Public Education and Ethics

It was a while ago when my parents and I were watching the news, which reported a few college students pulling off a prank that ended up getting them arrested (I think it was something involving riding nude on a motorcycle, but I can't be sure). My parents then made a comment about how education had been "wasted" on them; my curiosity into their statement led to the understanding that my parents believed morality and ethics should be something taught in school, with priority over academics. A similar situation later surfaced in which two middle school schoolgirls got into a rather violent off-school fight over a single boyfriend; the entire incident was videotaped, and although the police ended up not being involved, the school took punitive measures against the two students despite the fact that the fight occurred off school grounds and over the weekend.

So here's a question I'm pondering: In a world where morality and ethics are largely grey and gray, just how far should schools be allowed to go in teaching ethical behavior and morals, especially since, nowadays, code of conduct seems to be under the influence of faith, beliefs, and laws, and that an attempt to conform students to a certain form of ethics can be seen as a violation of freedom of thought? And how much leeway should school's be given to take measures against off-campus behavior?

This is a bit of a tough question for me to approach, but I'm personally of the belief (although, like almost all beliefs I hold, I don't back it strongly and am open to input) that ethics and morality should be something that parents should teach, not government-sponsored educational institutes that should be providing freedom of thought. I believe that schools should teach rules and laws, inform children of the existence of guidelines imposed by a group that one must follow. On the other hand, I also do not believe that schools have the responsibility (or the right, for that matter) to take off-campus behavior into their own hands. These reasons have something to do with my lack of particular bias; while I believe that schools have the responsibility to teach rules and laws, as any human being part of a group or nation must conform to such guidelines, I also believe that, as ethics and morality are also subjective concepts, they should be taught by parents, not government-sponsored education institutes. (This view is actually heavily influenced by my views towards unbiased news reporting, where I feel that news networks - as opposed to magazines and talk shows - should take a neutral stance as opposed to be biased towards any given side. Not exactly the same thing, but worth mentioning, I suppose. ^_^; )

Please note that I have differentiated between "ethics" and "laws"; they are two rather different concepts. ^_^;

I can pretty much just affirm what you've said. Schools are places, government run or otherwise, that should encourage free thought and should hold priority to gaining knowledge. Parent should teach their kids right from wrong, that's the way it's always been, since the dawn of man. Now, where I get a little confused is with boarding schools. Schools where the parents are absent for long periods of time. Then, I suppose, the issue has no choice but to fall to the teachers. I can say that if a person doesn't really want to be educated, most likely they're not going to get one. In such cases, it might be fair to say that it's wasted on them. However, that's just the price to pay for even having an educatinal system. Besides, a little nude motorcycle riding never hurt anyone...except maybe the ones riding the motorcycle, chrome can get very hot very fast.

Who decides what's morals?

Originally Posted by Danger

Who decides what's morals?

And this is exactly the argument I'm trying to make. Morality is subjective, and its acceptance varies from one human to another. An educational institute is not supposed to influence a student's way of subjectively assessing the world around him/her...at least, not in any nation that proclaims it values "freedom". Because that by itself influences values and beliefs, which I do not believe a school has the right to interfere in. School interference in morality is not unlike, in my opinion, interference in religious faith.

I think schools should teach students that they shouldn't break the law, but anything beyond that is more on the grounds of religion.

Originally Posted by Ysionris

Morality is subjective...

You're bringing up an issue here. Morality is generally taught to be objective. If you brought this up in one of my ethics courses, you would only let the professor talk for hours on why it is the case that morality is objective and not subjective like, say, aesthetics.

Morality isn't generally considered to be objective, it can be seen as entirely objective, entirely subjective, or any combination in between.

^I've neither read a book that assumes morality is subjective nor have had a philosophy professor claim that morality is subjective, which is why I'm thinking that it's the case that it is usually taught that way. There's no denying people view this differently.

Originally Posted by Lloyd Irving

^I've neither read a book that assumes morality is subjective nor have had a philosophy professor claim that morality is subjective, which is why I'm thinking that it's the case that it is usually taught that way. There's no denying people view this differently.

Moral realists believe morals are more objective while moral relativists believe morals are subjective. The sophists of Socrates's time are good examples of moral relativists, for example. However, Socrates was more of a moral realist, a sophos, and he's the guy that inspired most of Western Philosophy.

Originally Posted by Wrath of Pong

I think schools should teach students that they shouldn't break the law, but anything beyond that is more on the grounds of religion.

This brings up an interesting issue. For example, in the 30s and 40s in Germany it was illegal to harbor Jews, gypsies, gays, socialists, atheists, etc... Do you believe that those who chose to harbor the aforementioned were less moral than those who denied them because they were breaking the law?

