Why Our Children Don't Think There are Moral Facts

[Thor]

So...you worked in Mayberry?

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

My kids will be ready to take a part in the 1% while every one else swims in the feces.

It's always nice to see people break out of that "My kids are better than your kids" home-schooling stereotype.

 

[findingZzero]

Kids don't cheat on tests because they have no 'moral facts' whatever those are. This seems to be an argument for 'belief' vs facts. I discount the idea that w/o religion we have no 'moral' compass. I think we've evolved to do what works best for community, then add these ideas to our belief system. Thou shalt not kill because it really makes people sad, messes up things, and generally disrupts how we get along. We call this 'good' vs, 'bad.'
I'll stick with what they're teaching in public school, and save the subtle philosophical distinctions for higher ed.

"As for fact vs.opinion in 2nd grade: this is a vital move toward the loss of egocentrism and is developmentally sound. It is surprisingly difficult to get THAT across to younger kids."*
And,
" Ethical statement are not facts, they are conclusions. They are principle-based judgments. So, it is a sound conclusion that one should not lie or steal if one bases one's ethics on Kant's categorical imperative or the Golden Rule more generally. To call such a conclusion a "fact" is to conflate facts with reasoned inferences."*
* from the first response to the article.

 

[Thor]

It's always nice to see people break out of that "My kids are better than your kids" home-schooling stereotype.

Pffft. Got nothing to do with 'my kids' got to do with no longer putting up with the drivel fed to them by mandate. You want better? Do better, no one else is going to take them there.

I'm sick to death of people saying the system ain't treating them right while the sit there waiting for it get better.

 

[Cola76]

And, after reading the article again, the writer at least proves that he doesn't believe that it's a "moral fact" that it's wrong to be disingenuous. The article begins by suggesting that schools teach children that it's not wrong to kill or to cheat. But then, in his further explanation, he admits that schools, in fact, don't teach those things, but just that schools separate those kinds of "truths" from the - if you drop an apple it will fall - kinds of "truths". The writer may claim to be knowledgeable in philosophy, but he obviously knows very little of logic.

I don't think you are being fair in your assessment. He does not say that the schools do not teach right and wrong, but that they give mixed messages by also teaching that statements about right and wrong do not qualify as facts or can be considered truth in an objective sense. To teach students that cheating is wrong on one hand, and that such a statement is just an opinion on the other hand seems to me to undermine any authority in holding a student accountable for cheating. And that is the author's point. He is arguing that schools are not merely separating types of truth, but implicitly teaching there is only one type of truth; one that can be physically measured or observed. He is arguing that "truth" and "fact" are being conflated. All which seem to be correct. His logic is fine.

 

[Denny347]

Saw problems with the gubmint schools with our son....took him out and home schooled him, he thrived (SAT in the top 2%). Daughter will never go there.

Yeah, we do find the oddest things to complain about. Like forced sex ed and common core BS. My kids will be ready to take a part in the 1% while every one else swims in the feces.

Unfortunately they may find it well past time to water the liberty tree by the time they are ready to partake. They will be ready for that too, it's all part of the education.

Nice, my feces swimming kids seem to do quite well thank you. My 8th grader just took the SAT for the first time on invitation by Northwestern University. If it works for you, great but don't **** on the rest of us please.

 

[Cola76]

Kids don't cheat on tests because they have no 'moral facts' whatever those are. This seems to be an argument for 'belief' vs facts. I discount the idea that w/o religion we have no 'moral' compass. I think we've evolved to do what works best for community, then add these ideas to our belief system. Thou shalt not kill because it really makes people sad, messes up things, and generally disrupts how we get along. We call this 'good' vs, 'bad.'
I'll stick with what they're teaching in public school, and save the subtle philosophical distinctions for higher ed.

The real critique of moral systems without religion is that they are not grounded, and that they lack fundamental grounds for compelling others to adhere to them. A set of morals may benefit one's group, but not another group's needs and desires or anyone as an individual. So, what is to say that one should respect the morality of another? On what moral grounds can one claim to hold someone responsible to a moral system?

"As for fact vs.opinion in 2nd grade: this is a vital move toward the loss of egocentrism and is developmentally sound. It is surprisingly difficult to get THAT across to younger kids."*

I agree the author is expecting a bit much from 2nd graders, but a fine point can be made to older students.

And,
" Ethical statement are not facts, they are conclusions. They are principle-based judgments. So, it is a sound conclusion that one should not lie or steal if one bases one's ethics on Kant's categorical imperative or the Golden Rule more generally. To call such a conclusion a "fact" is to conflate facts with reasoned inferences."*
* from the first response to the article.

The author seems to be more concerned about acknowledging categorical imperatives and principles such as the Golden Rule, to use your examples. The deontological imperative that one ought not kill is taken to be true, though not necessarily a fact, which is the author's point. The author wants to insist that something can be true without adhering to the given definition of a fact; something that is implicitly denied by the juxtaposed definitions of fact and opinion the author mentions.

