Can Education Truly Instill Morality?

[Philocrat]

Can you create viruses and bacteria?I highly doubt it. Because your body is destroying them at the moment...

Well, on this, I think you should give scientists a chance (and there are hundreds of them on this PF) to make their cases and judgements about this. From the very little that I know about this I think science is still in the process of classifying them and stating which class of viruses and bactarias are good or bad. Even if we claim to have done this already, can we really say how many of these classes of bacterias are harmful to humans?

On the issue of our body destroying these viruses and bacterias, well, at least one scientific assumption is that by balance of probability, nature is selectively doing so (destroying only the bad ones, if any), and doing so pretty good well at its own pace. And also that when we use drugs and vacines, we are in some way assisting nature in the process. Whether these assumptions are correct or not, those are (and should be) the standard scientific assumptions, anyway.

On a whole, perhaps it is a good idea for us to suspend judgements until this scientific classification propcess is complete. Or if the process is complete already, then let the science community table their findings for public scrutiny.

And with regards to our natural environment, when we cut down trees, fish, hunt, and pump dangerous gases into the atmosphere, are we doing so SELECTIVELY? Or are we BLINDLY acting in all these ways? When we do all these things, do we ask such questions as:

1) What are the NATURAL CONSEQUENCES of OVER-FISHING?

2) What are the NATURAL CONSEQUENCES of OVER-HUNTING?

3) What are the NATURAL CONSEQUENCES of OVER-DEFORESTATION?

4) What are the NATURAL CONSEQUENCES of OVER-POLLUTION?

Ultimately, do we act in any of these ways in MODERATION?

 

[GeD]

If you want to define Utitilitarianism and Universalism as you claim to have been accademically defined, then start a different thread, and I will come on it and expose several metaphyical, logical and epistemological blunders that I have uncovererd. I guess that is fair enough.

Thanks for the clearing your throat, anyway!

Definitions aren't the problem of universalism and utilitarianism. Your "finds" of metaphysical, logical and epistemological blunders in either universalism or utilitarianism doesn't change the definition of the systems or ideas that they represent. Also, stating that certain ideas are true without actually proving it is just foolish (those obvious blunders are also not popularly held, since most people can actually pick up a book and understand the definition of those terms without making their own definitions of the same word).

Well, on this, I think you should give scientists a chance (and there are hundreds of them on this PF) to make their cases and judgements about this. From the very little that I know about this I think science is still in the process of classifying them and stating which class of viruses and bactarias are good or bad. Even if we claim to have done this already, can we really say how many of these classes of bacterias are harmful to humans?

? I am amazed with your skill to rationalize, muddle up and ultimately circumvent the actual issue being presented against you. What does the classification of viruses or bacteria have to do with the fact that your doctrine is clearly flawed - just because we cannot create something, does not mean that WE SHOULD NOT harm or destroy them. Even vegetarians will complain against you - to them, you shouldn't destroy animals even if you can create them. However, you seem to have your own definitions of what is right, and exclude any sort of logical thought to permeate such created definitions.

So how about giving the scientists a chance to create animals. Then would it be ok to eat animals?

 

[GeD]

And with regards to our natural environment, when we cut down trees, fish, hunt, and pump dangerous gases into the atmosphere, are we doing so SELECTIVELY? Or are we BLINDLY acting in all these ways? When we do all these things, do we ask such questions as:

1) What are the NATURAL CONSEQUENCES of OVER-FISHING?

2) What are the NATURAL CONSEQUENCES of OVER-HUNTING?

3) What are the NATURAL CONSEQUENCES of OVER-DEFORESTATION?

4) What are the NATURAL CONSEQUENCES of OVER-POLLUTION?

Ultimately, do we act in any of these ways in MODERATION?

Why is this completely different idea in the same post as the talks about the need for scientific study? What relevance do these questions even have to the ENTIRE THREAD??

 

[Philocrat]

Definitions aren't the problem of universalism and utilitarianism. Your "finds" of metaphysical, logical and epistemological blunders in either universalism or utilitarianism doesn't change the definition of the systems or ideas that they represent. Also, stating that certain ideas are true without actually proving it is just foolish (those obvious blunders are also not popularly held, since most people can actually pick up a book and understand the definition of those terms without making their own definitions of the same word).

