Why Our Children Don’t Think There Are Moral Facts

[jimmy olsen]

What a bunch of hysteria over nothing. We should invite him to Languish!

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/02/why-our-children-dont-think-there-are-moral-facts/?smid=fb-share&_r=0

Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts
By Justin P. McBrayer   
March 2, 2015 3:25 am March 2, 2015 3:25 am
The Stone

The Stone is a forum for contemporary philosophers and other thinkers on issues both timely and timeless.

What would you say if you found out that our public schools were teaching children that it is not true that it's wrong to kill people for fun or cheat on tests? Would you be surprised?

I was. As a philosopher, I already knew that many college-aged students don't believe in moral facts. While there are no national surveys quantifying this phenomenon, philosophy professors with whom I have spoken suggest that the overwhelming majority of college freshman in their classrooms view moral claims as mere opinions that are not true or are true only relative to a culture.

    A misleading distinction between fact and opinion is embedded in the Common Core.

What I didn't know was where this attitude came from. Given the presence of moral relativism in some academic circles, some people might naturally assume that philosophers themselves are to blame. But they aren't. There are historical examples of philosophers who endorse a kind of moral relativism, dating back at least to Protagoras who declared that "man is the measure of all things," and several who deny that there are any moral facts whatsoever. But such creatures are rare. Besides, if students are already showing up to college with this view of morality, it's very unlikely that it's the result of what professional philosophers are teaching. So where is the view coming from?

A few weeks ago, I learned that students are exposed to this sort of thinking well before crossing the threshold of higher education. When I went to visit my son's second grade open house, I found a troubling pair of signs hanging over the bulletin board. They read:

Fact: Something that is true about a subject and can be tested or proven.

Opinion: What someone thinks, feels, or believes.

Hoping that this set of definitions was a one-off mistake, I went home and Googled "fact vs. opinion." The definitions I found online were substantially the same as the one in my son's classroom. As it turns out, the Common Core standards used by a majority of K-12 programs in the country require that students be able to "distinguish among fact, opinion, and reasoned judgment in a text." And the Common Core institute provides a helpful page full of links to definitions, lesson plans and quizzes to ensure that students can tell the difference between facts and opinions.

So what's wrong with this distinction and how does it undermine the view that there are objective moral facts?

First, the definition of a fact waffles between truth and proof — two obviously different features. Things can be true even if no one can prove them. For example, it could be true that there is life elsewhere in the universe even though no one can prove it. Conversely, many of the things we once "proved" turned out to be false. For example, many people once thought that the earth was flat. It's a mistake to confuse truth (a feature of the world) with proof (a feature of our mental lives). Furthermore, if proof is required for facts, then facts become person-relative. Something might be a fact for me if I can prove it but not a fact for you if you can't. In that case, E=MC2 is a fact for a physicist but not for me.

But second, and worse, students are taught that claims are either facts or opinions. They are given quizzes in which they must sort claims into one camp or the other but not both. But if a fact is something that is true and an opinion is something that is believed, then many claims will obviously be both. For example, I asked my son about this distinction after his open house. He confidently explained that facts were things that were true whereas opinions are things that are believed. We then had this conversation:

Me: "I believe that George Washington was the first president. Is that a fact or an opinion?"

Him: "It's a fact."

Me: "But I believe it, and you said that what someone believes is an opinion."

Him: "Yeah, but it's true."

Me: "So it's both a fact and an opinion?"

The blank stare on his face said it all.

How does the dichotomy between fact and opinion relate to morality? I learned the answer to this question only after I investigated my son's homework (and other examples of assignments online). Kids are asked to sort facts from opinions and, without fail, every value claim is labeled as an opinion. Here's a little test devised from questions available on fact vs. opinion worksheets online: are the following facts or opinions?


— Copying homework assignments is wrong.

— Cursing in school is inappropriate behavior.

— All men are created equal.