 

[Thor]

Have a nice day.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Nice, my feces swimming kids seem to do quite well thank you. My 8th grader just took the SAT for the first time on invitation by Northwestern University. If it works for you, great but don't **** on the rest of us please.

That's great. I'm sure you're proud of your kid. But with all due respect, when liberal indoctrination centers seek out and invite our kids, we might want to take pause and consider whether it's such a good thing anymore. Does Northwestern truly support freedom of speech, for example? Or will they do like OU did when students exercised expressed their 1A rights? Does that mean NWU is inviting your kid because s/he truly brings in diversity of thought or that s/he will "fit in"?

 

[Denny347]

That's great. I'm sure you're proud of your kid. But with all due respect, when liberal indoctrination centers seek out and invite our kids, we might want to take pause and consider whether it's such a good thing anymore. Does Northwestern truly support freedom of speech, for example? Or will they do like OU did when students exercised expressed their 1A rights? Does that mean NWU is inviting your kid because s/he truly brings in diversity of thought or that s/he will "fit in"?

Umm, kids are invited based on their reading levels ( I don't recall the name of the test all the kids take). He is 13 and reads above a college level (that is as high as it goes). My friends daughter went through the same process, invited by Northwestern University Talent Search. She now has a full scholarship to Culver Academy based on her SAT score from 8th grade. Is that the liberal indoctrination center you speak of? We are looking at universities based on their science programs, the more offers the better.

 

[findingZzero]

The real critique of moral systems without religion is that they are not grounded, and that they lack fundamental grounds for compelling others to adhere to them. A set of morals may benefit one's group, but not another group's needs and desires or anyone as an individual. So, what is to say that one should respect the morality of another? On what moral grounds can one claim to hold someone responsible to a moral system?

Grounded in religion. Grounded in tradition? We have many religions that say similar things, e.g., be good, not bad. Tradition (I include that which works well) may be seen as religion. Societies that work well and thrive have similar traditions (I know this may be weak). That is my 'belief', or opinion. I haven't done the research. As I stated in my previous post, tradition may become religion. This becomes grounding. Don't eat pig! Pig kills! Not eating pig is holy......
I was replying and my argument was wiped out by a MS Windows restart. Divine intervention?



I agree the author is expecting a bit much from 2nd graders, but a fine point can be made to older students.



The author seems to be more concerned about acknowledging categorical imperatives and principles such as the Golden Rule, to use your examples. The deontological imperative that one ought not kill is taken to be true, though not necessarily a fact, which is the author's point. The author wants to insist that something can be true without adhering to the given definition of a fact; something that is implicitly denied by the juxtaposed definitions of fact and opinion the author mentions.

If life does exist elsewhere, it's conditionally true, the condition being proof by the scientific method. I don't know if I've addressed your ideas, or just expressed mine. I hope maybe both. Cheers.

Dear MODS,
Is it OK to talk religion in a gen'l sense (philosophically) and civilly, or are we skirting the rules?? I apologize in advance.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

The real critique of moral systems without religion is that they are not grounded, and that they lack fundamental grounds for compelling others to adhere to them. A set of morals may benefit one's group, but not another group's needs and desires or anyone as an individual. So, what is to say that one should respect the morality of another? On what moral grounds can one claim to hold someone responsible to a moral system?

There is no reason that a secular moral system cannot be developed and utilized by people. A secular moral system need only be grounded by the nature of it's tenants. "Other" kinds of moral systems have no greater intrinsic quality other than that have been written and widely acknowledged.

I don't think you are being fair in your assessment. He does not say that the schools do not teach right and wrong, but that they give mixed messages by also teaching that statements about right and wrong do not qualify as facts or can be considered truth in an objective sense.

So, when the author says:

What would you say if you found out that our public schools were teaching children that it is not true that it’s wrong to kill people for fun or cheat on tests? Would you be surprised?

You don't read that as the author reporting to us that schools are teaching kids that it's not wrong to kill or cheat?

To teach students that cheating is wrong on one hand, and that such a statement is just an opinion on the other hand seems to me to undermine any authority in holding a student accountable for cheating.

It only would undermine authority if students were also taught that the opinion of the school wasn't important and that there would be no consequences to disregarding it.

He is arguing that schools are not merely separating types of truth, but implicitly teaching there is only one type of truth; one that can be physically measured or observed. He is arguing that "truth" and "fact" are being conflated. All which seem to be correct. His logic is fine.

He is arguing that certain opinions should be considered as truths, and he gives what he thinks is a valid reason to do that, just as you have done. Neither you nor the author could give, as part of your argument, a definition of truth and of opinion, and then logically prove the that the statement "It is wrong to cheat in school" and the statement "If you drop an apple, it will fall" fit the same definition.

