Is it worth it anymore to teach kids today ethics?

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Is it worth it anymore to teach kids today ethics? In school I mean. I was required in my senior year of high school, which I just finished up few months ago, to take a career course. The one particular section spoke about being ethical. They made a remark in there to the effect of:


If you are told to do something you don't believe in, then don't do it. Even if you lose your job, at least you know you did what you believe in.


Really? My father did that. He was a electrical engineer for the past 38 years. He was always nice to people. He always 'show up' bosses when they did something yucky. Now, he is making 2/3's of what he use to make. His friends at Westinghouse? He helped them, and are they returning the favor? Nope.


How about the people at the last company he worked for where he made his normal salary. Sure, that company's admin staff was fools, and he was right in a sense when he stood them up right before they went under..... And another company moved in, hired all the kiss-butt people.... but my father. So much for trying to be a "fair" engineer/manager.

He told me "there is no ethics in business". He also warned me never to trust anyone and to be as ruthless if not more then the rest of the people I shall work for when I'm out of college. I myself will do so, since I have a burning hatred for people who try to screw me over now a days.


Does it pay to be ethical anymore? What you think?

My opinion is clear. It is useless.

[Fragony]

'If you are told to do something you don't believe in, then don't do it. Even if you lose your job, at least you know you did what you believe in.'

The people who wrote that are kinda out of touch with reality, typical for people who live from networking. If it all goes wrong they take a jump in the lake and wait untill someone reels them up again.

[Reenk Roink]

What exactly would they even teach? They should just learn the things you learn in kindergarten and then pick it up the rest along from society at large like most people do. That serves most people quite well in life.

[seireikhaan]

Does it pay to be ethical anymore? What you think?

My opinion is clear. It is useless.
If you're trying to determine whether having a moral code "pays off", you're missing the point.

[Andres]

If you're trying to determine whether having a moral code "pays off", you're missing the point.

Indeed.

Also, ethics can be flexible and making an exception for practical reasons or to earn a bit more...

Ehm...

:creep:

[Monk]

'If you are told to do something you don't believe in, then don't do it. Even if you lose your job, at least you know you did what you believe in.'

The people who wrote that are kinda out of touch with reality, typical for people who live from networking. If it all goes wrong they take a jump in the lake and wait untill someone reels them up again.

My guess it's an out of context and incredibly paraphrased argument, as the amount of times you're going to encounter a moment in your life where your job calls into question your beliefs is very low in my experience. (unless you work for the government then it could be Thunderdome for all I know :laugh4:)

[Vladimir]

My guess it's an out of context and incredibly paraphrased argument, as the amount of times you're going to encounter a moment in your life where your job calls into question your beliefs is very low in my experience. (unless you work for the government then it could be Thunderdome for all I know :laugh4:)

http://www.usajobs.gov/

Two men enter; one man leaves.

[a completely inoffensive name]

What the hell do you mean anymore? At least in the state where I live, ethnics is not a required class, is not offered and thus no one in my city (this is the only region I know for sure) has ever learned ethics.

[Megas Methuselah]

You have to take a class in ethics? Why the hell would the state require you to take a class in freakin' ethics? That sort of BS shouldn't be taught in public schools.

[gaelic cowboy]

I had to study Engineering Ethics in college and it surprised me how nuanced the situation could turn even in a field like engineering.

I would say it should be taught you just never know it might actually save your company money and earn you promotion

[Rhyfelwyr]

Sounds like the wishy-washy feel good crap, who is going to listen to that anyway?

[Megas Methuselah]

Ah-hah. I saw the title and overreacted thinking we would have children in elementary school being taught a european ethical code to live by.

Yeah, you're right, Gaelic. I remember being taught about ethics in accounting classes. It's not entirely about doing what you feel is right, but doing what is legal.

[Rhyfelwyr]

It didn't sound like legal stuff from the quote Warman gave.

[Husar]

Violence is always the best solution. ~;)

[a completely inoffensive name]

The point of ethics isn't to achieve a successful life while living a "moral" life.

The problem with having an ethics class as with any humanity such as philosophy or logic is that one class is not enough to instill the practice of utilizing ethics, logic or philosophic thinking in a person unless such person is willing to learn from the beginning for whatever reason.

Let's give a questionnaire to every single person in America age 30+. It's a math test covering all of math up to Calculus. Essentially, algebra, trigonometry and geometry. Now lets see how many people actually get more then even 50% of the questions right. Oh looks like the vast, vast majority fail like actual studies have shown? Then why do we bother even teaching math anymore? Let's end the math at pre algebra since for the most part math will just hold you back from taking the initiative in the free market by having you waste time solving difficult equations about profit while risk takers go for the opportunity as soon as it arrives.

Does it pay to know math anymore?

[Megas Methuselah]

I still ask myself why the hell I bothered going all the way up to Calculus.

Ah well, it's just another thing to fill my conceit.

[Ice]

Since it seems most people don't know basic ethics, yes it's more important than ever.

[Beskar]

Kohlberg is rolling in his grave.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Really? My father did that. He was a electrical engineer for the past 38 years. He was always nice to people. He always 'show up' bosses when they did something yucky. Now, he is making 2/3's of what he use to make. His friends at Westinghouse? He helped them, and are they returning the favor? Nope.


How about the people at the last company he worked for where he made his normal salary. Sure, that company's admin staff was fools, and he was right in a sense when he stood them up right before they went under..... And another company moved in, hired all the kiss-butt people.... but my father. So much for trying to be a "fair" engineer/manager.

We actually went over engineering ethics in a ChE seminar as a senior. The bottom line is; you do the ethical thing because it's right, not because you want to continue your career. Sad but that's the way it is.


http://www.usajobs.gov/

Two men enter; one man leaves.

