Moral Relativism in Canada
Moral education programming in Ontario today
by Dr. Stephen L. Anderson
Every teacher has moments of startling clarity. Sometimes these are moments of light—epiphanies—when some truth “shines through” to us in an unforeseen way and changes our perspective. At other times, though, such clarity comes in a flash of disillusionment, when a sad realization takes from us forever a comforting delusion.
I recently had one of these moments while I was teaching my senior Philosophy class. We had just finished a unit on Metaphysics and were about to get into Ethics, the philosophy of how we make moral judgments. The school had also just had several social-justice-type assemblies—multiculturalism, women’s rights, anti-violence and gay acceptance. So there was no shortage of reference points from which to begin.
I needed an attention-getter: something to really spark interest, something to shock the students awake and make them commit to an ethical judgment.This would form a baseline from which they could begin to ask questions about the legitimacy of moral judgments of all kinds, and then pursue various theories —Utilitarianism, Neo-Kantianism, Virtue Ethics, Nihilism, Moral Pragmatism and so on.
I decided to open by simply displaying, without comment, the photo of Bibi Aisha. Aisha was the Afghani teenager who was forced into an abusive marriage with a Taliban fighter, who abused her and kept her with his animals. When she attempted to flee, her family caught her, hacked off her nose and ears, and left her for dead in the mountains. After crawling to her grandfather’s house, she was saved by a nearby American hospital. I felt quite sure that my students, seeing the suffering of this poor girl of their own age, would have a clear ethical reaction, from which we could build toward more difficult cases.
The picture is horrific. Aisha’s beautiful eyes stare hauntingly back at you above the mangled hole that was once her nose. Some of my students could not even raise their eyes to look at it. I could see that many were experiencing deep emotions.
But I was not prepared for their reaction. I had expected strong aversion; but that’s not what I got. Instead, they became confused. They seemed not to know what to think. They spoke timorously, afraid to make any moral judgment at all. They were unwilling to criticize any situation originating in adifferent culture. They said, “Well, we might not like it, but maybe over there it’s okay.” One student said, “I don’t feel anything at all; I see lots of this kind of stuff.” Another said (with no consciousness of self-contradiction), “It’s just wrong to judge other cultures.”
As a teacher, I had to do something. Like most teachers, I felt uncomfortable with becoming too directive in moral matters; but in this case, I could not see how I could avoid it. I wondered, “How cankids who have been so thoroughly basted in the language of minority rights be so numb to a clear moral offense?” Where are all those “character traits” we inculcate to address their moral formation? You know them—empathy, caring, respect,courage—the wording may vary among boards, but we all know the script.
My class was “character developed” and had all the “traits” in place. They were honest —very frank in their views. They had empathy — extending it inequal measure to Aisha and to the demented subculture that sliced her up. They were accepting —even of child mutilation. And they persevered —no matter how I prodded they did not leave their nonjudgmental position. I left that class shaking my head. It seemed clear to me that for some students—clearly not all—the lesson of character education initiatives is acceptance of all things at all costs. While we may hope some are capable of bridging the gap between principled morality and this ethically vacuous relativism, it is evident that a good many are not. For them, the overriding message is “never judge, never criticize, neve rtake a position.”
Can we be sure that our current moral education strategies are not producing ethical paralytics? Are we really teaching attitudes or just platitudes? The questions are unsettling, but cannot be avoided.
How can we claim to be forming character in our students when we refuse to commit to any moral position ourselves? If character education is to have any substantive value, it ought also to specify with what or whom we should empathize (or conversely, not empathize) and to explain why or why not.
That said, there are areas in which we have been quite directive. In anti-bullying campaigns, homosexual rights assemblies, multicultural fairs, social justice drives and women’s rights initiatives, we do not hesitate to preach, admonish or dictate because we feel so fervently committed to our ground. But it is clear that the message of women’s rights had been, in the case of Bibi Aisha, out shouted by the metamessage too often embedded in these programs—that there are no real standards, no certain moral truths, and no final ground to stand on; and that anyone who thinks there is, is simply naïve or a bigot. In this case, even the strong rhetoric of women’s rights could not survive the acid bath of universal tolerance.
[...]
