Why Our Children Don’t Think There Are Moral Facts

[crazy canuck]

Vancouver smells

With the sweet aroma of cherry blossoms blooming early this year.

[Ideologue]

I love Peanutbutter cups

[Norgy]

You're all a bunch of snobs. Back in the day, we were taught multiplication by being hit severely over the head with a dead cod multiple times. That's how you teach maths. Cod and violence.

After the practice was abandoned, math scores plummeted. The need for going to the school nurse too.

Seriously, this is a community of people who mostly don't teach. Ed and PDH are the only ones I can think of. I temped as a teacher after I finished my master, and became a victim of thinking "yeah, they probably aren't THAT stupid". These students couldn't even name what our parliament is called. And they were high school graduates. I flunked the fuck out of them, then got told off by the principal.

[dps]

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

Part of the problem might simply be in the terminology.  I don't much like the term "moral facts".  Morals are basically values and opinions.  And while one fact is not inherently "better" or superior to any other fact, some morals, values, and opinions are better than others.

For example, facts:

20-11=9.

In baseball, a batter is out after 3 strikes.

In the U.S. it's against the law to falsify information on your Federal Income Tax Return.

Chester Nimitz was an Admiral in the U.S. Navy during WWII.

All of those are fairly easily verifiable, but none is a "better" fact than any of the others (though some may be more important, or more relevant in a given context).

Of course, something presented as a statement of fact isn't necessarily an actual fact.  if someone writes that "Humphrey Bogart was a Union General in the American Civil War", the person making the statement is either deliberately lying for some reason;  making a really, really obvious mistake; or trying to entertain someone with a work of fiction.

On to opinions.  Some opinions, of course, don't involve moral judgments as such.  For example:

Willie Mays was a better baseball player than Hank Aaron.

Omar Bradley was actually a better general than Patton.

We should replace the graduated income tax with a flat tax.

All of those, I think, are at least reasonably arguable.  And while I don't think any of them are moral value statements, the supporting arguments for or against them might involve values (especially the last one).

Now lets move on to actual moral values:

Lying is wrong.

Women who are raped should be stoned to death for adultery.

In the criminal justice system, the punishment should fit the crime.

All 3 of those statements are moral values that some people somewhere in the world believe.  All of us here, I hope, would agree at least in the abstract with the 1st and 3rd statements (though many of us might note various exceptions or such with the 1st, and we would most certainly disagree in many instances as to what punishment best fits a given crime--or even if certain acts should be criminal or not), and vehemently disagree with the 2nd. 

So I would argue that while one fact isn't better than another, some values are better than others.  I have no problem saying that the 1st and 3d value statements I used for examples state far, far, better values than the 2nd.

And that might be the real crux of the problem that the author of the article was trying to get at.  Are we actually teaching our children that some values are better than others? 

[CountDeMoney]

I think the real crux of the problem is that--

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

--and the possibility of any concept even remotely related to religion--from which "moral facts" originate--absolutely chafes to no end a board like Languish, which is overpopulated by an inordinate number of obnoxiously snot-nosed and cynical atheists, lawyers and Europeans.

[dps]

I think the real crux of the problem is that--

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

--and the possibility of any concept even remotely related to religion--from which "moral facts" originate--absolutely chafes to no end a board like Languish, which is overpopulated by an inordinate number of obnoxiously snot-nosed and cynical atheists, lawyers and Europeans.

Well, in fairness, those of us who are neither atheists, lawyers, nor Europeans tend to be kind of obnoxious and cynical.

[Grey Fox]

I think the real crux of the problem is that--

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

--and the possibility of any concept even remotely related to religion--from which "moral facts" originate--absolutely chafes to no end a board like Languish, which is overpopulated by an inordinate number of obnoxiously snot-nosed and cynical atheists, lawyers and Europeans.

and rightfully so, too.