Using that site is like pulling teeth. Your own teeth. :angry:

CR

[PanzerJaeger]

I had ethics classes throughout (Catholic) elementary and high school. Much of it involved leaving campus to do charity work around the city, and then reflecting back on those experiences in essays. If you took it seriously you got invited to go on the annual mission trip to Mexico and somewhere more exotic during Senior year (I went to Brazil).

I really credit those experiences with helping instill a bit of compassion in my black soul. ~:)

[Megas Methuselah]

That's good, mane, that's good. Do some charity trips to the reserves up here, they're little pockets of third-world nations in one of the world's most comfortable countries to live.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That's good, mane, that's good. Do some charity trips to the reserves up here, they're little pockets of third-world nations in one of the world's most comfortable countries to live.

Honestly Meth, if I ever do follow through on my desire to be a politician, I would be pushing the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_Indian_Affairs) (link) for as much help and reconstruction efforts to turn Indian Reservations into self sufficient, prosperous, independent entities as I could. It would mostly be due to hearing your first hand experience with native reservations in Canada and their lack of a real voice which in all likeness are probably very similar in situation to native reservations in the US. No joke.

[Cute Wolf]

teach ethics all you want, those kids will pick up their own set of etics in their life if they found yourself dissapointing

[Strike For The South]

Do what you want, but realize they day might come where you need help and it is much eaiser to get if you have been giving.

People don't foget and that is the only true fact I have ever come across

And I'm 20 so I know everything

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

If you're trying to determine whether having a moral code "pays off", you're missing the point.

No, I don't think you understand. Explain your thoughts to me.

:inquisitive:


You have to take a class in ethics? Why the hell would the state require you to take a class in freakin' ethics? That sort of BS shouldn't be taught in public schools.



Yes sir.


My father always did the right/legal thing.... and he is working at a crap job. The people who screwed him over, are making at least 3 times more then him.

[Megas Methuselah]

My father always did the right/legal thing.... and he is working at a crap job. The people who screwed him over, are making at least 3 times more then him.

Boy, we have different understandings over what's right and what's wrong. Whether we follow such moral codes or not isn't my point.

But when it comes to the law, legal ethics should be taught. We must understand what is legal and illegal in the workplace in order to better understand our legal rights and those of others. If you're a victim of illegal acts, then the law will be on your side. Contact human resources or the cops.



EDIT: Mike, u mah homie 4 life. Y'hear?

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Boy, we have different understandings over what's right and what's wrong. Whether we follow such moral codes or not isn't my point.

But when it comes to the law, legal ethics should be taught. We must understand what is legal and illegal in the workplace in order to better understand our legal rights and those of others. If you're a victim of illegal acts, then the law will be on your side. Contact human resources or the cops.







And I agree to a point. But say, Wal-mart is using illegal actives (according to some former employees) to crush the unions and they still.... get away with things.

That my point. It might be illegal, but a lot of people don't report it anyhow for whatever their reasons.


EDIT: Mike, u mah homie 4 life. Y'hear?

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: OK, mein brotha, keep in cool in the diddy O!

[Megas Methuselah]

Ok. But you're not Mike. :laugh4:

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

But my first name happens to be Mike :laugh: :yes:.

[Megas Methuselah]

Oh, wow. That didn't strike you as an exceedingly freaky post, then?

[Moros]

How can you teach a collection of personal opinions?

[a completely inoffensive name]

EDIT: Mike, u mah homie 4 life. Y'hear?

I hear ya!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think what Meth is talking about is "Ethics" in the systematic sense, as a system for understanding morality, Warman seems to be talking about "morals" as in a code to live by.

My view is simple: A man ( or woman, I suppose) is born with a clean soul, he dirties it throughout his life. In all ways he should strive to dirty it as little as possible, so that he leaves behind a good name and the world better for his having lived.

Bluntly: Imorality is inexcusable.

[Megas Methuselah]

That's a nice view, PVC. Too bad we aren't all provided with equal opportunities throughout our seperate lifetimes to keep our little souls clean. While some people are able to walk across a bridge, others are forced by their lot in life to swim across the swampy river.

It sucks, but that's life. Roll with it.


I hear ya!

Fo' sho', mane!

[a completely inoffensive name]

Ethics is what needs to be taught.
Morals are what each person should develop independently through their life, utilizing the tools learned from studying ethics.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's a nice view, PVC. Too bad we aren't all provided with equal opportunities throughout our seperate lifetimes to keep our little souls clean. While some people are able to walk across a bridge, others are forced by their lot in life to swim across the swampy river.

It sucks, but that's life. Roll with it.

Yes, I wish my parents weren't poor.

Still, that doesn't allow me to be amoral.

[Ironside]

My father always did the right/legal thing.... and he is working at a crap job. The people who screwed him over, are making at least 3 times more then him.

Until it backfires for them...

Roughly a position of power gives a higher ability to screw people over and get away with it. Why do you think power is both popular and currupting? But that also often means that they fall harder if they don't get away with it.

Society works best if everyone follows the moral codes, but as an induvidual, abusing it can often give extra advantages, but carries an extra risk because your actions is a threat to the fundations of society. So it is always worth teaching kids ethics and people will still always break it. But with less ethics, society will be gloomier and weaker.

Short note: Life's unfair, do the best of it, but know that all paths have their consequences. And that happiness is not equal power.

Oh and it really helps to be popular/charismatic and be a very good people reader.

[Moros]

Ethics is what needs to be taught.
Morals are what each person should develop independently through their life, utilizing the tools learned from studying ethics.
So how do you teach someone unspecified morals?

[a completely inoffensive name]

So how do you teach someone unspecified morals?

Again, you are not teaching them morals. Ethics is different then morals.