? I am amazed with your skill to rationalize, muddle up and ultimately circumvent the actual issue being presented against you. What does the classification of viruses or bacteria have to do with the fact that your doctrine is clearly flawed - just because we cannot create something, does not mean that WE SHOULD NOT harm or destroy them. Even vegetarians will complain against you - to them, you shouldn't destroy animals even if you can create them. However, you seem to have your own definitions of what is right, and exclude any sort of logical thought to permeate such created definitions.

So how about giving the scientists a chance to create animals. Then would it be ok to eat animals?

You came on this thread without making any attempt to answer the question that I asked which is whether morality can be taught (or even created if we found natural limitations in the human ability to learn). Instead you jump on my motto which I only used to promote my own belief. If you feel so worked up about my motto, just complain to the PF administrators. Let them be the judge and kick me out if they find it appropriate to do so. I have no problem with that. I am merely airing my opinion and I intend to use every avenue possible to promote what I believe about the safety of our natural environment. I think that what my motto means which I think most smart and clever people would very easily pick up and comprehend is:

KEEP OUR NATURAL WORLD SAFE BY THINKING AND ACTING WISELY AND, AS SOME PEOPLE USUALLY SAY, IN MODERATION WITHOUT GOING ON A RAMPAGE AND KILLING SPREE.

We do not have to agree for this to be what I meant or originally implied.

On the issue of classifying bacterias and viruses that you brought up, surely you would not be implying that all classes of viruses and bacterias that are known and unknown to man are bad ones such that you must go on a rampage and destruction of everyone of them. Are you? I know a few scientists on a personal level and I do not think every scientist there is would want to possesses your state of mind so as to want to wipe out every virus and bacteria without due care which he or she owes to the rest of humanity. The classification must therefore proceed on schedule. If it had not begun, it should start now as that is a very sensible thing to do to avoid mistakenly destroying bacterias or viruses that may be useful to the humans. Do we know if this is the case? My message is crsytal clear:

JUST BE CAREFULL ...THINK BEFORE YOU DESTROY ANYTHING(ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE THE POWER NEITHER TO CREATE NOR TO REPLACE IT), INCASE YOU ENDANGER THE REST OF HUMANITY IN THE PROCESS! IN OTHER WORDS, THINK OF HOW YOUR ACTION MAY AFFECT THE REST OF EVERYTHING ARROUND YOU. DON'T JUST NAIVELY AND BLINDLY ACT!

You questioned how good my reasoning is...how good is yours? Just stand in front of the mirror and check if you have a mountain in your eye before you ask someone else to remove a grain of sand from theirs!

The various interpretations that I have given the two moral terms or principles (Utilitarianism and Universalism) stand very firm as I have done in many places on this PF. You can deceive others as much as you like...you just can't deceive me, period. I will use them here on this PF or outside it...Just watch as the miracle unfolds!

If you want to stay on and contribute to this thread, here is the main question again:

Can morality be taught? Yes or no? Either way, explain!

 

[Philocrat]

Why is this completely different idea in the same post as the talks about the need for scientific study? What relevance do these questions even have to the ENTIRE THREAD??

So you think...dream on!

 

[GeD]

I'm going to answer to your responses in the reverse order.

If you want to stay on and contribute to this thread, here is the main question again:

Can morality be taught? Yes or no? Either way, expalin!

I posted this earlier on, and you either never read this, or chose to ignore it- a reoccuring event in this entire thread:

Answers to some questions
-Can morality be taught AND learned? YES. Everyone here has learned some sort of morality or some way of action or duty. Let's not have 20 more paragraphs on this.
-Can we keep or adopt values that will maintain a morality? Yes, values are usually coerced or modified to fit moralities - so this is possible.
-Can we follow a morality? Yes, this is obvious since we have many hardcore moralists, conformists, and people with herd mentalities to blindly follow other people's ideas.
-Therefore, even if we can find a single, UNIVERSAL morality that we can agree on, we still have the question...Do moral phenomena actually exist? Or are there only moral interpretations of phenomena? None of the previous answers confirms the existence of moral phenomena.