Originally Posted by 8bit

This brings up an interesting issue. For example, in the 30s and 40s in Germany it was illegal to harbor Jews, gypsies, gays, socialists, atheists, etc... Do you believe that those who chose to harbor the aforementioned were less moral than those who denied them because they were breaking the law?

No. The German sympathizers at that time might of however. But modernly, when we look back at it with a new conception as to what is right and moral, we say no. It was an unjust law so breaking it was just, moral.

Originally Posted by Dread

Moral realists believe morals are more objective while moral relativists believe morals are subjective. The sophists of Socrates's time are good examples of moral relativists, for example. However, Socrates was more of a moral realist, a sophos, and he's the guy that inspired most of Western Philosophy.

The guy who screwed up Western Philosophy leading to civilizations that made it their business to intrude in other people's lives. Not that other people didn't intrude on each others' lives before but pooches got really screwed when you had western imperialists sticking their noses in. I could make a case for how Aristotle's emphasis on establishing hierarchies led to such conflicts as Rwanda and Shri Lanka.

Treating morals as if they were objective isn't that bad but trying to force other people to do so is where you have backlashes.

Anyways, I would think that it's probably up to the parents not the schools. Mostly because they're in the best position to do so. From day one, nurturing an infant with physical contact and love can give them the type of empathy that sociopaths tend to lack. That's just how are brains develop I guess.

Originally Posted by sage_of_fire

No. The German sympathizers at that time might of however. But modernly, when we look back at it with a new conception as to what is right and moral, we say no. It was an unjust law so breaking it was just, moral.

Then schools should not teach their students to follow the law, as we can clearly see that the law was the 'immoral' choice in this situation, yes?

Originally Posted by 8bit

Then schools should not teach their students to follow the law, as we can clearly see that the law was the 'immoral' choice in this situation, yes?

I think it's better to teach them to question authority, but they should be respectful of the law if it is just.

Originally Posted by 8bit

Then schools should not teach their students to follow the law, as we can clearly see that the law was the 'immoral' choice in this situation, yes?

Not quite~ See, there's a great difference between the "law" and "morals". The law is a set of rules to follow in a certain group, while morals are a standard of conscience that is not enforced. For example, Christian morality says that homosexuality is sinful, yet Californian law says it's quite alright to be gay. Gun-owners find nothing wrong with owning a handgun as long as they don't go running around shooting people, yet some nations have laws forbidding the possession of firearms. Law talks about what is allowed and disallowed; morals talks about what's right and wrong. There's very little choice in terms of law - you follow it or you don't, the latter of which has legal consequences - so schools have the responsibility to teach it for individuals to conform to a group. Morality, though? That totally depends on a person. Should homosexuality be considered a sin? Is possession of a firearm wrong? Must we believe in God? These are not things that legal educational institutions in a nation that claims freedom of thought and faith should be teaching.

Originally Posted by Dread

I think it's better to teach them to question authority, but they should be respectful of the law if it is just.

But then who decides when the law is just, and what 'just' means?

And even at that, why is justice the determining factor?

Originally Posted by Ysionris

Not quite~ See, there's a great difference between the "law" and "morals". The law is a set of rules to follow in a certain group, while morals are a standard of conscience that is not enforced. For example, Christian morality says that homosexuality is sinful, yet Californian law says it's quite alright to be gay. Gun-owners find nothing wrong with owning a handgun as long as they don't go running around shooting people, yet some nations have laws forbidding the possession of firearms. Law talks about what is allowed and disallowed; morals talks about what's right and wrong. There's very little choice in terms of law - you follow it or you don't, the latter of which has legal consequences - so schools have the responsibility to teach it for individuals to conform to a group. Morality, though? That totally depends on a person. Should homosexuality be considered a sin? Is possession of a firearm wrong? Must we believe in God? These are not things that legal educational institutions in a nation that claims freedom of thought and faith should be teaching.

There is a stark difference between teaching the law- which I agree with, and teaching that we should follow the law- which is dangerous and borderline abusive. It forces a concept of morality upon students- the concept that the law is always correct. It implies that individuals who are popularly characterized as heroes, individuals such as Rosa Parks, Thomas Jefferson, and the German Resistance, were acting as immoral because they acted against the law. It implies that the individuals who orchestrated the Holocaust were moral in their actions as they didn't break any laws in doing so.

This is something which seems extremely dangerous to be teaching generation upon generation of voters.

Originally Posted by 8bit

There is a stark difference between teaching the law- which I agree with, and teaching that we should follow the law- which is dangerous and borderline abusive. It forces a concept of morality upon students- the concept that the law is always correct. It implies that individuals who are popularly characterized as heroes, individuals such as Rosa Parks, Thomas Jefferson, and the German Resistance, were acting as immoral because they acted against the law. It implies that the individuals who orchestrated the Holocaust were moral in their actions as they didn't break any laws in doing so.