From the wikipedia page:
Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is a branch of philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy) that addresses questions about morality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality)—that is, concepts such as good vs. bad, noble vs. ignoble, right vs. wrong, and matters of justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice), love (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love), peace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace), and virtue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue).

Here is the difference, the ethics class teaches you to think "What is good? What is bad? Is there any value we can put on a measure of good or bad?" The morality class would teach you, "This is bad, this is wrong."

Teaching morals is a bad idea because morality is subjective. Teaching ethics is great because all ethics is, is instilling a habit of questioning morality for the purpose of improving it. So whatever morals you have are not being labeled as wrong, but is internally challenged.

Morals is not = to ethics. One is not the "unspecified" version of the other.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Until it backfires for them...



And it usually doesn't . :yes:


:bow:

[Moros]

Again, you are not teaching them morals. Ethics is different then morals.

From the wikipedia page:
Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is a branch of philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy) that addresses questions about morality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality)—that is, concepts such as good vs. bad, noble vs. ignoble, right vs. wrong, and matters of justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice), love (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love), peace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace), and virtue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue).

Here is the difference, the ethics class teaches you to think "What is good? What is bad? Is there any value we can put on a measure of good or bad?" The morality class would teach you, "This is bad, this is wrong."

Teaching morals is a bad idea because morality is subjective. Teaching ethics is great because all ethics is, is instilling a habit of questioning morality for the purpose of improving it. So whatever morals you have are not being labeled as wrong, but is internally challenged.

Morals is not = to ethics. One is not the "unspecified" version of the other.

It's not like they don't try to pose their morals on you. And a class that tries to change the way you think, especialy if based on government program is a scary idea. Exactly how are they gonna make you think what is good or bad anyway? People automatically do that and can evaluate that, in how much they let themselves be influenced however is a different thing. In the end all these classes do is waste time and energy, and fail at trying the 'children' to take over their morals. Ethic classes are silly. Leave it to the parents, though sadly they will not have time nor interest to learn their kids that. They are way t bussy with piona class, paintclasses, football practice, theoretical physics and homework anyway.

[Reenk Roink]

Again, you are not teaching them morals. Ethics is different then morals.

From the wikipedia page:
Ethics (also known as moral philosophy) is a branch of philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy) that addresses questions about morality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality)—that is, concepts such as good vs. bad, noble vs. ignoble, right vs. wrong, and matters of justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice), love (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love), peace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace), and virtue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue).

Here is the difference, the ethics class teaches you to think "What is good? What is bad? Is there any value we can put on a measure of good or bad?" The morality class would teach you, "This is bad, this is wrong."

Teaching morals is a bad idea because morality is subjective. Teaching ethics is great because all ethics is, is instilling a habit of questioning morality for the purpose of improving it. So whatever morals you have are not being labeled as wrong, but is internally challenged.

Morals is not = to ethics. One is not the "unspecified" version of the other.

Yes if you want to be precise with the language, than this is the distinction. The unfortunate fact is that the terms are used basically synonymously. If you take a college business ethics, medical ethics or whatever class, you are definitely going to learn morality as well. Sure in the first week they will cursorily cover that crap about consequentialism, deonotological ethics and virtue ethics, but the rest of it will be dumb case studies where people did the wrong thing and blah blah blah, and then give you ethical dilemmas to mull over and have a 50 minute class discussion that aims to solve it but actually solves nothing. :juggle2:

And learning ethical theories really does nothing about "improving" morality. It just shows that there are different ways to try and justify value judgments that aren't really open to discourse anyway. Learning ethics would be the biggest waste of time ever, I would definitely have tried to duck out of that class had they tried to force that crap on us in highschool. It's bad enough that you have got to take it in college if you purse medicine. business, or other fields.

Philosophy gets a knack for being useless, and I would say the reputation stems from ethics, by far the dumbest philosophy field. Some epistemology and some metaphysics still have value; basically nothing in ethics does.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It's not like they don't try to pose their morals on you. And a class that tries to change the way you think, especialy if based on government program is a scary idea. Exactly how are they gonna make you think what is good or bad anyway? People automatically do that and can evaluate that, in how much they let themselves be influenced however is a different thing.

We don't need no education
We don't need no thought control

:thrasher:

[a completely inoffensive name]

Philosophy gets a knack for being useless, and I would say the reputation stems from ethics, by far the dumbest philosophy field. Some epistemology and some metaphysics still have value; basically nothing in ethics does.

Only the truly ignorant would ever consider any branch of critical thinking "dumb".

[Skullheadhq]

Teaching to help children decide what's good and wrong? Pha, as if the world existed in terms of good and wrong. Morality is not universal either. Euthanasia for example could be considered both moral (helping people out of their misery when they want) and immoral (you kill or help kill), so medical ethics is worthless as well.

[Meneldil]

Only the truly ignorant would ever consider any branch of critical thinking "dumb".

Tend to agree with that. I think society would be going a bit better if people were to learn more philosophy and ethics and less economy and law.

Edit : And moral relativism is retard.

[Reenk Roink]

Only the truly ignorant would ever consider any branch of critical thinking "dumb".

Only the truly ignorant would think 'critical thinking' isn't dumb. :rolleyes:

Instead of just posting one-liners in vain attempting to defend the undefenable "critical thinking" (how ironic too) and ethics, why don't you actually make a case for why teaching ethics in general at the highschool level especially, would you know, be useful?

Don't equivocate between ethics as defined formally and the business ethics or medical ethics classes either (the latter have their uses in teaching the legal issues).

I'm especially interested to hear to try and defend your ridiculous assertion of ethical theory leading to "improvements" in systems of morality. :yes:


Tend to agree with that. I think society would be going a bit better if people were to learn more philosophy and ethics and less economy and law.

Edit : And moral relativism is retard.