The various interpretations that I have given the two moral terms or principles (Utilitarianism and Universalism) stand very firm I as have done in many places on this PF. You can deceive others as much as you like...you just can't decieve me, period. I will use them here on this PF or outside it...Just watch as the miracle unfolds!

As long as you stop calling your "theories" as the actual definitions of Util & Univ, I will be glad to sit back and watch your "miracles".

You questioned how good my reasoning is...how good is yours? Just stand in th mirror and check if you have a mountain in your eye before you ask someone else to remove a grain of sand from theirs!

Oh great, so only people who have completely good reasoning can disprove someone else? Your having bad reasoning has nothing to do with whomever else's reasoning. Please, I've heard enough parables in my life, save it for sermons.

Let's take alook shall we?
A.

THINK NATURE...STAY GREEN! ABOVE ALL, NEVER HARM OR DESTROY THAT WHICH YOU CANNOT CREATE! MAY THE BOOK OF NATURE SERVE YOU WELL AND BRING YOU ALL THAT IS GOOD!

B.

JUST BE CAREFULL ...THINK BEFORE YOU DESTROY ANYTHING(ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE THE POWER NEITHER TO CREATE NOR TO REPLACE IT), INCASE YOU ENDANGER THE REST OF HUMANITY IN THE PROCESS! IN OTHER WORDS, THINK OF HOW YOUR ACTION MAY AFFECT THE REST OF EVERYTHING ARROUND YOU. DON'T JUST NAIVELY AND BLINDLY ACT!

A is clearly not the same as B if you know even a decent amount of english. There has been something added on to B, and it is clearly a better effort, and doesn't resort to talking about "the book of nature". It adds the extra requirement that the destruction of things could endanger humanity and that is why we should be careful with what we kill. It finally goes on to explain about the dangers of destroying things which we do not yet understand and how its extinction may affect us. It is a much stronger argument than simply generalizing and stating that ALL things which we cannot create should not be destroyed.
But I must warn you, the vegetarians will still go against you. We know that killing chickens and cows won't affect us too badly (and may even help us), so this argument does not condemn the eating of meat. I don't know if you support vegetarianism or not, but the new argument is still insufficient for their needs.

On the issue of classifying bacterias and viruses that you brought up, surely you would not be implying that all classes of viruses and bacterias that are known and unknown to man are bad ones such that you must go on a rampage and destruction of everyone of them. Are you? I know a few scientists on a personal level and I do not think every scinetist there is would want to possese your state of mind so as to want to wipe out every virus and bacteria without due care which he or she owes to the rest of humanity. The classification must therefore proceed on schedule.

The classification has no bearing with the issue I brought up! Why is it you cannot understand that? I know that some viruses and bacteria are required by humans and the world alike. I know that the classification of viruses and bacteria would be useful to us. But I was speaking of the fact that: WE NEED TO KILL SOME VIRUSES AND BACTERIA TO KEEP OURSELVES ALIVE, EVEN THOUGH WE DO NOT KNOW HOW TO CREATE THEM. THEREFORE, WE CANNOT JUST GENERALIZE AND SAY THAT WE SHOULD NOT KILL ANYTHING WE CANNOT CREATE. Please understand that line and you'll see that you had nothing to be offended about.

 

[GeD]

So you think...dream on!

So you claim...give proof!

 

[Philocrat]

Answers to some questions
-Can morality be taught AND learned? YES. Everyone here has learned some sort of morality or some way of action or duty. Let's not have 20 more paragraphs on this.

True, we have. Qunatify the ratio of those since the advent of man who can succesfully learn moral codes and apply them correctly without getting into trouble with their makers and teachers of those moral codes and equate that with the ratio of those who can't. Prisons and wars are our best evidences that those who can't stick to moral rules do exist and we have had countless of them throughout the human history. Then say how both Utilitarians and Universalists would respond to both ratios.

-Can we keep or adopt values that will maintain a morality? Yes, values are usually coerced or modified to fit moralities - so this is possible.

True, but why introduce the term 'coerced'? Will both utilitarians and universalists respond in the same way or differently to this term? Give an idea of how each would respond.

-Can we follow a morality? Yes, this is obvious since we have many hardcore moralists, conformists, and people with herd mentalities to blindly follow other people's ideas.

My notion of following morality is different. I do not see anything wrong in people following other people's ideas provided by balance of probability we can make clear estimate of how much human progress those ideas generate in the process. My own belief is that this estimate, if it can be done in the first place, should clearly indicate whether to continue with these ideas or to abandon them altogether, and perhaps seek alterantiive ideas, rule or action. On this, I suggested the possibility of being CREATIVE in the process. But one has to be very careful on this incase one has to combine both education and creativitity and action both in a positive way!This is why I provided this option in the survey. By the way, have you voted?

-Therefore, even if we can find a single, UNIVERSAL morality that we can agree on, we still have the question...Do moral phenomena actually exist? Or are there only moral interpretations of phenomena? None of the previous answers confirms the existence of moral phenomena.

Well, metaphysically yes...but at the practical empirical level this is why I facilitated the question with the 'Creation' clause: If everyone cannot everytime lean moral rules, understand it in the same way, apply it in the same way, and continue to do so, could we then turn to creative processes of a scientific kind to make this prossible? My own opinion, obviously which you do not have to agree with is that we may very well can, given the right frame of mind and approach. This has nothing to do with proof. Even if we thought of this as being unprovable, have we given it any try? Have we made any effort of any kind to see if this is possible? Why should we prejudge and make no attempts?

NOTE: The fundamental fact is that throughout the entire human history, a given percentage of the humans are always in prison. There is no single era since the advent of man that someone or people are not being locked up because for failure to obey rules. Do you think we can have an era (ever) when and where this is not the case? Well, as I have argued many times eslewhere, I think we should all wait incase science can do it.

 

[GeD]

True, we have. Qunatify the ratio of those since the advent of man who can succesfully learn moral codes and apply them correctly without getting into trouble with their makers and teachers of those moral codes and equate that with the ratio of those who can't. Prisons and wars are our best evidences that those who can't stick to moral rules do exist and we have had countless of them throughout the human history. Then say how both Utilitarians and Universalists would respond to both ratios.

Unfortunately, most people don't BELIEVE in or WANT to follow a moral code. There is a huge leap between LEARNING a morality, and actually FOLLOWING a morality. Not everyone is a moralist after all - not everyone will automatically choose to morality, simply because it is taught to them. This is the power of freedom and choice. It is not usually just because they have a hard time learning it, or they don't quite understand it - those are only some cases. Secondly, because there is a lot of disagreement about morals, many may be acting morally in their mind, but still acting in a way that seems immoral against someone with a different set of morals. I do not support moral relativism, but this is just the truth about people.

True, but why introduce the term 'coerced'? Will both utilitarians and universalists respond in the same way or differently to this term? Give an idea of how each would respond.

? I said that people can be coerced to change or just personally modify the moralities that they believe in. It has nothing to do with utilitarians and universalists.

My notion of following morality is different. I do not see anything wrong in people following other people's ideas provided by balance of probability we can make clear estimate of how much human progress those ideas generate in the process.

Neither do I, it simply shows that some people are sheepish comformists, and have herd-like mentalities.

Well, metaphysically yes...but at the practical empirical level this is why I facilitated the question with the 'Creation' clause: If everyone cannot everytime lean moral rules, understand it in the same way, apply it in the same way, and continue to do so, could we then turn to creative processes of a scientific kind to make this prossible? My own opinion, obviously which you do not have to agree with is that we may very well can, given the right frame of mind and approach. This has nothing to do with proof. Even if we thought of this as being unprovable, have we given it any try? Have we made any effort of any kind to see if this is possible? Why should we prejudge and make no attempts?

Such attempts have been present ever since new moral philosophies and political doctrines were invented - trying to get people to "learn" their moral code. It is possible to learn and teach moralities, as we have seen in any group or organization. The problem is that not everyone wants to "follow" someone else's laws. Some disobey. Learning a morality does not necessitate that the person always chooses to FOLLOW them.

NOTE: The fundamental fact is that throughout the entire human history, a given percentage of the humans are always in prison. There is no single era since the advent of man that someone or people are not being locked up because for failure to obey rules. Do you think we can have an era (ever) when and where this is not the case? Well, as I have argued many times eslewhere, I think we should all wait incase science can do it.

Perhaps it's time to start thinking of why we have moralities and what use we REALLY have for them in the first place, instead of just trying to find moral laws "that makes sense", assume that it is all based on objective thinking, and that everyone else is wrong.
But the biggest problem faced when teaching, learning or creating moralities has been said before - there are no actual moral phenomena, only moral interpretations of phenomena.

 

[russ_watters]

Sorry, Dan, this deserved a response, but I was tired of the thread:

Um, don't we have to teach kids how to behave in a "civilized" society?

Its actually a tougher question than the way I framed it because whether they could figure it out on their own or not, they are alway actively being taught, so its difficult to prove. But I believe that in the absence of active teaching, they would learn it on their own. Perhaps research on animals has yielded clues to this, but I'm not sure.

 

[Dayle Record]

We are born with survival instincts, and ask any parent, a great deal of personality. When raised in an unfailingly ethical and compassionate environment, children will still need guidance as to how best live within the constraints of the group, which lives within the economic, climatic, political, geographic constraints the group faces, and then there is the world at large. It takes a concerted long effort to provide a path to right living.

It is my belief that the layering of moral standards, that spring from the strictures of ancient warlike peoples, is a hinderance to a true, reality based means of being in balance with the world at hand, and all its occupants.

Morality as a concept has so many definitions, and some of them are murderous, and dictatorial. Any animal can be taught with brutality, but the behavioralists postulated that the random positive reward was the most powerful tool for persuasion.

So then, you take a girl from central Africa, and let some crone with a sharp rock, mutilate her genitals, for the sake of morality, then give her a bowl of milk, for a change, since she nearly never gets milk. Then give her another bowl of milk on her wedding night, maybe she will become moral, maybe stay moral, if she receives infrequent random feedings from her new husband. Beat her if it is thought she has strayed in any way.
Corporally punish your child if you catch them masturbating, this will certainly teach them the morality of absolute privacy, in any case. Demand 10% of the means of a starving family, so that they can be favored of God. Give people weapons and strap-on body bombs, so that people who are immoral, can be easily murdered, in God's name.

Morality isn't even a clear concept, really unless everyone on the planet embraces a common creed, a super creed of some sort, then the dialogue can begin as to how we may best behave toward one another, and the world we inhabit.

Again last week, humanism was spoken against, by the leader of one of the world's largest religions. There seems to be a never ending immoral war against basic goodness, by those that vie for the influence and power of their own particular theology.

In many ways, our species resembles the molten core of this planet, heaving, and seething, breaking the bonds of inertia and erupting out into catastrophe. We resemble a large and exceeding immoral family, that respects no boundary, no authority, no individual, no spirit, no place or thing, or moment. Our dysfunction is extreme, and seemingly as mindless, and yet determined as a persistent lava flow.

Many more human lives could be lived in a relative harmony, but the forces that oppose this in the name of morality are overwhelming.

 

[Padford]

I voted the morality “can be taught while being created”. I think this, because it was the closest to "Morality is taught while being created," (note the "is"). This is because our moral code is constantly changing to fit our lives, yes it's still wrong to murder, not many contest that, nor do many people contest that the plunder rape and pillage thing is bad. However, our moral code is changing, here are some examples:

50 years ago it was almost completely unacceptable for people to divorce, now it happens a lot; this is usually for the better (really not trying to spark and controversy here...).
Another; the word illegitimate has almost been phased out of the modern English spoken language, many people have kids out of marriage, and feel none the worse for it. An mother bearing an illegitimate child in Ireland, (only using it as an example as I know about it) were (not always, but more often that you think) sent away, even if they were raped, cast aside by their families, they were ‘fallacies.’ (Just watch 'The Magdalene Sister' you'll hate what the Catholic faith did to so many women in Ireland, and indeed across the world for so long.)

So, morality is taught while created, basically, as we evolve as a species, we change, some things shall always remain objectionable, and other things may change, who knows, maybe the Labour party'll get voted out?!

 

[GeD]

Dayle, I just wanted to make a crucial edit on your post...

There seems to be a never ending immoral war against basic goodness, by those that vie for the influence and POWER - which is almost everyone.
(instead of: of their own particular morality)