[Barrister]

I think the real crux of the problem is that--

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

--and the possibility of any concept even remotely related to religion--from which "moral facts" originate--absolutely chafes to no end a board like Languish, which is overpopulated by an inordinate number of obnoxiously snot-nosed and cynical atheists, lawyers and Europeans.

I recognize "moral facts".

[merithyn]

Children tend to be very black and white in nature. There are two options to them in most things: Right and Wrong. The concept of gray areas come much later in life (usually by middle school it's starting to show and it solidifies as a concept, though not in practice, in high school).

I think that this particular individual is saying that playing off that, we need to teach "right" and "wrong" as absolutes in a way that children will understand and carry forward. As they get older and start to recognize gray areas, then the concept of "mostly right" and "mostly wrong" can be introduced. And this continues all the way through to autonomy (18 for some, 25 for others, 40 for the Seedy's of the world ).

By using the term "facts", he's saying that these are what we, as a society, have determined to be Right and/or Wrong, when the gray areas are stripped away. They don't work on adults because, well, we understand that while stealing is wrong, a man taking a loaf of bread to feed his family is only kind of wrong. This idea of teaching children absolutes went out of favor about 20 years ago, roughly the same time "building up self-esteem" became the cause celebre'. We were told that it was better not to confuse children with absolutes, to let them find their own way, etc. I failed at this and taught them the absolutes in my home, which ended up with some interesting conversations with teachers and principals. *shrugs*

In general, I tend to think that we should teach things in a way that children will understand them at the level they are at. This means that absolutes are absolutely necessary until they're not.

[CountDeMoney]

I recognize "moral facts".

Sometimes a few too many, but that's OK.   

[Warspite]

You're all a bunch of snobs. Back in the day, we were taught multiplication by being hit severely over the head with a dead cod multiple times. That's how you teach maths. Cod and violence.

After the practice was abandoned, math scores plummeted. The need for going to the school nurse too.

Cod is dead. Cod remains dead. And we have killed it.

[grumbler]

Every educator worth his or her salt has attended classes on child development and understands Piaget's research into the intellectual and emotional development of children, and knows how to present moral issues in an age-appropriate manner.  whether they do so, of course, is another question.  Interestingly, Meri far underestimates the development of moral reasoning in typical children, and so is probably preaching absolute values after her kids understand how inadequate those are, but that's a parent's privilege.  I'm sure her teachers found those discussions as... interesting... as she did. *shrugs*

[Eddie Teach]

Vancouver smells

With the sweet aroma of cherry blossoms blooming early this year.

I think he meant the weed.

[merithyn]

Every educator worth his or her salt has attended classes on child development and understands Piaget's research into the intellectual and emotional development of children, and knows how to present moral issues in an age-appropriate manner.  whether they do so, of course, is another question.  Interestingly, Meri far underestimates the development of moral reasoning in typical children, and so is probably preaching absolute values after her kids understand how inadequate those are, but that's a parent's privilege.  I'm sure her teachers found those discussions as... interesting... as she did. *shrugs*

I'm going based entirely on what my kids were able to deal with based on the discussions that we had on their behavior, not on what was taught elsewhere about the theory of it. (By the way, I also took those classes in college. I found that children are remarkably and individually different in real life than they are in a text book or a classroom for a few hours a day.) I'm also talking about adjusting the discussions as necessary on a day-by-day basis, something that becomes less possible in a classroom setting.

I'm not sure I understand your point here, grumbler. Are you agreeing with the article in the OP? Disagreeing with it? Just being snarky for the sake of snarkiness? Personally, I agree to an extent with the article. Of course, I'm not a professional, am I? Just a volunteer amateur with 21+ years experience watching the same individuals grow and learn. Quite a bit different than a classroom setting to be sure.

[Malthus]

Vancouver smells

With the sweet aroma of cherry blossoms blooming early this year.

I think he meant the weed.

So did CC.

Every year, those obsessive stoners meddle with the genetics of BC Bud ...