As for philosophy, some of it can be useful to learn on the fly for your field (such as philosophy of science which has served me well), and heck some of it can be interesting, but then again, I gotta feed the kids. As for ethics specifically, please god no.

Also moral absolutism is as 'bad' as relativism from the "critical" ethical standpoint. Such is the waste of ethics. :no:

[a completely inoffensive name]

Only the truly ignorant would think 'critical thinking' isn't dumb. :rolleyes:

Instead of just posting one-liners in vain attempting to defend the undefenable "critical thinking" (how ironic too) and ethics, why don't you actually make a case for why teaching ethics in general at the highschool level especially, would you know, be useful?

Don't equivocate between ethics as defined formally and the business ethics or medical ethics classes either (the latter have their uses in teaching the legal issues).

I'm especially interested to hear to try and defend your ridiculous assertion of ethical theory leading to "improvements" in systems of morality. :yes:


The teaching of ethics produces citizens that base their opinions on what is right or wrong on solid logical foundations instead of mindless obedience to authority whether it be the government or their parents. This improves society as a whole, since motivation from within to be "good" and act "good" will make for an overall better standard of living and a better system of laws and justice when the majority partakes in this benefit from the teaching of ethics.

If you are complaining that ethics is pointless because euthanasia can be considered good or bad depending on how you look at it, congratulations you just dismissed the entire point of learning it. Ethics allows citizens to peaceful deliberate on the pros and cons of any moral dilemma and ethics is not a one way street to conclusively figuring out whether something is right or wrong, nothing is black and white and if you even understood a bit of ethics you would understand that. Again it is only a tool to better help you understand the society in which you live in and why we have the rules that we do in order to produce a better functioning society. When you understand the basic premises behind a machine and how it works, it suddenly turns from magic to a coherent order of operations able to be broken down, replaced and improved upon. Society and morality is that machine. The glue which holds society together and which serve as the premise behind our laws, how do we get these conclusions of not killing, not stealing etc... Simply thinking of "not killing" as the right thing to do because "it's says so in the Ten Commandments" or because there is simply a law against it, is dangerous and it gives leeway into situations where pressure from external sources, whether it be monetary reasons or what have you begin to create more of a incentive then fear of the law or god will and that's how many deaths are perpetrated. Murder might be an extreme example, so I will simply point to the bankers and financial "wizards" on Wall Street, who decided that money through betting against their own companies survival was a better incentive then not collapsing the economy.

And yes, people who do operate unethically succeed a lot of the time. But is this a failing of ethics, or merely a lack of adherence to it. Perhaps it isn't being taught enough in the first place. When you want to kill a harmful bacteria in you, you take the recommended amount of anti-biotics not one pill and hope that from there everything will go right.

[Reenk Roink]

The teaching of ethics produces citizens that base their opinions on what is right or wrong on solid logical foundations instead of mindless obedience to authority whether it be the government or their parents. This improves society as a whole, since motivation from within to be "good" and act "good" will make for an overall better standard of living and a better system of laws and justice when the majority partakes in this benefit from the teaching of ethics.

There is a lot of (baseless) assertion here and I'm afraid feel-good buzzwords like your previously used "critical thinking" aren't going to convince your audience and make them acquiesce. You will have to do some work.

First and foremost, define what the hell you exactly mean by "solid logical foundations."

Moving on from that, instead of simply asserting things actually give evidence for these claims among others (my primary commentary to these points in parentheses):

1) learning ethics helps people actually base their morality on the defined solid logical foundations while obeying authority in morality is not based on such said solid logical foundations (very good counter argument to this but first we need to see what your idea of the logical foundations are to see if we're on the same page - people abuse the word logic even more than they do the word ethics)

2) basing morality on said solid logical foundations leads to the motivation from "within" to act in accordance to (I believe you simply confused the basis for the morality with the motivation for acting in accordance with it - either way, the fact is that people who "mindlessly obey" authority can (and do) also have this motivation from 'within' - very strongly too as can be easily demonstrated)

3) Such motivation leads to improving society as a whole, better system of laws, blah blah blah (this is one I REALLY want to see - also, do some googling on whether ethicists are more moral and find the various humorous quotes about moral philosophers being the least moral, the small moral questionnaire studies, and that interesting fact about ethics books being more frequently stolen from libraries than average books... oops :sweatdrop:)

Not to mention you managed to make a false dichotomy between either learning ethics and "mindless obedience" whereas I think it's all but uncontroversial to state that large proportion of high school kids rebel against the traditional morality of the church, government and especially their parents and they haven't a lick of formal ethical training (nor do they need that crap to do so). Do note very carefully how this rebellion overwhelmingly generally is not at all prompted by any ethical concerns per se, but rather differences in views about morality. These kids aren't thinking about the finer points of consequentialism, or having a crisis between the duty and virtue ethics, rather they have a fundamental disagreement with a moral precept.

Also aside from that there is this implicit position that pervades this paragraph that ethical study is what will lead to a better discourse about questions of morality (and as such policy and law) in the public sphere. Well, I will just point out that contrary to this, people have been having discussions about these moral issues for a long time now, and they seem to be unencumbered with the needless ethical formality and jargon. And one could say not being burdened with such nonsense has allowed for some good discussion on issues. Just look at Backroom topics on the Org. Nearly all touch on some moral consideration here and there, and yet we are spared the useless mention of normative theories except for in a very informal passing while still discussing the points at hand.


