Moral judgements are just opinions in school curricula

[Lauralea]

fccool

It is no longer possible to teach morality in the public school system. I know this because I have been certified to substitute teach in 2 large U.S. school systems. I did not ever teach it, we were taught not to at the outset without any comment on my part. While I did mention religion here I am not contemplating teaching it in the school system. I said I thought a variety of ethical belief systems should be taught.

Morality is  not being taught in the school systems any longer and is described as an opinion rather than a fact. when mentioned. I personally do not think this is helpful. I would glean from your posts you think some type of morality or ethics should be taught, in which case we are in agreement on that point. Perhaps we would disagree on their content, but I am guessing that premeditated murder perjury and theft would be included on your list of activities to avoid as well. Not sure that comparing the founding fathers to psychopathic murderers was particularly helpful. Most of us have had college backgrounds that make us somewhat familiar with the social structure of the colonial U.S.  I agree with their ideals to a greater extent than the concept that teaching morality should be assiduously avoided.

[fccool]

It is no longer possible to teach morality in the public school system. I know this because I have been certified to substitute teach in 2 large U.S. school systems. I did not ever teach it, we were taught not to at the outset without any comment on my part. While I did mention religion here I am not contemplating teaching it in the school system. I said I thought a variety of ethical belief systems should be taught.

 

 

The question of morality is about the context in which you would teach it, with appropriate justifications of what you would teach that wouldn't pass as mere indoctrination.   Education implies understanding, and you seem to misunderstand the below:

 

Morality is  not being taught in the school systems any longer and is described as an opinion rather than a fact.

 

I think you didn't read my response above.

 

The semantics of the word "opinion" doesn't merely reside with "lacking factual relevance and justification".   Opinion denotes a view or judgment formed about something.   It can be based on facts, or it can be based on personal preferences.  There are VALID opinions, and there are INVALID or ARBITRARY opinions.  Valid opinions form the framework behind morality and propositional and provisional truths.    But it doesn't change the fact that the morality is an opinion.  Saying that God proclaims something doesn't change that fact.   Morality merely becomes God's opinion and judgement then. 

 

The writer in the article creates a false distinction between morality and opinion.  Morality is a form of opinion, but it's not just an opinion.   Just like an opinion of a jury, morality is a collective opinion of any given culture which can be supported by facts, tradition, and beliefs. 

 

Morality and facts are not synonymous.   Morality is a judgement about facts in terms of how these two words are related.

 

 

I would glean from your posts you think some type of morality or ethics should be taught, in which case we are in agreement on that point. Perhaps we would disagree on their content, but I am guessing that premeditated murder perjury and theft would be included on your list of activities to avoid as well.

 

 My point is this...

 

How can the author of this article teach proper perspective on morality, when he is confused on basic semantic meaning of words surrounding it... and he thinks that morality can be linked with facts by means of "to be" verb?

 

 

My point about founding fathers is somewhat secondary, and it's largely about idealism vs reality.   Moral Idealism often clouds moral realism.   Idealism is seldom the best way of evaluating moral landscape, precisely because it lacks reality.   There's essentially little difference in a way that Stalin and Lenin was portrayed in Soviet educational system, and the way founding fathers are portrayed in US textbooks.   How can we learn anything as a society, if we continually sweep the reality under the rug for the sake of idealism?

 

For me, this is probably the biggest problem with religious take on morality.   It's portrayed as flawless, when it's far from it in reality of its application.