I'm saying is that aside from religious doctrine, there does not seem to be any sort of foundation for morality, aside from respect for human life and whatnot - which is a part of morality itself. I'm saying as of my present understanding, you can question every moral stance, and eventually the only answer you'll get for something being wrong is that "it just is".

[BlueLancer]

What I'm saying is that aside from religious doctrine, there does not seem to be any sort of foundation for morality, aside from respect for human life and whatnot - which is a part of morality itself. I'm saying as of my present understanding, you can question every moral stance, and eventually the only answer you'll get for something being wrong is that "it just is".

 

 

 

Not really, I'm not religious but I'd give my life for 5 innocent children in a blink of an eye, and also volunteered for UN peacekeeping in Kosovo pre-2000.

 

 

 

It just seems like common sense to me, that an innocent person (especially a kid who doesn't know much about the world yet) should not die.

 

 

 

However, if such threats did not exist - if I could kill anyone and not fear punishment - then the only thing stopping me would be morals.

 

 

 

Yeah, sadly I can't argue with that. But it's also greatly a question of your grade of honor. Would you kill an enemy combatant who already acknowledged his defeat, laid down his weapon and prays you to spare him because he has a family to feed?

 

 

 

I wouldn't, but some people would brutally shoot them to death. There's nothing factual I can justify my stance to them with, except stating their honor is that of filthy rats and they don't deserve to be called men.

 

 

 

I just don't think it's right to kill people who obviously deserve to live. But I'd have a very hard time rationalizing that to a bunch of savages who are interested in ethnic cleansing and mindless killing, and enjoy destroying people's lives.

[look_its_rob]

 

So if a guy from tip.it comes to your school tomorrow and shoots all your best friends, who are you to tell him he is wrong just because you believe "he shouldn't do so"?

 

 

 

Your argument doesn't work in the real world. Laws are based on universal, biologically inbuilt morals, such as the fact most normal people don't

 

 

 

1. Want to get hurt

 

2. Want to kill others

 

 

 

yes, i am very aware that me, you and 99% of the people in the world believe killing people is wrong. im not arguing the fact that it isnt. I'm simply stating that even something such as murder, that you and I both instantly write off as immoral, some one else in the world, may he be sicked and twisted, more than likely disagrees. if you try to convince this person that murder is immoral, it will eventually boil down to "because it is".

 

 

 

I dont believe there are any true inbuilt morals, as morals change from person to person. What may be considered moral here, may be considered immoral in another country (Ex. naming your teddy bear Muhammad) I'm also quite aware that most likely,no place in the world considers murder not to be immoral, not right now in the world atleast. But lets look into a literary work, Macbeth Macbeth was considered to be a brave and honorable person for killing a man by stabbing him through the jaw. Even though he was fighting for his life, he murdered someone and not only was it considered moral, it was honorable.

 

 

 

So saying murder is immoral, just because you and me and nearly everyone at the present time considers it to be, doesnt make it true as moral is a value of opinion.

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: i hate typing slow, someone else already pretty much said the same thing.

[BlueLancer]

Macbeth was considered to be a brave and honorable person for killing a man by stabbing him through the jaw. Even though he was fighting for his life, he murdered someone and not only was it considered moral, it was honorable.

 

 

 

So saying murder is immoral, just because you and me and nearly everyone at the present time considers it to be, doesnt make it true as moral is a value of opinion.

 

 

 

That's not considered murder in any society. Even in free western countries, killing a person who can be proven to have attacked you first (with the intention to harm or kill you) not only makes you innocent, but releases you from all legal charges against you. Such as having a crowd as eyewitness, video camera footage, etc...

 

 

 

A murder happens when you kill an unsuspecting person, with premeditated determination.

 

 

 

Remember people are animals at the core. All cultures ultimately have evolved from the stone age people's cultures who were nothing but savages fighting for their survival. There isn't a hidden culture where the eyewitnesses would blame you for fighting back (which is a basic human instinct, and everyone else would do the same)

 

 

 

There isn't anything wrong with defending yourself from an aggressor, nor does it make you guilty.