If you are complaining that ethics is pointless because euthanasia can be considered good or bad depending on how you look at it, congratulations you just dismissed the entire point of learning it. Ethics allows citizens to peaceful deliberate on the pros and cons of any moral dilemma and ethics is not a one way street to conclusively figuring out whether something is right or wrong, nothing is black and white and if you even understood a bit of ethics you would understand that. Again it is only a tool to better help you understand the society in which you live in and why we have the rules that we do in order to produce a better functioning society. When you understand the basic premises behind a machine and how it works, it suddenly turns from magic to a coherent order of operations able to be broken down, replaced and improved upon. Society and morality is that machine. The glue which holds society together and which serve as the premise behind our laws, how do we get these conclusions of not killing, not stealing etc... Simply thinking of "not killing" as the right thing to do because "it's says so in the Ten Commandments" or because there is simply a law against it, is dangerous and it gives leeway into situations where pressure from external sources, whether it be monetary reasons or what have you begin to create more of a incentive then fear of the law or god will and that's how many deaths are perpetrated. Murder might be an extreme example, so I will simply point to the bankers and financial "wizards" on Wall Street, who decided that money through betting against their own companies survival was a better incentive then not collapsing the economy.

Longest part of your post but I think it has the least to say. Ignoring the snarky comments, firstly, your analogy of machines doesn't work because ethics does have the same relationship to morality as say physics does to engineering. I also honestly do not see how coming to your own conclusions about killing from say a utilitarian perspective is any less dangerous than pointing to a law of God or the land. In fact with your examples of monetary reasons, I'd say that approach becomes a lot more 'dangerous'.


And yes, people who do operate unethically succeed a lot of the time. But is this a failing of ethics, or merely a lack of adherence to it. Perhaps it isn't being taught enough in the first place.

The ambiguity of this puzzles me.

If you're starting to equivocate between ethics and morality when you say "unethical" after you yourself pointed out the distinction between the two, then my god have I wasted my time.

If not, people operating without recourse to the needless formalization of ethical study ("unethical" has way too many negative connotations due to its colloquial usage) seem to do damned well in questions of morality (perhaps they do so well because they are unencumbered by such trivialities), I'm glad you agree. This has been my main point all along against the teaching of ethics.

I'll end with this, in the ethics classes one may take in college such as business, medical, or engineering ethics, BY FAR the most valuable content is the legal ramifications of actions, followed by moral considerations. They throw at you moral precepts of what you should and should not do. The least utilized part of the class deals with the normative ethical theory they generally introduce the class with. How unsurprising.

The rampant corruption in the corporate world will be solved not by learning ethics, but by recalling the moral teachings we learned, say in kindergarten and obviously the nuancing these teachings get as we grow up. Tell the truth, don't take something that's not yours, just because you're bigger doesn't mean you can bully others, etc, etc.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The rampant corruption in the corporate world will be solved not by learning ethics, but by recalling the moral teachings we learned, say in kindergarten and obviously the nuancing these teachings get as we grow up.

dude, that's what ethics class was when I took it. Nuancing on the basic stuff, thinking about it in unfamiliar situations. Being in an unfamiliar situation is one of the key things that can result in a usually moral person doing something wrong. Do you reject english class because we learn better english as we grow up?

[Reenk Roink]

dude, that's what ethics class was when I took it. Nuancing on the basic stuff, thinking about it in unfamiliar situations. Being in an unfamiliar situation is one of the key things that can result in a usually moral person doing something wrong. Do you reject english class because we learn better english as we grow up?

here


Yes if you want to be precise with the language, than this is the distinction. The unfortunate fact is that the terms are used basically synonymously. If you take a college business ethics, medical ethics or whatever class, you are definitely going to learn morality as well.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Dang, that's a long reply. A good one too. Give me a few days to think about what you said Reenk. I just got StarCraft 2, so I'm taking time off from the Backroom for a bit to play the campaign. I will reply though. My next reply will be more respectful seeing as how you have thought your position out very well, which I had not anticipated.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

here

Generally morality has to do with things we know are wrong because we feel them, and ethics has to do with things we think are wrong because of some argument (usually one that ties them back to something we feel is wrong). That's my impression at least. You would never say "rape is unethical" you would always say "rape is immoral".

hmm, reading that it's a faily bad try at the distinction. But reading back I think acin makes a bad distinction, not all morality is subjective and ethics certainly teaches more than how to think about it.

[Reenk Roink]

Generally morality has to do with things we know are wrong because we feel them, and ethics has to do with things we think are wrong because of some argument (usually one that ties them back to something we feel is wrong). That's my impression at least. You would never say "rape is unethical" you would always say "rape is immoral".

hmm, reading that it's a faily bad try at the distinction. But reading back I think acin makes a bad distinction, not all morality is subjective and ethics certainly teaches more than how to think about it.

There's always been the blurring of the terms which is why I've always brought up the fact that 'ethics' classes generally impart morality. However, I very much like ACIN's formal distinction he made between ethics and morality. The model that comes from it makes it very convenient for this discussion - god knows how much longer our posts would be if we were still being vague about exactly what ethics and morality were, not to mention the sloppiness and equivocation that would be rampant.

[a completely inoffensive name]

There's always been the blurring of the terms which is why I've always brought up the fact that 'ethics' classes generally impart morality. However, I very much like ACIN's formal distinction he made between ethics and morality. The model that comes from it makes it very convenient for this discussion - god knows how much longer our posts would be if we were still being vague about exactly what ethics and morality were, not to mention the sloppiness and equivocation that would be rampant.

I would just like to say real quick (still thinking about your larger post), that the distinction I made between morality and ethics is something I have always adhered to just from reading about the two and assumed that professors who know much more about the subject then I ever will would not be intermixing the two in an ethics class that they would be teaching. Reenk, are you sure that all formal "ethics" classes blur the two and impart both, or is that your experience with a single professor at your university?

[Reenk Roink]

I would just like to say real quick (still thinking about your larger post), that the distinction I made between morality and ethics is something I have always adhered to just from reading about the two and assumed that professors who know much more about the subject then I ever will would not be intermixing the two in an ethics class that they would be teaching. Reenk, are you sure that all formal "ethics" classes blur the two and impart both, or is that your experience with a single professor at your university?