Views: 448
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by john mac on -
Dave;
I honestly do not know where you find these types of articles-but they always make a person ponder deeply such things. This article could very well fit here also. Given many of our previous discussions-I find myself leaning ever more to "conservative" views on certain things. Research is research I know-yet when many things are taken thru a historical timeline-it is well to be sure eye-opening. The climate here also is one of "tolerance". I find tolerance to be a welcoming proposition. The problem or rub as it may be is if my views do not coincide with a certain climate-or group-then it seems as if "intolerance" gets handed my way. I do not find that to be "tolerant". Your article gives the case in point. If the schoolchildren are afraid to state a standard-whether it be a moral one or in other contexts-for fear of being labled a bigot or gay-hater,rascist,or worse...we have gone to far.
Tolerance must be based upon something-there must be a "guideline" or a standard to base tolerance upon....take away that "standard" and then anything goes. My thought is this- if a moral Biblical standard is taken away-then you must replace it with a man-made law. We well know already so many laws are in place within a cival society,which of course are broken-continuosly-so other laws must be made-to incorporate and accomodate-all future or unintended or intended party which ever could be agrieved.....and so on-and so on...God has given us many gifts,his Law-and the Word.(Christ). Yes Christ was tolerant-yet he also said-"go out and sin no more". Secular society I think has misrepresented "tolerance". The problem is we have become "Intolerant while trying to become Tolerant!"
-
Permalink Reply by James Robertson on -
-
Permalink Reply by Linda D. Traylor on -
We've heard it said, " Experience is the best teacher." (We will learn more from things that happen to us in real life than we will from hearing about or studying things that happen to other people.) Dr. Stephen L. Anderson ( the teacher ) doesn't tell us how old his Students ( disciples ) are in his Senior Philosophy Class. He's telling us about teenagers in High School so my guess is these kids are about 17 or 18 years old. Dr. Anderson's article would be part of the branch of philosophy that deals with values and ethics relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions. I'm 60 years old, I'm 42 years older than his students and I'm not sure how to respond to this Bibi Aisha story. Surely everyone on earth would have an opinion
- 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
- 2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
- 3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.
- 4. a statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.
- 5. a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.
Dr. Anderson provided an opportunity to exercise our thinking skills, that might some day be of value in their life when called upon to make a judgement. Some of us are just more opinionated than others, for example I've been asked to serve on jury duty twice in my life and both times I was not chosen because I was too opinionated before the trial even began. The Attorney asked the Judge to dismiss me, after I responded to the questions. The other folks seem to be able to keep their opinions to themselves much better than I was able to do.
It was desided that I don't belong in a court of law, yet I pass judgement on myself and my own actions every day.
I pass judgement on the members of my family when they do or say something that effects me personally. I have a husband. He and I trespass against each other every day so we pass judgement on each other everyday. Like Adam and Eve, we've been eating from that forbidden fruit tree everyday sence 1966, Most of our discussions are about what we think is Wright or what we think is Wrong, then finally we come to an agreement ( Praise God for His Holy Ghost ! ) God has been here in Topeka . Were it not so I'm afraid we might have been victums of domestic violents like Bibi Aisha. Aisha was in Afghani . The culture in America http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_the_United_States and the culture in Afghanistan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_Afghanistan may be different but people are the same everywhere, all of us a sinfilled individuals in need of salvation and redeption
1. an act of redeeming or the state of being redeemed
2. deliverance; rescue.3. Theology . deliverance from sin; salvation.4. atonement for guilt.5. repurchase, as of something sold.In the Holy Bible we are told in Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," You and I believe Jesus to be God, our Redeemer " At this point we can see that we're not talking about Dr. Stephen L. Anderson branch of "Philosophy" anymore, we're not worried about our openions, at this point in our conversation we're crossing over to "Theology", trying to leave Philosophy behind us...we try to explore yet a higher understanding of Morality, Ethics and Virtue from a Biblical perspective, but there are people in the world reading an Islamic book, called the Koran. But there are pagans who could care less about any of this stuff. We have only to look at the cross to see Jesus hanging between two other crosses and all the rest of the people. Where was the virtue ? Where was the morality ? What was going on in their heads that day, there in the Place of the Skull?
Theology is
1. the field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God's attributes and relations to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity.
2. a particular form, system, branch, or course of this study.
-
Permalink Reply by James Robertson on
-
I am afraid that the schools will prove the very gates of hell, unless they diligently labor in explaining the Holy Scriptures and engraving them in the heart of the youth.
Martin Luther
-
Permalink Reply by Dave Gosse on -
Hi John
The labels can be counter productive. I am definitely a conservative person in the sense that I see value in particular traditions, but I am no longer a conservative (if I ever was) politically. I find little difference between the political camps but a world of difference between the traditions. The "liberal" or "progressive" camp finds little of value in historic traditions and views "modern" as the apex of progress. Therefore tradition and history are irrelevant, also known as "The Whig Theory of History."
