Right and wrong (ritual, moral, beliefs, America, spiritual)

[michel]

From:-http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2292741,00.html

SCHOOLS would no longer be required to teach children the difference between right and wrong under plans to revise the core aims of the National Curriculum.
NI_MPU('middle');Instead, under a new wording that reflects a world of relative rather than absolute values, teachers would be asked to encourage pupils to develop “secure values and beliefs”.

What is the difference between 'right and wrong' and 'secure values and beliefs' ?

[Booko]

Originally Posted by michel

From:-http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2292741,00.html


What is the difference between 'right and wrong' and 'secure values and beliefs' ?

4 syllables?

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by michel

From:-http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2292741,00.html

SCHOOLS would no longer be required to teach children the difference between right and wrong under plans to revise the core aims of the National Curriculum.
NI_MPU('middle');Instead, under a new wording that reflects a world of relative rather than absolute values, teachers would be asked to encourage pupils to develop “secure values and beliefs”.

What is the difference between 'right and wrong' and 'secure values and beliefs' ?

Seems like the difference is generic.

Something can be both relative and secure - like Stoic ethics or any other system of ethics that has a sliding scale. That is, a secure table of values can be applied situationally - the values are secure but the application recognizes complex situations. The situations can be so complex that the application of values can be contradictory in certain contexts.

[Fluffy]

If this is a move closer to teaching pupils ethics as opposed to morality then I approve immensely. As long as they encouraged to abide by the law then I see this as a good thing.

The difference that is being inferred here is that the school will no longer teach the students a particular definition of right and wrong but rather to encourage the students to adopt their own principles upon which they may base ethical decisions. This would be worrying to anybody who believed that humans were inherently evil and need to be shown the way or they will falter from the path but very encouraging to people such as myself who believe the exact opposite. For me this will help to prevent the indoctrination of poorly thought out principles that then lead to discrimination.

[!Fluffy!]

Originally Posted by michel

From:-http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2292741,00.html

SCHOOLS would no longer be required to teach children the difference between right and wrong under plans to revise the core aims of the National Curriculum.
NI_MPU('middle');Instead, under a new wording that reflects a world of relative rather than absolute values, teachers would be asked to encourage pupils to develop “secure values and beliefs”.

What is the difference between 'right and wrong' and 'secure values and beliefs' ?

Meh.

Sounds like.... moral relativism?




Bhikkhu Bodhi, an American Buddhist monk:


“By assigning value and spiritual ideals to private subjectivity, the materialistic world view, threatens to undermine any secure objective foundation for morality. The result is the widespread moral degeneration that we witness today. To counter this tendency, mere moral exhortation is insufficient. If morality is to function as an efficient guide to conduct, it cannot be propounded as a self-justifying scheme but must be embedded in a more comprehensive spiritual system which grounds morality in a transpersonal order. Religion must affirm, in the clearest terms, that morality and ethical values are not mere decorative frills of personal opinion, not subjective superstructure, but intrinsic laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality.”
-- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/a.../response.html

I agree with him 100%.

[kateyes]

Since when should the teaching of right and wrong or secure values and beliefs be relegated to public schools. I think the resposibility for teaching right and wrong-regardless of what you call it falls squarely on the shoulders of parents and family. Since I have not certainty that a teacher shares my values and beliefs or that a teacher even knows secured values and beliefs -why would I want them to share that with my children.

Aside from that point the rest is all semantics. I guess secured values and beliefs is more PC than right and wrong.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by TwinTowers

Sounds like.... moral relativism?

Hitler had "secure values and beliefs"

They just happened to be....WRONG!

Bhikkhu Bodhi

, an American Buddhist monk:


“By assigning value and spiritual ideals to private subjectivity, the materialistic world view, threatens to undermine any secure objective foundation for morality. The result is the widespread moral degeneration that we witness today. To counter this tendency, mere moral exhortation is insufficient. If morality is to function as an efficient guide to conduct, it cannot be propounded as a self-justifying scheme but must be embedded in a more comprehensive spiritual system which grounds morality in a transpersonal order. Religion must affirm, in the clearest terms, that morality and ethical values are not mere decorative frills of personal opinion, not subjective superstructure, but intrinsic laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality.”
-- http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/a.../response.html

I agree with him 100%.

As do I. Excellent quote.

[PureX]

I agree with "Fluffy", that if this is about the difference between ethics and morality, then it should be applauded and supported. I believe it's far, far superior to be teaching our children how to define and act ethically, rather than being forced to follow the moral codes they're handed by whatever adults happen to be in charge of them. It's sort of the difference between handing a starving man a fish, or handing him a fishing pole, and teaching him how to catch his own fish.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by PureX

I agree with "Fluffy", that if this is about the difference between ethics and morality, then it should be applauded and supported. I believe it's far, far superior to be teaching our children how to define and act ethically, rather than being forced to follow the moral codes they're handed by whatever adults happen to be in charge of them. It's sort of the difference between handing a starving man a fish, or handing him a fishing pole, and teaching him how to catch his own fish.

The principles may remain the same, but the application changes with the times. For that reason it's best to teach the kids and give them some ideas of how to apply them. Then later on in life they can face new situations.

God forbid I should still apply some principles they way they were applied back in the 60s. There are a lot of things in the past that are best left there.