Here is the thing. If you take an ethics class in the philosophy department or even just an intro philosophy class that touches on ethics, you are almost guaranteed to get the distinction that you made between the two. That's not to say that there isn't morality present in these classes, obviously as examples moral considerations will need to be used, but the main point of the class is to teach ethics itself.

On the other hand, for the business, medical, or engineering ethics classes, the very idea is not to teach ethics per se, but how to deal with situations that may come up in your professional life later. The thrust on these classes seems to be much more legal and moral, despite the name. That isn't to say ethics isn't discussed in them, it is touched on, however informally and cursorily, but the idea behind the class is simply different than the philosophy ethics classes.

My position is that in high school, the first shouldn't even be bothered to be taught. I obviously have a dim view of it, but besides that I have argued that people are more than capable of having decent discussion about moral issues without any grounding in ethical theory and without any recourse to formal ethical methods.

As for the second one, I have shown less opposition to that type of class, but still, I am skeptical of the value of such a class at the highschool level. School funding is already a major problem as is. They certainly are important, however boring they may be, if you go on to a professional field, as it is necessary to understand the legal and moral issues present. At highschool however, my question is, what exactly are they going to teach? Don't plagiarize? Don't cheat? This seems a lot better served as an assembly than a full class.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Here is the thing. If you take an ethics class in the philosophy department or even just an intro philosophy class that touches on ethics, you are almost guaranteed to get the distinction that you made between the two. That's not to say that there isn't morality present in these classes, obviously as examples moral considerations will need to be used, but the main point of the class is to teach ethics itself.

On the other hand, for the business, medical, or engineering ethics classes, the very idea is not to teach ethics per se, but how to deal with situations that may come up in your professional life later. The thrust on these classes seems to be much more legal and moral, despite the name. That isn't to say ethics isn't discussed in them, it is touched on, however informally and cursorily, but the idea behind the class is simply different than the philosophy ethics classes.

My position is that in high school, the first shouldn't even be bothered to be taught. I obviously have a dim view of it, but besides that I have argued that people are more than capable of having decent discussion about moral issues without any grounding in ethical theory and without any recourse to formal ethical methods.

As for the second one, I have shown less opposition to that type of class, but still, I am skeptical of the value of such a class at the highschool level. School funding is already a major problem as is. They certainly are important, however boring they may be, if you go on to a professional field, as it is necessary to understand the legal and moral issues present. At highschool however, my question is, what exactly are they going to teach? Don't plagiarize? Don't cheat? This seems a lot better served as an assembly than a full class.

Ok well first let me say, that yes I will agree with you that people can and do have decent discussions about moral issues without any grounding in ethical theory but my point is that it is far from the majority in my opinion. I may have not made it clear, but I tried to use phrases such as "when the majority adhere"...etc, I was acknowledging that there will be a lot of people who simply wont take anything from the class but even having to do the work just to pass will at least in my opinion impart some benefit and some knowledge upon the majority or close to the majority of students in the class and that I feel is better then nothing, which is why my position is that we should push for more teaching of ethics. So yes, is it possible to discuss morals without formal ethics teaching? Of course, I have had no formal ethical training and I hope I do a good job debating here in the backroom, but if I might bring up this controversial subject, Prop 8, the majority of the state voted for something based on very faulty premises in my opinion at least. I know some people have brought up incredibly good points about not having marriage in the first place, and that I can respect if such a view held out and came into effect because there was at least some solid basis behind it but even still, the judge (and I) can't see anything remotely logical or founded in any sort of factual basis when it came to the arguments that the Prop 8 supporters cried out in regards to excluding homosexual's. (Just so I don't offend anyone, I am sure there are plenty of "left" premises that are based on faulty premises but still get a lot of people's support.) To me, that's frightening. So, that's my first point which I hope I haven't convoluted in this paragraph.

Secondly, I just want to say your school funding point is more a matter of budgets and managing money wisely (cue "stop unemployment benefits!" or "stop the wars!" shouting) then whether or not it shall we say "deserves" a shot at being implemented when looking at a cost to benefit point of view.

Thirdly, I think you can't really implement that secondary ethics class you are talking about until you have decided to go into a chosen field. I still think however that an philosophical ethics class could at least impart some benefit.

Lastly, well in regards to "what are they going to be taught" (for either the pure philosophical class or the law and ethics class you have talked about), idk really. What determines the things you learn in your AP Chemistry class, or your AP Physics class. Why does the AP Physics class focus the majority of the test on Newtonian mechanics and Electromagnetism, instead of optics, heat exchanges and atomic physics? Are those two topics the most important? If so, then what topics are the most important in the field of ethics? What questions are the most important to ask? It's kind of hard to give a clear answer on "before we do this class, tell me what's in it.". You get what I'm saying?

EDIT: Idk, whether or not to just move on with the conversation or still work on my reply to your previous post. I'll try to post one tomorrow.

[Reenk Roink]

Of course, I have had no formal ethical training and I hope I do a good job debating here in the backroom, but if I might bring up this controversial subject, Prop 8, the majority of the state voted for something based on very faulty premises in my opinion at least. I know some people have brought up incredibly good points about not having marriage in the first place, and that I can respect if such a view held out and came into effect because there was at least some solid basis behind it but even still, the judge (and I) can't see anything remotely logical or founded in any sort of factual basis when it came to the arguments that the Prop 8 supporters cried out in regards to excluding homosexual's. (Just so I don't offend anyone, I am sure there are plenty of "left" premises that are based on faulty premises but still get a lot of people's support.) To me, that's frightening. So, that's my first point which I hope I haven't convoluted in this paragraph.