— It is worth sacrificing some personal liberties to protect our country from terrorism.

— It is wrong for people under the age of 21 to drink alcohol.

— Vegetarians are healthier than people who eat meat.

— Drug dealers belong in prison.

The answer? In each case, the worksheets categorize these claims as opinions. The explanation on offer is that each of these claims is a value claim and value claims are not facts. This is repeated ad nauseum: any claim with good, right, wrong, etc. is not a fact.

In summary, our public schools teach students that all claims are either facts or opinions and that all value and moral claims fall into the latter camp. The punchline: there are no moral facts. And if there are no moral facts, then there are no moral truths.

The inconsistency in this curriculum is obvious. For example, at the outset of the school year, my son brought home a list of student rights and responsibilities. Had he already read the lesson on fact vs. opinion, he might have noted that the supposed rights of other students were based on no more than opinions. According to the school's curriculum, it certainly wasn't true that his classmates deserved to be treated a particular way — that would make it a fact. Similarly, it wasn't really true that he had any responsibilities — that would be to make a value claim a truth. It should not be a surprise that there is rampant cheating on college campuses: If we've taught our students for 12 years that there is no fact of the matter as to whether cheating is wrong, we can't very well blame them for doing so later on.

Indeed, in the world beyond grade school, where adults must exercise their moral knowledge and reasoning to conduct themselves in the society, the stakes are greater. There, consistency demands that we acknowledge the existence of moral facts. If it's not true that it's wrong to murder a cartoonist with whom one disagrees, then how can we be outraged? If there are no truths about what is good or valuable or right, how can we prosecute people for crimes against humanity? If it's not true that all humans are created equal, then why vote for any political system that doesn't benefit you over others?

Our schools do amazing things with our children. And they are, in a way, teaching moral standards when they ask students to treat one another humanely and to do their schoolwork with academic integrity. But at the same time, the curriculum sets our children up for doublethink. They are told that there are no moral facts in one breath even as the next tells them how they ought to behave.

We can do better. Our children deserve a consistent intellectual foundation. Facts are things that are true. Opinions are things we believe. Some of our beliefs are true. Others are not. Some of our beliefs are backed by evidence. Others are not. Value claims are like any other claims: either true or false, evidenced or not. The hard work lies not in recognizing that at least some moral claims are true but in carefully thinking through our evidence for which of the many competing moral claims is correct. That's a hard thing to do. But we can't sidestep the responsibilities that come with being human just because it's hard.

That would be wrong.

Justin P. McBrayer is an associate professor of philosophy at Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colo. He works in ethics and philosophy of religion.

[Martinus]

Fact: The guy has no idea what he is talking about
Opinion: The guy is a fucking moron

See? I demonstrated a difference.

[Valmy]

Facts are things that are true.

Oh dear lord.  Not in this context

[Grey Fox]

Fuck values.

[Martinus]

— Copying homework assignments is wrong.

— Cursing in school is inappropriate behavior.

— All men are created equal.

— It is worth sacrificing some personal liberties to protect our country from terrorism.

— It is wrong for people under the age of 21 to drink alcohol.

— Vegetarians are healthier than people who eat meat.

— Drug dealers belong in prison.

But all of these statements are in fact opinions - they are not facts (with the possible exception of the part about vegetarians, as this could be verified objectively, potentially).

Everything else is an opinion (and ones that, in most cases, are debatable, especially if used as blanket, universalistic statements). I don't really get the author's view on this.

[Valmy]

He thinks facts > opinions and facts are about truth.  When in this context facts may not be true at all, they are just provable.  Kind of embarrassing a professor cannot understand elementary school concepts.

[Martinus]

Yeah it's just that he is all over the place. Especially as the "opinions" he lists are really value statements that not only are not provable but are also debatable even within the Western morality.