 

[T.Lex]

There is no reason that a secular moral system cannot be developed and utilized by people.

I do not necessarily disagree, but I can only think of 1 real-world example: Communism. Whether the example is Russian/Soviet or Chinese, I don't think there have been any other secular moral systems on a wide scale, across an even nominally non-homogenous society.

I'm not sure we can really count those as successful. Yet. Or, maybe it is more accurate - at least in China's case - to say it has been successful so far.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

I do not necessarily disagree, but I can only think of 1 real-world example: Communism. Whether the example is Russian/Soviet or Chinese, I don't think there have been any other secular moral systems on a wide scale, across an even nominally non-homogenous society.

I'm not sure we can really count those as successful. Yet. Or, maybe it is more accurate - at least in China's case - to say it has been successful so far.

I think American society can be thought of as an example of secular morals. Yes, our government isn't entirely secular, and many argue that it wasn't founded to be that. But, if you look at the people of so many other cultures, beliefs, and traditions that can assimilate into American society, it is the secular idea of "The American Dream" that draws them all here. And it's our secular system of laws founded on fairness, evenness, and mutual respect into which they all make their places and become part of American Culture, while maintaining, for the most part, their own spiritual traditions.

I would never say that secular morals are best. I just think they've got perhaps more going for them than they've been given credit.

 

[Bill of Rights]

...
Dear MODS,
Is it OK to talk religion in a gen'l sense (philosophically) and civilly, or are we skirting the rules?? I apologize in advance.

Good question. The no-religious-discussion rule was put in place because peoples opinions about God were held as facts and, as George Carlin so famously put it, the "My God has a bigger d*** than your God" type arguments ensued. These led to people insulting each other and getting themselves banned, which, when the bans happened, got us accused of favoritism. Fenway finally had enough and made the rule as you see it. Overall, he (and we) think it was a good decision.

And yes, I did what I did on purpose in that second sentence above re: opinion/fact.

I will say that discussion of general philosophical principles (which most religions teach) is probably OK. When we get into specifics of "Well, Judaism teaches you only need to confess sins once a year and that's bad, but my Catholicism teaches you should go to confession every week, and that's good." (just an example of a difference that I hope will actually be non-controversial, but I'm using for illustration,) those tended to devolve. Let's keep it philosophical, and above all, keep it civil. If you're upset when you prepare to post and you're about to move away from the discussion to insult the member posting what you disagree with, step away from the keyboard and take an hour or so to chill out. When you come back, discuss the points, not the person. A former co-worker of mine used to say, "We can disagree without being disagreeable." and that, I think, is the crux of it.

Bottom line: Can we discuss religion in a general, philosophical sense, civilly? I don't know. I'm going to say you may try in this thread, and we'll see where it goes. Please do not make me regret making this decision.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Thor]

.

 

[deal me in]

This is a fascinating topic to me, and although I have no background in philosophy, I've done some reading on the topic. Some of you may know Sam Harris from his anti-religion books and debates but he is also a neuroscientist and has written a book on morality called "The Moral Landscape". He argues that we can take a scientific approach to morality similar to the op's article in my opnion.

From Wiki:
The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values is a book by Sam Harris. In it, he promotes a science of morality and argues that many thinkers have long confused the relationship between morality, facts, and science. He aims to carve a third path between secularists who say morality is subjective (e.g. moral relativists), and religionists who say that morality is given by God and scripture. Harris contends that the only moral framework worth talking about is one where "morally good" things pertain to increases in the "well-being of conscious creatures". He then argues that, problems with philosophy of science and reason in general notwithstanding, 'moral questions' will have objectively right and wrong answers which are grounded in empirical facts about what causes people to flourish.


Edit to add: My own moral philosophy is a combination of Sam's system and my belief in personal property rights including the rights identified by the enlightenment thinkers that you'll find in our Declaration of independence and other writings of the time.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Sounds like Mr. Harris's book would be an interesting read. I wouldn't say that I have a background in philosophy either, except for the few philosophy classes I took in college, and some reading since then, and from that short synopsis, I would tend to agree with Mr. Harris on some points.

One thing that always attracted me to philosophy, logic in particular, is the process of "splitting apart" an argument or idea and attempting to get to the root matter or matters involved. I believe that most times, what looks like disagreement in principal can oftentimes be simply a matter of people arguing from slightly differing "starting points" or perspectives. To me, that's like two carpenters arguing about the best way to frame a building, when neither realizes that the other has a different idea in mind for the foundation.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

It's always nice to see people break out of that "My kids are better than your kids" home-schooling stereotype.

I went to a hillbilly public school, the kind where SOMEONE is driving a tractor to prom, and did all right for myself. Odd.

 

[Denny347]

I went to a hillbilly public school, the kind where SOMEONE is driving a tractor to prom, and did all right for myself. Odd.

Weeeeeeeeeelllllllllll