I get your point here, but I'd point out that here you are already straying away from the field of ethics and rather going into different territory of the Constitution and law instead.

I skimmed the Prop 8 thread (and you do more than fine discussing moral and legal issues) and throughout that entire discussion, the question I had is where is the ethics? I see people looking at factual issues, considering how the 14th Amendment and separation clause relate to Prop 8, discussing the role of the judicial system, disagreeing on what it means to be married and in which sense, and even (though this was by far the least present thing) having impasses on religious and moral understandings of homosexuality and homosexual acts.

What does all of this have to do with ethics? It seems to me that in this case, my point holds, there was a (pretty good) discussion on a legal issue that does dip into religious and moral ground and no recourse to formal ethical methods was needed.

I think your frustration lies with people bringing bad arguments to the table in general, rather than them being ignorant of ethics.


Thirdly, I think you can't really implement that secondary ethics class you are talking about until you have decided to go into a chosen field. I still think however that an philosophical ethics class could at least impart some benefit.

Lastly, well in regards to "what are they going to be taught" (for either the pure philosophical class or the law and ethics class you have talked about), idk really. What determines the things you learn in your AP Chemistry class, or your AP Physics class. Why does the AP Physics class focus the majority of the test on Newtonian mechanics and Electromagnetism, instead of optics, heat exchanges and atomic physics? Are those two topics the most important? If so, then what topics are the most important in the field of ethics? What questions are the most important to ask? It's kind of hard to give a clear answer on "before we do this class, tell me what's in it.". You get what I'm saying?

True, that's why I was thinking more basic academic 'ethics' as a possibility, as cheating is pretty rampant in college. As for the philosophical ethics class in highschool, I suppose I'll soften my rhetoric. If people want to take it, and the school can afford to offer it as an voluntary elective, then sure, have fun. I would personally see more merit in offering an intro logic class in highschool, or even a general intro philosophy class, rather than a specialized class in ethics, but if the school can manage and there is demand, then who am I to say no. However, I would be pretty upset if such a class was mandatory.


EDIT: Idk, whether or not to just move on with the conversation or still work on my reply to your previous post. I'll try to post one tomorrow.

There's no need to waste your time addressing that post unless you see something you want to respond to. I'm not going to be a douchebag either and be like "you didn't address my earlier post" so don't worry. :beam: If I need to bring up something I brought up in that post I'll restate it.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

And yes, people who do operate unethically succeed a lot of the time. But is this a failing of ethics, or merely a lack of adherence to it. Perhaps it isn't being taught enough in the first place. When you want to kill a harmful bacteria in you, you take the recommended amount of anti-biotics not one pill and hope that from there everything will go right.

Which is why people who do good in business always get screwed over.


:idea2:

[Ice]

Which is why people who do good in business always get screwed over.


:idea2:

That's completely false. Part of ethics portion of auditing was reviewing various ethics lectures and literature. If I remember the name of the book I'll post it here, but it basically showed by acting ethically, one smart businessman was able to amass a large amount of wealth without being a slimeball.

Edit: As a first hand example, my father worked his way from the bottom up and was able to succeed in business by acting ethically and not underhanded. He's part of what molded my view on how to conduct business.

It must be painful, Warman, but you can't let one event shape your entire view on something this broad.

[a completely inoffensive name]

That's completely false. Part of ethics portion of auditing was reviewing various ethics lectures and literature. If I remember the name of the book I'll post it here, but it basically showed by acting ethically, one smart businessman was able to amass a large amount of wealth without being a slimeball.

Edit: As a first hand example, my father worked his way from the bottom up and was able to succeed in business by acting ethically and not underhanded. He's part of what molded my view on how to conduct business.

It must be painful, Warman, but you can't let one event shape your entire view on something this broad.

Reminds me of that saying violence begets violence and ignorance begets ignorance. I guess you could say douchebagery begets douchebaggery.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I get your point here, but I'd point out that here you are already straying away from the field of ethics and rather going into different territory of the Constitution and law instead.

I skimmed the Prop 8 thread (and you do more than fine discussing moral and legal issues) and throughout that entire discussion, the question I had is where is the ethics? I see people looking at factual issues, considering how the 14th Amendment and separation clause relate to Prop 8, discussing the role of the judicial system, disagreeing on what it means to be married and in which sense, and even (though this was by far the least present thing) having impasses on religious and moral understandings of homosexuality and homosexual acts.

What does all of this have to do with ethics? It seems to me that in this case, my point holds, there was a (pretty good) discussion on a legal issue that does dip into religious and moral ground and no recourse to formal ethical methods was needed.

I think your frustration lies with people bringing bad arguments to the table in general, rather than them being ignorant of ethics.

Perhaps I am straying a bit, but if we are to be realistic here it is quite difficult to separate in a discussion about a proposed law the ethics from the law since the two are very intertwined sometimes. As we have seen in this very discussion, it is very hard just to establish a solid separation of ethics from morality.

In regards to your point about me being frustrated simply about bad arguments: isn't part of the point of a logic, ethics or philosophy class to create better arguments on a subject in order to advance knowledge and expose more details and nuances that could be very important?

I mean of course, there will always be bad arguments, but in my mind there are bad arguments and there are...idk how else to put it but "illogical"(maybe?) arguments. I don't mean to impose an ethics class to make sure there are no "bad" arguments, just that every argument has some backing behind it that isn't riddled with fallacies. Suppose we take the idea that trickle down economics doesn't work, at least the theory had some backing in that "with more capital, more economic creation can be created" which could be supplemented with examples from examples in economic history perhaps. Now, that is different then let's say the argument that we cannot change marriage simply because "it's always been man or woman" or because "god said it was this way" those arguments are purely calls to tradition and authority respectively and are complete logical fallacies. Those arguments are those I want to see removed to make way for better arguments such as from those who were talking about perhaps removing the idea of marriage completely under this, this and this argument which had some backings to them (see Rhyfelwyr's comments for specific examples).