The whole "tolerance" thing is a red-herring. The people who make tolerance a virtue generally will only tolerate those who think like themselves or visible minorities. If you happen to be of European descent and think there is some objective standard of value that we should pursue then you will be pilloried. The virtue of tolerance leaves the field rather quickly under those circumstances.
Personally, I think there is more than a hint of patronizing racism involved in the dogma of tolerance. It is the "white man's burden" to tolerate the quirks of visible minorities. We must make allowancees for "those people" because they simply can't help but behave like savages but the white European should know better. Therefore, the white European is vicious when he doesn't excuse the pecadillos of the "less evolved" peoples. I swear, that's seems to be the attitude of the tolerance crowd.
That would explain their willingness to demand less of visible minorities as well. Despite reams of evidence to the contrary there is an attitude that specific minority groups simply can't meet the standard and so we must lower the standard to ensure that they can aspire to diplomas or jobs which they are eminently unqualified. If I was a black, indian, or hispanic looking to enter college and was told that I only had to get 60% of the grade of a white or chinese because I was a "deprived" class of person I woould be more than a little concerned, particularly if I was an honor student who had worked very hard to excell. Is my degree only worth 60% of the degree of a "priveleged" person? I think any potential employer who is aware of the double standard would think so.
But if we dare to suggest that a person in the "deprived" class is capable of meeting the standard and so should make the effort we are labeled as bigots and racists. But it is not I who thinks the "deprived" class is incapable of caring for himself, It is not I who treats him as a second class, slightly retarded, person. I invite him into full participation as my equal in a society which does not play favorites over accidents of birth. And there are manifold examples of "deprived" persons who not only attained the standard, but excelled, in circumstances which were far more hostile to their success than my egalitarian ideal.
-
Permalink Reply by Linda D. Traylor on
-
Dave Thanks for the link to Whig History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whig_history Whig history has many similarities with the Marxist theory of history, which believes that humanity is moving (through historical stages) to the classless, egalitarian society of communism. I have a question :
Is Acts 4:32-35 ( NIV ) telling us about Communists ?Acts32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but they shared everything they had. 33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all 34 that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need.
-
Permalink Reply by James Robertson on
-
Is Acts 4:32-35 ( NIV ) telling us about Communists ?
No.The scripture speaks of the obedience of the church to the Law of Love (Mark 12: 29-31).
-
Permalink Reply by Linda D. Traylor on
-
At one time or another, various small communist communities existed, generally under the inspiration of Scripture.[13] In the medieval Christian church, for example, some monastic communities and religious orders shared their land and other property (see Religious and Christian communism). These groups often believed that concern with private property was a distraction from religious service to God and neighbour.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
-
Permalink Reply by James Robertson on
-
Moral relativism has been around for a long time. Judges 21:25
-
Permalink Reply by Dave Gosse on
-
Hi Linda
There is a great difference between Christian communalism and communism. The Chritsian communities which share everything in common are voluntary organizations. You don't have to join, if you do join you can leave later, and the larger society in which these communities exist recognizes and respects the private property which the community members hold in common. Communism is coercive. There is no private property. The state takes your resources and redistributes them. The sort of communalism practiced by Christian communities is frowned upon, if not completely banned.
Your reference to Acts 4:32-35 is a case in point. Some believers were moved to sell their possessions and give them to the apostles to share what they had with those less fortunate. "For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35 and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need." implies that some "believers" retained private property part or all of which they later sold.
The next pericope about Ananias and Sapphira and their property affirms their right to own and dispose of their property - but condemns them trying to deceive God about their intentions. "While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?... You have not lied to man but to God.” The property was their own. It was their right to do with it what they would. The condemnation was for lying about their actions. They wanted to look as if they were giving all.
Back to the original article. Linda, you might be a couple of years older than his students but you (and I) are products of the same inadequate education system. The public education system has been deliberately structured to instill moral relativism in its students.
As far back as the beginning of the 20th C. educators such as John Dewey and his associates were designing education policies to remake society into their "rational" model. Many of them were quite forthright about their intentions writing books and articles and making speeches outlining their methods and goals. "The conception of education as a social process and function has no definite meaning until we define the kind of society we have in mind." John Dewey.
The kind of society Dewey and his peer had in mind was decidedly anti-Christian, pragmatic, and humanistic. He, perhaps more than any other person, shaped modern education, and we, our parents, our grandparents, our children, and our grand children, have all been influenced by his ideas.
