thinkdr wrote:HI, Karpal
Thank you for a fine contribution to the discussion. I believe I grasp your position: I see where you're coming from.
That "other teacher" of which you speak does not seem to be adhering to the major concepts of the curriculum here proposed. He does not show a familiarity with the system of Ethics on which this proposed course is based. Does he actually define Ethics the way The Structure of Ethics booklet does?
I find this an odd question. It seems obvious to me that we are dealing with a world where people prioritize values differently EVEN when they agree completely on the list of values (which is rare) AND define them the same way (which is rare) AND apply them the same way in practice (which is rare). Those 'rares' add up to, it seems to me, you're assuming somehow that everyone is going to unite behind your list of values, prioritize them the same way you do, define them the same way you do, and apply them the same way you want them to. IOW you have found the objectively demonstrable, logical list, prioritization and application of values. A kind of secular bible. Of course there are going to be vast numbers of teachers who, even if they share the same list of values you have, will have very different interpretations, prioritizations and application ideas. People are not simply making deductive errors from a priori values.
Yes, I agree that "Even accepting completely your list could lead to very different conclusions about how to behave, depending on the interpretation of those words and how they are prioritized" You have found a difficulty. Does that mean we should not go ahead with the project ..because there is a difficulty?
It's not merely a difficulty, it is precisely what has been faced by every person arriving with scripture (secular or sacred) and telling people these are the objective values. People disagree, not due to reasoning, though this also, but because they want different things. Love and hate different things.
What I see, and I mean this gently, since we all have issues with hubris, is that while you are extremely polite and engage in dialogue in a reasonable way, you lack humility in the way you present the issue. You don't seem to grasp that there are fundamental value differences that go way below the level of booklets and deduction and your sense of what the obvious, that is apriori values are. I have tended to respond with how conservatives might reorder your list because to me it sounds like you are a liberal in the way you conceive of the list and the prioritizations. To give a hint of some of the problems you are likely to run into. I could be wrong, perhaps you are not a liberal or are mixed, though my guess is people who identify as conservatives are going to find your work more offensive, because it comes off as condescending. People who don't agree with you are simply not following the reasoning correctly. When in fact they may look at life fundamentally differently. You assume we are more or less all the same and want the same things. And that differences come from problems in reasoning. I don't see it that way at all.
I have been assuming that what is taught in the References given below was rather clear and understandable. Maybe I was wrong. I realize I cannot make a student care if due to his upbringing and his background experiences he has already been conditioned to cheat, to embezzle, to be selfish, to give in to any temptation, to corrupt himself, and to be quite dishonest.
And here's an example. You couched every difference with your values, here, using pejorative terms. Right there a gap is going to open up with people with different values than you. Let's just look at the word selfish and imagine how conservatives and liberals might vary on what behaviors they label with a perjorative term like selfish rahter than a neutral or even positive term. And notice how you also make it binary 'give in to any temptation.' Rather than all the range of behaviors between utter abstemiousness and hedonism. If we put these at the level of politics I think it should be obvious that there is not some clear logical prioritization of pleasure seeking and putting one's self, family, neighborhood or nation first and how much.
I mean you could have given up your computer and sent nearly all your money to a charity dealing with poor drinking water in the third world. You chose a spot on a wide spectrum and there are people who will judge you selfish, whereas in US middle class circles you may be on the more giving, in terms of charities, end of that spectrum. And there is NO logical argument that will prove that you, pr the anarchist who gives everything to charity, or the less generous than you middle class guy, or the high achiever not charitable giver who prioritizes achieving technlogical progress in his field, has made the objectively correct amount of giving. And their kids are, if you are incredibly lucky, going to be the ones in classes that base their curriculum on your booklet.
So what are their families going to think when their kids come home having understood that you know what the right amount of giving is and what is selfish? And how are you going to look to those who think you let yourself off too easy?
And how do you look to philosophers who notice that you don't seem to grasp how hard and complicated this is, nor that you are basically pushing your values as if they are logically deduced and don't realize how much reliance what is obvious to you is based on your values and your unproven foundations.
One course, even if it assigns doing a good deed as homework, will not make that student care about not hurting others. Most of the other students, though, who take this course may learn to care about someone other than themselves.
We have an enormous history of various moralities giving tasks to children to teach them what to feel. I think the problems are much more complicated than some of them not caring about hurting others. Guilt, giving when one should not be put in the position to give: how will the teachers figure out which kids are being sexually abused or shamed at home and the last thing they need is some moralizing adult teaching them to be giving? As one example amongst many. I mean, it's as if we haven't had moral education from a wide variety of sources fail for reasons you do not seem to even be aware of.
As you know, this course does teach Individuality to be a high value ! Conformity is the least in value,
And here you seem to me to be failing to understand implicit teaching and content teaching. While the content may not prioritize conformity your attitude and the teaching of morality itself is enacting conformism. Seeing children unenthusiastic about homework assignments sending them off to give to someone as selfish is a perfect attitude to at least try to create conformism.
So, my point is not 'hey this is going to be hard, don't bother', it's more like 'I am not sure you really understand the problem, nor do I think you realize that you are actually promoting YOUR values while promoting them as objective and rational, which will entail an implicit message of if you don't agree with me you are irrational which further entails I know what you really want, you want what I want.' I think that has both practical AND correctness problems. IOW it is both alienating AND not really the case.
And I am not arguing this because I think your values are wrong. My sense is we might prefer many of the same behaviors in the people we come in contact with. I am precisely NOT arguing that you values are wrong or you should have other values (for example conservative ones, if those are not your values). I think a look at the problems liberals have had in trying to convince conservatives about a wide variety of issues would reveal the problems of this approach both epistemologically and practically. I am not saying your booklet has nothing new in it, but in a general way it has been done before many times and it has , I think, often actually increased the gaps between people with different values.