True, that's why I was thinking more basic academic 'ethics' as a possibility, as cheating is pretty rampant in college. As for the philosophical ethics class in highschool, I suppose I'll soften my rhetoric. If people want to take it, and the school can afford to offer it as an voluntary elective, then sure, have fun. I would personally see more merit in offering an intro logic class in highschool, or even a general intro philosophy class, rather than a specialized class in ethics, but if the school can manage and there is demand, then who am I to say no. However, I would be pretty upset if such a class was mandatory.

Well I would have to say I agree with this paragraph, my goal in arguing for ethics isn't just for the promotion of ethics classes, I just feel like some sort of class such as an ethics, logic or philosophical class should be advocated for as early as possible to promote better public discourse about political and social issues overall. I wouldn't feel upset if an intro logic class was mandatory to complete high school though. If I was mandated to fulfill a "fine art" (for me ceramics) and a "practical art" (for me cooking) in order to graduate high school last year, then I don't see how at least pushing for one logic class would be crossing the line. And yes, I am not kidding I really was mandated to fulfill a "fine" and "practical" art just to graduate from high school.

[Megas Methuselah]

Cooking is a very practical art, though.

[Reenk Roink]

Sorry for getting back to you so late acin, I get bored of the Org for days on end and I forget that I am involved in discussions. :tongue:


Perhaps I am straying a bit, but if we are to be realistic here it is quite difficult to separate in a discussion about a proposed law the ethics from the law since the two are very intertwined sometimes. As we have seen in this very discussion, it is very hard just to establish a solid separation of ethics from morality.

I don't think it's hard to formally separate ethics from morality (you did it quite nicely). It's just that the words also carry a colloquial meaning it.

Agreed that it is hard to separate moral issues from legal issues though, and the Prop 8 example is basically a major disagreement on a religious/moral understanding. Notwithstanding arguments on both sides that try to avoid the basic religious/moral pronouncements. But again I'll reiterate that ethics really doesn't come into play in any formal sense.


In regards to your point about me being frustrated simply about bad arguments: isn't part of the point of a logic, ethics or philosophy class to create better arguments on a subject in order to advance knowledge and expose more details and nuances that could be very important?

I mean of course, there will always be bad arguments, but in my mind there are bad arguments and there are...idk how else to put it but "illogical"(maybe?) arguments. I don't mean to impose an ethics class to make sure there are no "bad" arguments, just that every argument has some backing behind it that isn't riddled with fallacies. Suppose we take the idea that trickle down economics doesn't work, at least the theory had some backing in that "with more capital, more economic creation can be created" which could be supplemented with examples from examples in economic history perhaps. Now, that is different then let's say the argument that we cannot change marriage simply because "it's always been man or woman" or because "god said it was this way" those arguments are purely calls to tradition and authority respectively and are complete logical fallacies. Those arguments are those I want to see removed to make way for better arguments such as from those who were talking about perhaps removing the idea of marriage completely under this, this and this argument which had some backings to them (see Rhyfelwyr's comments for specific examples).

Well to be fair, those appeals to tradition and authority are what convinces a ton of the general public to go out and enact bans on same sex marriage. They are logical fallacies only if the authority or the tradition is wrong - but you will find almost no one who bases his or her argument on this authority or tradition to consider it wrong so they will see no fallacy, even if others do.

An argument is only as convincing as it's premises, which is why the "logic" of the argument usually plays a very distant secondary role. The reason for the impasse on the Prop 8 stance is mainly because of impasses on 1) the religious/moral view on homosexuality, 2) the view of what marriage is, and 3) the role and influence of religious and moral views on law.

You'll likely never be able to convince either side on the Prop 8 issue to change their moral view on things. Now, Prop 8 (and related) pro arguments can be struck down because of conflicts with the Constitution either with regards to the separation clause or the 14th Amendment, which is what I believe the judge did. The supporters of such a ban on same sex marriage do have an uphill battle in legal terms due to the nature of American secularism and the 14th Amendment.


Well I would have to say I agree with this paragraph, my goal in arguing for ethics isn't just for the promotion of ethics classes, I just feel like some sort of class such as an ethics, logic or philosophical class should be advocated for as early as possible to promote better public discourse about political and social issues overall. I wouldn't feel upset if an intro logic class was mandatory to complete high school though. If I was mandated to fulfill a "fine art" (for me ceramics) and a "practical art" (for me cooking) in order to graduate high school last year, then I don't see how at least pushing for one logic class would be crossing the line. And yes, I am not kidding I really was mandated to fulfill a "fine" and "practical" art just to graduate from high school.

I definitely agree with you about the logic class. I don't know why they don't offer (or even make mandatory) an intro to logic class in highschool. You'll probably only learn the "informal logic" of arguments and fallacy theory along with basic propositional logic, but the benefit in just that is huge. From personal experience, just the exercise of extracting the premises and the logical form from a written argument (and vice versa) is extremely helpful in both reading and writing. Doing logical proofs while extremely tedious, helps a lot if you take higher math, not to mention it makes it a bit easier to grasp the proofs for things. Learning logical fallacies is also very helpful, although sometimes it is a doubled edged sword as some people get the wrong idea of logical fallacies that they somehow demonstrate faulty reasoning in all cases or even worse demonstrate falsehood of a conclusion.

The thing is, I think most high school kids are definitely ready to learn basic logic, even as early as their freshman year, and it would help so much in so many other classes, but somehow most kids are only exposed to such study when they get to college. :juggle2:

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

Cooking is a very practical art, though.


You do need cooking skills to live. :clown: