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.

MisterEpicurus

As usual, I think evolution answers this question.

There are certain actions we were naturally ingrained with that promoted the survival of the species; things such as not engaging in murder and theft etc. However, this is also true for many other 'social species' such as apes, ants and wolves (they don't kill each other all the time either, and they kill animals for food...like us and cows etc). Co-operation was obviously key to enhance our development and hence survival. If you had an individual who murdered part of the clan (regardless of species) they would be shunned, as it seen with our cousins.

So certain actions we find repulsive had a built-in evolutionary past.

However, many other dilemma's such as euthanasia and abortion are recent arguments that didn't necessarily have an evolutionary background. I guess this explains why these ethical questions are divided and more difficult to solve.

Anyhow, that's my two cents.

[I also think that students should be taught about philosophy and argument; this teaches students how to think critically and if any of them succeeded, then I guess more atheists would leave secondary school than present]

MisterEpicurus

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

[I also think that students should be taught about philosophy and argument; this teaches students how to think critically and if any of them succeeded, then I guess more atheists would leave secondary school than present]

Ah no, the atheists deserve a school education too

vibe666

there's only one man up to this mammoth task.

NSFW, or schools....or anyone really. :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-RJeqyh-vI

mooliki

I think b318isp would be right in mentioning a "cohesive approach" to dealing with these sort of issues. Though I think it doesn't just involve the school and parents. The onus is on society as a whole (as impractical as that is) to teach younger generations of morality and ethics. The problems arise when you give the job to one body or individual to declare what is right and wrong. It's a hugely complex subject and one that continually changes, as our understanding of the world changes. And when institutions are put in place to "educate" on the subject, it's teaching obedience, not morality.

To answer the OPs original question, I'd say parents, teachers, communities, history books, literature, art, culture, any source where someone has taken the time to share what they feel is the ethical way to approach life. Ultimately, I think the duty of the parent and teacher is to help kids to listen to and understand all the guidance and ideas offered with as open a mind as possible, so they can figure it out for themselves.

purple_hatstand

If, instead of getting kids to learn bible text, hymns & prayers by rote, you asked them to analyze the contents of the speech herein, the world would be a better place and stuff...

Valmont

If we have an evolutionary or built-in sense of ethics, why do people do bad things or why do governments/banks become corrupt etc? It seems a bit dangerous to just assume we implicitly know right from wrong.

Valmont

Valmont wrote: »

If we have an evolutionary or built-in sense of ethics, why do people do bad things or why do governments/banks become corrupt etc? It seems a bit dangerous to just assume we implicitly know right from wrong.

This assumes that people who do bad do so because they do not know right from wrong. We know that this isn't the case.

Even if you know right from wrong you're still capable of doing wrong by say justifying your actions, or by having a lapse in judgement or simply letting it slide cause you think you'll never be caught.

MisterEpicurus

Valmont wrote: »

If we have an evolutionary or built-in sense of ethics, why do people do bad things or why do governments/banks become corrupt etc? It seems a bit dangerous to just assume we implicitly know right from wrong.

That's different to what I suggested though.

I suggested that certain behaviours are intrinsically repulsive to species as it aids their survival to avoid them; the most obvious example being murdering a member of your own group.

However, given the advanced nature of our culture and cognition, there are many other actions which do not have an evolutionary backbone to account for ethically, such as euthanasia, abortion etc....which I guess why we find it difficult to iron out why things are ethically right or wrong.

Given the social nature of our species, it can't simply be reduced to our evolutionary heritage. A kind of social evolution I guess...

Sonics2k

Valmont wrote: »

If we have an evolutionary or built-in sense of ethics, why do people do bad things or why do governments/banks become corrupt etc? It seems a bit dangerous to just assume we implicitly know right from wrong.

Our sense of ethics and morals has grown from society and civilization. We learn it from our families, teachers and the groups we live in.