[look_its_rob]

Well, i believe killing someone in that way is immoral.

 

 

 

does that make it immoral? Or because most people dont find it immoral, it isnt? So is morality based on majority?

[Jeeesus]

some one else in the world, may he be sicked and twisted, more than likely disagrees. if you try to convince this person that murder is immoral, it will eventually boil down to "because it is".

 

Actually it boils down to "if society allows you to kill people, then society would allow other people to kill you."

 

 

 

Peace out.

 

~Jesus

[look_its_rob]

Actually it boils down to "if society allows you to kill people, then society would allow other people to kill you."

 

 

 

yes, okay. but what does that have to do with the morality of it?

[Jeeesus]

Actually it boils down to "if society allows you to kill people, then society would allow other people to kill you."

 

 

 

yes, okay. but what does that have to do with the morality of it?

 

Morality comes from logic.

 

 

 

Peace out.

 

~Jesus

[AThousandLies]

What I'm saying is that aside from religious doctrine, there does not seem to be any sort of foundation for morality, aside from respect for human life and whatnot - which is a part of morality itself. I'm saying as of my present understanding, you can question every moral stance, and eventually the only answer you'll get for something being wrong is that "it just is".

 

 

 

Not really, I'm not religious but I'd give my life for 5 innocent children in a blink of an eye, and also volunteered for UN peacekeeping in Kosovo pre-2000.

 

 

 

It just seems like common sense to me, that an innocent person (especially a kid who doesn't know much about the world yet) should not die.

 

 

 

However, if such threats did not exist - if I could kill anyone and not fear punishment - then the only thing stopping me would be morals.

 

 

 

Yeah, sadly I can't argue with that. But it's also greatly a question of your grade of honor. Would you kill an enemy combatant who already acknowledged his defeat, laid down his weapon and prays you to spare him because he has a family to feed?

 

 

 

I wouldn't, but some people would brutally shoot them to death. There's nothing factual I can justify my stance to them with, except stating their honor is that of filthy rats and they don't deserve to be called men.

 

 

 

I just don't think it's right to kill people who obviously deserve to live. But I'd have a very hard time rationalizing that to a bunch of savages who are interested in ethnic cleansing and mindless killing, and enjoy destroying people's lives.

 

 

 

I want to make clear here that I'm not trying to argue with you, and I'm glad that you've given me an alternative point of view with regards to the logic thing. I'm not saying that I have no morals - I have plenty of my own ethics and standards, and would not kill, steal, or assault someone for the hell of it. I've just been struggling with this concept for the past few months and am trying to find some meaning, so I appreciate what you've said.

[____]

And I might add that my sense of morality and ethics grades somewhere on the edge of unethical and immoral for most people ;)

[Mercifull]

I know its a YouTube link but its relevant to the thread content and was in this weeks eSkeptic Newsletter.

 

 

 

 

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ar2gIynxedw

 

 

 

Michael Shermer's tour for his book The Science of Good and Evil, found him here explaining why we are moral, the evolutionary origins of the moral sentiments, and how to be good without God

[BlueLancer]

I know its a YouTube link but its relevant to the thread content and was in this weeks eSkeptic Newsletter.

 

 

 

 

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ar2gIynxedw

 

 

 

 

Wow, for such a short clip, that was very informative and appropriate for this topic. Nice find.

 

 

 

On the other hand, I don't know if you 'really' need to conduct scientific MRA brain studies to determine the obvious... People have biologically inbuilt motives for doing good things and avoiding bad ones, and women are more likely to co-operate than men.

 

 

 

But I guess that info is useful to those who weren't sure about it.

[Led-Zeppelin]

I beleive morality should be taught by parents..

[purfishx]

Morals should be taught by anyone, but its up to the person to follow through or not.

 

 

 

:?

[Bloodredsword]

I definitely think that morals should be taught. Morals define who we are, and in (most) cases, they make us better people. I'm not saying that if morals wern't taught, children would turn into axe-murdering-baby-rapists, but it would put our world in a better position either.