Who will teach us ethics?

Temptamperu

If we get a separation between between church and state and religion is taken from schools, who asked the man on the telly will teach us ethics.
Now I have heard this before be it here or in public "how would you know right from wrong if you do not believe in god?".
Its a question that actually frightens me a little. Normal enough people have said it to me both family and friends.

So would you like to see schools take the american route, No praying or godology in schools and a class called funnily enough "ethics class". Or should we just allow priests to continue lying to children and wasting weeks of education on ceremonies as long as they learn right from wrong.

Al Capwned

"Dont do anything to someone else that you wouldn't want done to you!"

I dont have any religous beliefs, but I dont need someone to tell me what's right and what's wrong!

shofukan

"Don't be a dick."

Cheques in the post please.

MagicMarker

Temptamperu wrote: »

So would you like to see schools take the american route, No praying or godology in schools and a class called funnily enough "ethics class". Or should we just allow priests to continue lying to children and wasting weeks of education on ceremonies as long as they learn right from wrong.

*looks at name of forum*

*looks at question*

Temptamperu

Thanks magic marker, great contribution. This was a question that was asked on TV last night and a question I have been asked by religious folk. There are people who think like this and its not only atheists that use this forum.

Dades

Schools are for teaching the State syllabus.

Parents are supposed to teach their children what's right and wrong.

Not that I'd trust all of them, either. :pac:

Mark Hamill

Who teaches us ethics now?

recedite

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Who teaches us ethics now?

Two answers;
1. In a secular setting; People who have studied ethics and are qualified to teach it.
2. In a religious run institution, people who have studied theology and believe that every word of a bizarre and contradictory old anthology of tales from 2-3 thousand years ago is truth.

I learned my ethics from Atticus Finch and Spider-man the only connection to school was that I read both of them in the building.

Fortyniner

Direct them to secular states where there is no religious ethos/ethics in schools, like France or Spain. They don't waste valuable educational time on any religious indoctrination. Subjects like civics and citizenship are covered though. They seem to be managing OK.

It's the family/carer's duty to bring children up correctly, isn't it? If you get married/civic partnered in France the mayor will read out your parental duties to you and you will accept them.

jill_valentine

King Mob wrote: »

I learned my ethics from Atticus Finch and Spider-man the only connection to school was that I read both of them in the building.

If we had an ethics curriculum built around that pair, we wouldn't be doing half badly.

So long as we skip the whole Clone Wars bit, let's stay orthodox here.

Mark Hamill

recedite wrote: »

2. In a religious run institution, people who have studied theology and believe that every word of a bizarre and contradictory old anthology of tales from 2-3 thousand years ago is truth.

If thats ethics, then telling your little brother or sister the boogieman will get them if they get out of bed is ethics, because thats essentially how good and bad is explained in religious teaching.

jill_valentine

jill_valentine wrote: »

If we had an ethics curriculum built around that pair, we wouldn't be doing half badly.

So long as we skip the whole Clone Wars bit, let's stay orthodox here.

Not only is Spider-man a superior moral example to anything in Christianity, his narrative is more consistent and more sensible even if we include all the stuff about clones and him making a deal with the devil...:pac:

Turtwig

Hitler obviously.

jill_valentine

I appear to have amalgamated the "Clone Saga" and the "Secret Wars".

For my grievous nerd sins, I am contrite.

Michael Nugent

Temptamperu wrote: »

Now I have heard this before be it here or in public "how would you know right from wrong if you do not believe in god?"

A better question would be "how would you know right from wrong if you do believe in god?"

Believing in gods as the source of morality actually corrupts our natural sense of right and wrong, by telling us to obey supposedly divine commands that have nothing to do with the effect of our behavior on the suffering and flourishing of sentient beings.

kylith

It is scary how some religious really do seem to think that without their invisible friend looking over their shoulder they'd be robbing and murdering with no qualms. Frankly, it's terrifying.