We know this based on a world view, and it basically shows and proves that no God(s) gave us a built in moral code, because it can vary in many ways across the world, but we all follow the same simple guidelines (no murder, stealing, rape etc) because of the negative impact they have on us.

We have evolved into our own moral society because of our history and belief in freedom.

biko

I keep coming back to this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk1dx0jtn8k

vibe666

i think i have just developed a new found respect for derren brown.

RussellTuring

Gbear wrote: »

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.

Laws are still an example of the state enforcing its own sense of morality, or rather the morality of those who make the laws. How is it fine for the state to punish people for unethical behaviour if it doesn't even try to explain the appropriate behaviour in the first place? It's just like religion then with people submitting to the state instead of their church.

b318isp wrote: »

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.

What was said about the morality of suicide?

King Mob wrote: »

This assumes that people who do bad do so because they do not know right from wrong. We know that this isn't the case.

Even if you know right from wrong you're still capable of doing wrong by say justifying your actions, or by having a lapse in judgement or simply letting it slide cause you think you'll never be caught.

Doing something you know is wrong because you think you won't be caught isn't morality. Morality's what you do when you think nobody will find out, which is why God can't be a source of morality.

Valmont

Sonics2k wrote: »

Our sense of ethics and morals has grown from society and civilization. We learn it from our families, teachers and the groups we live in.

Why isn't it a certain moral ideology influencing society? Is the relationship unidirectional?

Sonics2k wrote: »

We know this based on a world view, and it basically shows and proves that no God(s) gave us a built in moral code, because it can vary in many ways across the world, but we all follow the same simple guidelines (no murder, stealing, rape etc) because of the negative impact they have on us.

But there is a lot of murdering and stealing on a daily basis across the world, sometimes people murder arguing it will have a good effect on society. I look at the world and I'm not so sure there is some grand built-in right from wrong indicator because, as you say, right from wrong differs wildy depending on where you are.

Gbear

RussellTuring wrote: »

Laws are still an example of the state enforcing its own sense of morality, or rather the morality of those who make the laws. How is it fine for the state to punish people for unethical behaviour if it doesn't even try to explain the appropriate behaviour in the first place? It's just like religion then with people submitting to the state instead of their church.

Absolutely. I qualified my statement by saying that ideally, the ethics enforced by the government should be based on a mandate. They often don't have that - look at the war on drugs - as unpopular and demonstrably ineffective as that is, it's being kept in place and will continue to do so for the forseeable future due to a moral judgement.

In a "perfect" democracy the state would be only a tool to enforce the will of the people rather than a discrete identity.

The Big Red Button

I was brought up by very devout Catholic parents, who go to mass every Sunday, and are very involved in the church (as regards doing readings, etc.)

I'm atheist, as are most of my siblings, though we were raised as Catholics.

We were all brought up to be moral, respectful, polite human beings. My parents always emphasised the importance of caring for others, for treating others as we wish to be treated, to do good when we can.

And this is the way I continue to behave. I'd never purposely hurt another person. I'm honest. I regularly buy meals for homeless people, and sit down, and have a good chat, and eat with them (did this just today, as it happens, but it's not an infrequent thing for me.)

Any positive attributes that I may have as a person, are a credit to my parents, and them alone.

I hate the idea that ethics are somehow intrinsically linked with religion. It's absolute bull.

My parents still love all of their children, even though we haven't followed their spiritual path. If we ever do good, it's not through Christianity - it's through being raised well, and through being a decent good person (i.e. not having been born an asshole.)

I see my parents as being true Catholics. It's not for me, and it's not a path I'd ever go down. But I think that they understand some of the aspects of their faith - such as acceptance. Despite their own beliefs, they would never ever criticise their children for our beliefs (or lack thereof.) I understand that this must be very difficult for them. So I really do respect them for it.

But I think there's something really wrong with people if they need religious dictation to act in an ethical manner.

I read an article today about the singer Andreas Bocelli. I can't remember the exact quote, but it was to the effect of "With life, you experience, sadness, serious illness, death ... this is not fun to endure without religion." Well, to be honest, while I see how religion could be a wonderful crutch in such circumstances ... I respect those who can face such experiences alone, without needing religion.