I do not deny - nor have I mentioned anywhere in my argument - that laws are sometimes flawed, and should often be analyzed and debated. What I am trying to say is that, because laws have direct legal consequences, educational institutes sponsored by the state have an obligation to teach them. It is also why I am not at all disinclined to allow debates of these concepts in school. Even if they are flawed - or, in other cases, outright wrong - it does not mean we should be ignorant of rules set down by an established authority. Morality doesn't necessarily come into it. ^_^;

Originally Posted by Ysionris

I do not deny - nor have I mentioned anywhere in my argument - that laws are sometimes flawed, and should often be analyzed and debated. What I am trying to say is that, because laws have direct legal consequences, educational institutes sponsored by the state have an obligation to teach them. It is also why I am not at all disinclined to allow debates of these concepts in school. Even if they are flawed - or, in other cases, outright wrong - it does not mean we should be ignorant of rules set down by an established authority. Morality doesn't necessarily come into it. ^_^;

However, you say that students should be taught to obey the law?

There's very little choice in terms of law - you follow it or you don't, the latter of which has legal consequences - so schools have the responsibility to teach it for individuals to conform to a group.

Perhaps I misunderstood. Are you saying that the schools should teach of the existence of laws so that students are aware of them, and can choose for themselves to conform to said laws if they wish to, or are you saying that schools should teach students to conform to laws?

Originally Posted by 8bit

However, you say that students should be taught to obey the law?

Of course. Again, a law might not be a morally right one, but these are one of the rules that you simply have to adapt to in a group - whether it be as small as a school or as large as a country - or do something about it. The problem is that these are rules that are set there. A student might not like the school uniform policy her school has - there's nothing inherently "wrong" with not having a school uniform - but this is something she's going to have to follow until something's done about it, or she's kicked out. In the same vein, there's nothing inherently wrong with dual nationalities, but some countries don't allow it. So until you do something about it, well, dual nationalities is out of the question. It's that simple. And one shouldn't be naive enough to believe that posing a challenge to the authorities won't land them in trouble. Thomas Jefferson received much political flak and was a target for the British, Rosa Parks was arrested, and most of the German Resistance were eventually rounded up and killed in the waning years of the Nazi Party.

Laws are not always correct, and children should be taught to think for themselves and have freedom of choice and thought...but not so they can do "anything they want". There are rules already there.

Originally Posted by 8bit

Perhaps I misunderstood. Are you saying that the schools should teach of the existence of laws so that students are aware of them, and can choose for themselves to conform to said laws if they wish to, or are you saying that schools should teach students to conform to laws?

Although neither choice seems to exactly represent what I'm saying, I'll choose the former. Schools must teach the concept of law. That much is simple enough. There are rules as far down as schools and companies and cities and states and countries. You don't follow them, you get into all kinds of trouble. Students, as children, must learn what the law is, and the consequences of them. I'm pretty sure neither Thomas Jefferson nor Rosa Parks nor the German Resistance got into what they were doing without realizing what would happen if they were caught (and two of these entities were caught). On the other hand, students should also be informed that laws are not always "right", and they are also constantly changing and streamlining themselves to conform to our daily standards. There are always bills being passed in Congress, and laws being repealed. There's always room for improvement. Students should understand that they have a voice. But, at the same time, they should know that the wrong way of approaching these laws result in consequences. Consequences that may also not be right or wrong - the problem with morality - and right or wrong - is really just how subjective it is - but legal consequences nonetheless.

Do I make myself clear this time? ^_^;

Originally Posted by sage_of_fire

I can pretty much just affirm what you've said. Schools are places, government run or otherwise, that should encourage free thought and should hold priority to gaining knowledge. Parent should teach their kids right from wrong, that's the way it's always been, since the dawn of man. Now, where I get a little confused is with boarding schools. Schools where the parents are absent for long periods of time. Then, I suppose, the issue has no choice but to fall to the teachers. I can say that if a person doesn't really want to be educated, most likely they're not going to get one. In such cases, it might be fair to say that it's wasted on them. However, that's just the price to pay for even having an educatinal system. Besides, a little nude motorcycle riding never hurt anyone...except maybe the ones riding the motorcycle, chrome can get very hot very fast.

Not true, in most societies, as well as our own, your immediate family and/or your immediate society (those idividuals you interact with everyday but aren't related to you, e.g. teachers, friends, coaches, etc...) are responsible for teaching you right from wrong, and this is how it should be. As great as parents you might have, no two single parents are always right and can always teach their kids the right thing. However, neither can a group of people be better suited to teaching absolute right from wrong. In general, I think though, the more people involved in rearing a person, the less chance that person will be taught the wrong thing.

This is really kinda a subjective viewpoint too, but it's hard to talk about right and wrong without one. Who can prove right and wrong? Good and evil? One almost has to assume a certain reality about the world in order to.