For example:

— Copying homework assignments is wrong - fine, if we operate in a system of equal opportunity, but otherwise probably it can be justifiable when some kids receive preferential treatment, the others have to cheat to keep up. Plus if you have been kidnapped by a psychopath who will kill you and your family if you fail a homework assignment, probably copying it off someone else so you can succeed is not wrong anymore...

— Cursing in school is inappropriate behavior. - depends on what kind of school. Probably cadets in a military school can curse. Or students in Hogwart in the "Curses and Omens" class.

— All men are created equal. - This is purely a value judgement. In fact, biologically speaking it's the opposite.

— It is worth sacrificing some personal liberties to protect our country from terrorism. - Debatable like hell.

— It is wrong for people under the age of 21 to drink alcohol. - Not really. Irrespective of the fact that kids can (and in some cultures do) drink in moderation, 21 is a purely arbitrary age - most countries allow drinking from the age of 18.

— Vegetarians are healthier than people who eat meat. - As I said, the only statement here which could theoretically be provable, subject to some additional assumptions and caveats.

— Drug dealers belong in prison. - Not really. See: pharmacists.

[CountDeMoney]

The FACT that you people think "copying homework assignments is wrong" is an OPINION is a disturbing FACT.

[Valmy]

The FACT that you people think "copying homework assignments is wrong" is an OPINION is a disturbing FACT.

But according to the elementary school definition it is an opinion.  It is a value judgment, and not something provable.

[CountDeMoney]

The FACT that you people think "copying homework assignments is wrong" is an OPINION is a disturbing FACT.

But according to the elementary school definition it is an opinion.  It is a value judgment, and not something provable.

This is the point the author is trying to make: that Common Core is at fault for perpetuating "Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts."  But no, everybody's giving the author shit about what he's trying to say, even though he spells it all out. 

Leave it to lawyers, Assburgers and Millennials to forget there's something called a moral compass.   I hope all of you die in wheat thresher combine accidents, you amoral autistic Nuremberg fuckwits.

[Valmy]

This is the point the author is trying to make: that Common Core is at fault for perpetuating "Why Our Children Don’t Think There Are Moral Facts."  But no, everybody's giving the author shit about what he's trying to say, even though he spells it all out.

The point I am trying to make is that facts are not better than opinions.  Especially in regards to morality.

Leave it to lawyers, Assburgers and Millennials to forget there's something called a moral compass.   I hope all of you die in wheat thresher combine accidents, you amoral autistic Nuremberg fuckwits.

Your inability to grasp simple concepts does not make my an idiot.

[CountDeMoney]

This is the point the author is trying to make: that Common Core is at fault for perpetuating "Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts."  But no, everybody's giving the author shit about what he's trying to say, even though he spells it all out.

The point I am trying to make is that facts are not better than opinions.  Especially in regards to morality.

That's not being disputed here.

Leave it to lawyers, Assburgers and Millennials to forget there's something called a moral compass.   I hope all of you die in wheat thresher combine accidents, you amoral autistic Nuremberg fuckwits.

Your inability to grasp simple concepts does not make my an idiot.

I wasn't addressing you, unless you fall under the three categories I have identified;  you also spelled spelled "me" wrong.

[Valmy]

That's not being disputed here.

Well I think that is what is annoying him here.  Kids use the 'well that's just an opinion' thing to be assholes the same way they claim 'freedom of speech' gives them the right to tell their mother to 'fuck off'.  Just kids using whatever they can find to fuck with adults.

I wasn't addressing you, unless you fall under the three categories I have identified;  you also spelled spelled "me" wrong.

If I had a penny for every simple word I misspell or leave out I would be

[The Brain]

What the hell is a moral fact? The author appears to be a moran.

[crazy canuck]

This discussion reminds me of the difficulty which sometimes arises when decision making bodies comprised of academics are told they need to make findings of "fact" from evidence presented to them.  They often object to that characterization and say that what they are expressing is their view of evidence not "facts".  Try explaining to them there is no difference when they are, in fact , the decision maker.