Is it worth it anymore to teach kids today ethics?

[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. If I need to bring up something I brought up in that post I'll restate it.