I think that rather than being a bastion of morality religion seems quite the opposite. No atheist that I know has ever told someone that they're a bad person because they were born gay, or because they disagree with them about whether or not deities exist. They might call them stupid, but not evil.

Owen

Most religions are incredibly immoral. Bashing homosexuals, unmarried mothers, other religions, refusing to educate and help practise safe sex in third world missions, and having the odd occasional war, or terrorism campaign.

The world would actually be an alright place without religion. We could work towards common goals and the overall englightnment of mankind and his purpose here on Earth.

I'm quite happy the way I am, after having heard the "if I weren't a christian I'd be out murdering" etc from some people
They're a bit conflicted anyway
how do you know what's good
god says so
what if god said kill your children
god wouldn't say so
why not, he did it before
because that would be wrong and god is good
so if you know that's wrong, YOU'RE NOT GETTING YOUR MORALS FROM GOD AFTER ALL

studiorat

What's an ethic?

b318isp

To the OP: I do think that a form of ethics should be taught in schools. Sowing the seeds of critical reasoning and debate in teenagers is important - as is self awareness. In some ways, the UK system of debating is a form of this.

If students they can reason out justifications for certain forms of right/wrong for the themselves rather than receiving preached down dogmas then we would be in a better place.

Dave!

Parents can teach their kids right from wrong. Any secular teacher can then lead a discussion on the merits or lack thereof of particular moral teachings. I'm not sure it's the school's job to prescribe moral teachings.

Gbear

Dave! wrote: »

I'm not sure it's the school's job to prescribe moral teachings.

DINGDINGDING!

CORRECT ANSWER!

Look at the examples that the religious try to bring up of evil "atheists".

The cults of personalities in places like Soviet Union etc, are an example why you don't want the state prescribing morality. Even the subtlest of bias towards nationalism and reverence to the state is bad in my eyes.

recedite

Gbear wrote: »

The cults of personalities in places like Soviet Union etc, are an example why you don't want the state prescribing morality. Even the subtlest of bias towards nationalism and reverence to the state is bad in my eyes.

Its a fair point, but it does not translate into "Don't teach ethics at school."
Eg. the state sets a certain National Curriculum for history, which could be manipulated to include certain historical events. But does this mean we should not teach history at school?
Even if the population allowed a corrupted state version of ethics or history to be taught at school, alternative viewpoints can be learned at home, or from the media in a free country.
Its much more likely that the religious version would be corrupt.
Eg would you be happy to have a state funded islamic extremist madrassa type school telling kids that jihad and fatwa are God's work? If there were enough pupils enrolled, the state would be obliged to fund it.

fitz0

The 8 'I Rather You Didn't' are a much better guide than any commandments I've seen.

1. I'd really rather you didn't act like a sanctimonious holier-than-thou ass when describing my noodly goodness. If some people don't believe in me, that's okay. Really, I'm not that vain. Besides, this isn't about them so don't change the subject.

2. I'd really rather you didn't use my existence as a means to oppress, subjugate, punish, eviscerate, and/or, you know, be mean to others. I don't require sacrifices, and purity is for drinking water, not people.

3. I'd really rather you didn't judge people for the way they look, or how they dress, or the way they talk, or, well, just play nice, okay? Oh, and get this into your thick heads: woman = person. man = person. Samey = Samey. One is not better than the other, unless we're talking about fashion and I'm sorry, but I gave that to women and some guys who know the difference between teal and fuchsia.

4. I'd really rather you didn't indulge in conduct that offends yourself, or your willing, consenting partner of legal age AND mental maturity. As for anyone who might object, I think the expression is "go **** yourself," unless they find that offensive in which case they can turn off the TV for once and go for a walk for a change.

5. I'd really rather you didn't challenge the bigoted, misogynistic, hateful ideas of others on an empty stomach. Eat, then go after the bitches.

6. I'd really rather you didn't build multi million-dollar synagogues / churches / temples / mosques / shrines to my noodly goodness when the money could be better spent (take your pick):
I. Ending poverty
II. Curing diseases
III. Living in peace, loving with passion, and lowering the cost of cable
I might be a complex-carbohydrate omniscient being, but I enjoy the simple things in life. I ought to know. I AM the creator.

7. I'd really rather you didn't go around telling people I talk to you. You're not that interesting. Get over yourself. And I told you to love your fellow man, can't you take a hint?

8. I'd really rather you didn't do unto others as you would have them do unto you if you are into, um, stuff that uses a lot of leather/lubricant/vaseline. If the other person is into it, however (pursuant to #4), then have at it, take pictures, and for the love of Mike, wear a CONDOM! Honestly, it's a piece of rubber. If I didn't want it to feel good when you did it I would have added spikes, or something.

Gbear

recedite wrote: »

Its a fair point, but it does not translate into "Don't teach ethics at school."
Eg. the state sets a certain National Curriculum for history, which could be manipulated to include certain historical events. But does this mean we should not teach history at school?

Yeah good point. I wish History was more of a science - it kinda should be.

recedite wrote: »

Even if the population allowed a corrupted state version of ethics or history to be taught at school, alternative viewpoints can be learned at home, or from the media in a free country.
Its much more likely that the religious version would be corrupt.
Eg would you be happy to have a state funded islamic extremist madrassa type school telling kids that jihad and fatwa are God's work? If there were enough pupils enrolled, the state would be obliged to fund it.

What I would argue is that it's possible the state should have no say in morality full stop. It shouldn't educate people in ethics.
It should enforce ethics in the form of laws, ideally based on a mandate of the people, but it shouldn't actually say what's right and wrong.

Stercus Accidit

Michael Nugent wrote: »

A better question would be "how would you know right from wrong if you do believe in god?"

Believing in gods as the source of morality actually corrupts our natural sense of right and wrong, by telling us to obey supposedly divine commands that have nothing to do with the effect of our behavior on the suffering and flourishing of sentient beings.

Very well put.

studiorat wrote: »

What's an ethic?

Shush now and eat your babies before they get cold. :pac:

Pegasus Galactica

Schools are to educate and help children develop academically and socially, its the job of parents, family ect to teach children the differences in right and wrong not teachers. No where else in Europe is this such a big deal.

Zombrex

Temptamperu wrote: »

If we get a separation between between church and state and religion is taken from schools, who asked the man on the telly will teach us ethics.
Now I have heard this before be it here or in public "how would you know right from wrong if you do not believe in god?".
Its a question that actually frightens me a little. Normal enough people have said it to me both family and friends.

So would you like to see schools take the american route, No praying or godology in schools and a class called funnily enough "ethics class". Or should we just allow priests to continue lying to children and wasting weeks of education on ceremonies as long as they learn right from wrong.

This works under the assumption that religion teaches right from wrong.

Given I've had long conversations on the religious forums with people explaining to me how genocide can sometimes be good, I would very much query that assumption :P

b318isp

Pegasus Galactica wrote: »

Schools are to educate and help children develop academically and socially, its the job of parents, family ect to teach children the differences in right and wrong not teachers. No where else in Europe is this such a big deal.

Do you think that schools should help develop HOW children think?

Do you think parents generally have the ability to teach children ethics and deal with the contradictions that can arise?

How would you suggest that stubborn and resistive teenagers be influenced effectively?

Personally, I believe the boundaries between parents and schools are blurred nowadays - and I think this is a good thing. A recent example is that a girl recently committed suicide in my daughter's school. Psychologists, teachers and parents worked together to help students deal with with the consequences - parents got directions from the school, and the school got feedback from the parents. Discussions related to the morality of suicide and the correct behaviours to deal with it were had in order to have a cohesive approach, with the advise of specialists.

When we are dealing with vulnerable/immature/impressionable kids there is no dualistic solution.

joseph brand

'The Simpsons' is a far better basis for ethics and morals than the bible.