NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/talk/philosop/misc/1428

Internet Message Format | 1992-07-21 | 7.9 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!decwrl!mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!ub!acsu.buffalo.edu!ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu!v121kh43
From: [e-mail] (Daniel R. Goupil)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Morality and "cultural relativism"
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jul 92 15:39:00 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University at Buffalo
Lines: 140
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
Nntp-Posting-Host: ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu


In article, [e-mail] (Peter Cash) reponds:
Subject: Re: frightening ignorance

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lee Story) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (GENTLEMAN) appears to advocate instruction in morality in the schools:

>   First of all, would you agree that ALL humans share common principles in
>   their pursuit of morality?  For example, don't all moral humans (and let's
>   just assume "all humans" refers to those in the USA) support the respect
>   of other humans to live? (e.g. we should not kill one another or it is
>   immoral to walk away from a human in need for help in order to remain
>   alive, etc.)  I am only offering a few areas that I think all moral humans
>   share (whether they are believers in Jesus, Aristotle's view of morality,
>   or Mohammed's.)  I only state these as a guideline so that you understand
>   my premise that all humans share common principles in their pursuit of
>   morality.  whether or not the above situations are true for all americans
>   I wish not to argue.

>   Secondly, perhaps it could be agreed upon that since all humans
>   believe on "such and such" moral values, than it is these values
>   that should be instilled in our students.  However, the task of
>   finding common beliefs for all might be an impossible one, but one
>   never knows.

>I appreciate the beneficent sentiment expressed here, but think
>Dr.Wright is right (indeed) to suspect that there may be no common
>morals.  The definition of usury is highly circumstantial.  What is
>adultery in one culture is expected behavior in another.

!That's irrelevant to the question at issue (which is "Should morality be
!taught in schools?"). Wright invites this mistake by suggesting that "all
!humans share common principles..."; in fact, whether or not all humans
!share such principles is also irrelevant to the point. What is relevant is
!only whether _our_ society shares a common morality. The answer is, of
!course, that it does--no society can continue to exist without such a
!common morality. And it is, of course, the responsibility of parents and of
!the schools to provide a moral education for children.

I agree to some extent that some form of common morality exists within
society, but 'the world' is also a society.  I point this out because in
the Persian Gulf conflict an example was made of what happens when one side
has power and one doesn't (Iraq and Kuwait).  Isn't this instance an example
of 'sandbox morality'? (no pun intended)  If leaders in Iraq acted immorally,
and were supported by the people, doesn't this mean that a form of common
morality does not exist?  I realize that in each society there are fringe
individuals who defy the common morality and they are the minority, but
isn't this just an example that common morality isn't as common as we would
like to think?

!Surely you don't expect children to _deduce_ for themselves what is right
!and wrong, do you? Well, maybe you do; I suppose this kind of thinking is
!fashionable in some circles. But people who think like this have never
!watched little kids play in a sand-box. (They're also probably too young to
!have kids.) Try it some time. When Sandy wants the truck Joe is playing
!with, what does she do? Does she politely ask to borrow it? And does Joe
!hand it over with a smile? Noooo. She tries to grab the truck. Joe grabs
!back. Sandy hits Joe over the head with a shovel. That's immorality. Your
!job, should you choose to become a parent, is to teach Sandy and Joe
!morality. You have to teach them about the difference between "mine" and
!"yours", about sharing, about not resorting to force when there is a
!difference of opinion.

I agree here....there has to be some type of common respect (morality)
taught, but not everyone can agree on what that should be.  Example:
not all cultures agree with sharing, so is this a common moral value?  I
don't see it that way.

!That's a hard job--it's hard not because it strains the brain to figure out
!a "common morality", but because kids are such fundamentally immoral
!creatures. Moral education isn't about the fine points--it isn't even about
!things like adultery (or usury, for heaven's sake). It's about the
!fundamental stuff--about the stuff that makes it possible to get along with
!one another. Adultery and usury are corollaries of the Basic Moral Laws of
!the Sandbox.

>Taxation is
>viewed as theft (and thus "immoral") by some people on the net.

!Who gives a piffle what some people on the net think? Are you going to be
!morally paralyzed because someone, somewhere, might disagree with you?

I don't think that anyone is 'paralyzed' unless the whole US government is
stuck in super glue because of disagreements over prayer in school.  It is
possible that we should just have a national referendum to determine whether
everyone agrees with prayer in school and tell the minority to go to hell
(not literally).  Doesn't this form a basis for discrimination....majority
power and suppression of the minority....or is this ok?  Was it ok when
many of our founding fathers and the citizens of that time thought slavery
was acceptable?  I wouldn't go out on a limb to justify that....

>Even
>the preservation of life and the corresponding minimal charity which
>it suggests are not universals in any large society.

!Oh sure--let's appoint Jeffrey Dahmer to a special consultantcy in moral
!education--we must make sure that his viewpoint is represented.

I realize that this statement was to make a point, but it may have some
validity....are we going to tell the minority that they have no say in matters
and treat them as such?  (I wouldn't put Jeffrey Dahmer anywhere but where
he has 'earned' the right to be, but I wouldn't give him anymore voice than
anyone else either).

>To abandon the
>attempt to slaughter the government-designated "enemy" is "desertion".
>To protect this enemy from fire is "treason".  These are capital
>crimes under military and civil law.  Many if not most students and
>their families accept these laws as being in accord with their moral
>sense.  Are you going to teach them to the contrary in your school?

!I'm not sure I follow you. Are you a pacifist? If so, our laws accommodate
!you. In any case, I don't see how it follows from the fact that some folks
!disagree about the role of military obligation in our society that no moral
!education is possible. One can have moral disagreements within a society,
!and still have a broad spectrum of moral agreement.
...
>There's also the possibility that, however horrible the effects of
>xenophobic war, the prospect of unbridled population growth would be
>more horrible still.

!What truly does frighten me is that you--and many who think like you--are
!quite serious about this. You think morality can't be (or shouldn't be)
!taught. If your way of thinking wins out (and given the intellectual
!caliber of the people who run our educational institutions, this is quite
!possible), we are going to cease to exist as a society in the near future.

I don't really agree with either one of you yet....but I think we have to
take other people's values and beliefs into consideration before we form
a system which may oppress them.  I would be the last person to say that
morality has no place in education, but we are not as close to common
morality as you might think (or you may recognize that differences exist...
I don't know yet).


One of the 'paralyzed ones'

Dan Goupil
SUNYAB Social Sciences
-