-
Permalink Reply by Linda D. Traylor on
-
Oh I see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey This is all that is said about his connection to his religious foundation "Another source of criticism has been religion. While one biographer, Steven C. Rockefeller, traced Dewey's democratic convictions to his childhood attendance at the Congregational Church, with its strong proclamation of social ideals"
John Dewey (October 20, 1859 – June 1, 1952) was an American philosopher, psychologist and educational reformer whose ideas have been influential in education and social reform. Dewey was an important early developer of the philosophy of pragmatism and one of the founders of functional psychology. ( Dewey was a "quack " , how logical hahahaha )
(Many Congregational churches claim their descent from a family of Protestant denominations formed on a theory of union published by the theologian Robert Browne in 1592. These arose from the Nonconformist religious movement during the Puritan reformation of the Church of England. In Great Britain the early congregationalists were called separatists or independents to distinguish them from the similarly Calvinistic Presbyterians. Some congregationalists in Britain still call themselves Independent.)
-
Permalink Reply by Dave Gosse on
-
Hi Linda
I suspect Dewey, like so many of his peers, was religious in name only. The commitmment to "democracy", a word which has been co-opted by some decidedly un-democratic people, is belied by his ideas about how to shape society without the active consent (democratic approval) of the persons whose society he sought to reshape.
"In addition to helping students realize their full potential, Dewey goes on to acknowledge that education and schooling are instrumental in creating social change and reform. He notes that "education is a regulation of the process of coming to share in the social consciousness; and that the adjustment of individual activity on the basis of this social consciousness is the only sure method of social reconstruction" (1897, p. 16)."
Dewey's ideas, expressed in this phrase from your Wikipedia article, shift the focus away from education toward "social reconstruction." Dewey helped orchestrate the transformation of education, which should be the teaching of particuar skills such as reading, writing, and reckoning so that the educated have a fund of resources and skills by which to think competently, into a "regulated process ... [for] ... the adjustment of individual activity...", in other words, an indoctrination system. Search: "Dewey, communism, education"
Of course, you cannot take a literate, educated, and moral society (Western Civ c. 1900) and transform it overnight. You simply lay the groundwork and pass the baton to your successors. Richard Rorty, quoted below, is a case in point, and carried the baton for progressivism through to the late 20th C.
There is only the shaping of an animal into a human being by a process of socialization, followed (with luck) by the self-individualization and self-creation of that human being through his or her own later revolt against that very process. ... The point of non-vocational higher education is, instead, to help students realize that they can reshape themselves — that they can rework the self-image foisted on them by their past, the self-image that makes them competent citizens, into a new self-image that they themselves have helped to create.
I take myself, in holding these opinions, to be a fairly faithful follower of John Dewey[4]. Dewey’s great contribution to the theory of education was to help us get rid of the idea that education is a matter of either inducing or educing truth. Primary and secondary education will always be a matter of familiarizing the young with what their elders take to be true, whether it is true or not. It is not, and never will be, the function of lower-level education to challenge the prevailing consensus about what is true. Socialization has to come before individuation, and education for freedom cannot begin before some constraints have been imposed. But, for quite different reasons, non-vocational higher education is also not a matter of inculcating or educing truth. It is, instead, a matter of inciting doubt and stimulating imagination, thereby challenging the prevailing consensus. If pre-college education produces literate citizens and college education produces self-creating individuals, then questions about whether students are being taught the truth can safely be neglected.
The teachers teach the teachers who teach the children who grow up to teach the teachers who teach the children. It takes generations, but dogmatic progressives are evolutionists. It is the foundation of their belief system. Slight progressive change over long periods of time will produce the "utopia" they invision. But their vision is flawed. They see people as "animals becoming human" and their ideal "human" does not exist. He is a future state which will be realized through judicious selection and training. So their methods are also flawed. They are inherently irrational and will produce an irrational product. And so we find moral relativists who cannot discern right from wrong, Occupiers who demand "fairness" without understanding the concepts of "fair" or "just", a Wall Street whose concept of ethics is "don't get caught", and politicians who think they were elected to manipulate their constitutuents.
The answer to the problem is the Gospel, a Biblical view of the nature of humanity and his place in the world. We are not accidents of time and chance, animals becoming human; we are a deliberate creation of a good and loving God who made us in his image, able to comprehend the world, discern truth, and communicate valid ideas. The neglect of "truth" and its replacement with pragmatic skeptical philosophies is a direct attack on the God of the Bible, the God of truth, from whom all good things flow. Such a philosophy necessarily leads to madness.
© 2012 Created by Norm Fisher.
Powered by