I don't need religion. I aim to do well, and act like a decent person, and treat others well, at all times. If I can do myself proud in life, and my family proud, without hurting anyone along the way, well then I'll be happy.

qrrgprgua

chatterpillar wrote: »

I was brought up by very devout Catholic parents, who go to mass every Sunday, and are very involved in the church (as regards doing readings, etc.)

My parents still love all of their children, even though we haven't followed their spiritual path. If we ever do good, it's not through Christianity - it's through being raised well, and through being a decent good person (i.e. not having been born an asshole.)

While I believe that all men an innately good. And that we don't need religion to tell us what is right and wrong, we know what to be right and wrong. Do not kill is a religious commandment but its also a human instinct. But if your parents had been immoral irreligious people who did not care about your education then you would not be the person you are today. The morals you have from your parents are a reflection on who they are as good moral people, who also happen to have faith.

Different religions have varying degrees of morality and Ethics. Catholicism has many aspects that are pulled from Greek Philosophers. Thomas Aquinas married many paths of thought with Christian Teaching.


Who will teach us ethics... Take a look at Russia after they tried to kill off religion.. Yes we can have a Good Ethical society built on secular principles.. but sometimes these principles get derailed from what is right. In the UK 80% plus Downs Syndrome pregnancies are aborted.. Its legal.. Is it morally right to discriminate against those disabled? Or who might be disabled? etc..etc..

Religion tends to have Moral principles that haven't changed over time. Have sex only with your wife or husband. There is nothing wrong teaching this.. if you followed this principle you might be happier than a person who sleeps around or someone who gets aids or gets dumped once the boyfriend gets tired and moves onto the next girl.

No one religion has it all when it comes to Morals and Ethics. But to discount religion totally is wrong.

The Big Red Button

qrrgprgua wrote: »

if your parents had been immoral irreligious people who did not care about your education then you would not be the person you are today. The morals you have from your parents are a reflection on who they are as good moral people, who also happen to have faith.

Unlike my parents, I am atheist, but I will teach my children (if I have any) to be good moral people. I will most certainly care about their education. I will not raise them to be religious; that is their choice and theirs alone.

qrrgprgua wrote: »

No one religion has it all when it comes to Morals and Ethics. But to discount religion totally is wrong.

I won't shield my children from religion, and I won't judge them if they choose to follow that path.

Certainly, religion is not something to be ignored, as it's a major influence in the world, and any educated person should be aware of its existence and power. So, in that sense, it would be irresponsible to discount it, yes.

b318isp

RussellTuring wrote: »

What was said about the morality of suicide?

Areas that were covered were:

- the finality of suicide as a solution to temporary problems
- the effects on those who have to deal with it
- guidance on not glorifying or reflecting on the details, but accepting the emotions
- identifying that problems are usual transient and are better tackled by seeking help and assistance

recedite

chatterpillar wrote: »

We were all brought up to be moral, respectful, polite human beings. My parents always emphasised the importance of caring for others, for treating others as we wish to be treated, to do good when we can.

And this is the way I continue to behave. I'd never purposely hurt another person. I'm honest. I regularly buy meals for homeless people, and sit down, and have a good chat, and eat with them (did this just today, as it happens, but it's not an infrequent thing for me.)

I'd suggest that both you and your parents would be ethical people with or without religion. Understanding that leads to the realisation that religious laws and morals (at least the good ones anyway) are all based on ethics, and not the other way round.
And then there is the whole "nature versus nurture" argument, and the possibility that someone having a similar upbringing to yours might react differently to the homeless people.
The best we can do as a society is to teach secular ethics to all kids and hope people turn out well. But if they don't, we send them to prison, not confession.

MrPudding

vibe666 wrote: »

i think i have just developed a new found respect for derren brown.

Check out his website. He has some very interesting blog entries.

MrP