Alternative ethics

[Gob]

STUDENTS in NSW will be offered ethics classes as an alternative to scripture classes by next year, under a proposal the government is expected to adopt.

The Minister for Education, Verity Firth, will release today the findings of an independent report on a trial of ethics classes held in 10 schools over 10 weeks this year.

The 102-page report, by Sue Knight and three colleagues at the University of South Australia, recommends the government adopts the ethics classes model used in the trial if it decides to establish the classes.

Ms Firth said the report would be available for public comment before a decision was made.

But the Premier, Kristina Keneally, said last month: ''If the trial returns with a recommendation that this can and should be implemented, we will do that.''

It is understood the government intends to adopt most of the recommendations and to have classes running next year. The decision will anger church leaders, particularly the Anglican and Catholic archdioceses of Sydney, which have campaigned against the trial. They argue that holding the classes at the same time as scripture classes would disadvantage scripture students, who would be unable to attend.

Ms Firth said there were no plans to replace special religious education classes. ''That has never been our intention,'' she said. ''But parents who choose not to send their children to scripture classes have a right to see their children engaged in some type of meaningful activity.

''Any approval of ethics would simply provide an alternative, without diminishing in any way the importance of religious classes for other families.''

The release of the report will force the Leader of the Opposition, Barry O'Farrell, to clarify the Coalition's position. He recently said he did not favour the classes if they competed with religious education but the issue would be put to the Liberal and National party rooms to formulate a policy after the report was released.

The government would not need to legislate to introduce the classes but would need to change the policy of the Education Department, which rules out ethics classes as an alternative to religious education.

The report found that students participating in the trial ''improved in their ability to recognise everyday ethical issues'' and were more willing to discuss ethical issues than they had been before they did the course. But it found the classes did not significantly improve their ability to develop an argument. The authors recommended the curriculum be extended so that each topic was taught for at least two consecutive weeks.

Starting ethics classes would require significant financial and organisational resources. It said the department had raised concerns about the extra workload for principals and ''additional and unsustainable organisational input would be required from the department''.

The authors called for the department to be adequately resourced if ethics classes were introduced.

The principals of the schools in the trial were also surveyed. Five reported ''high levels of interest and enthusiasm'' from the school communities and parents' committees; four reported ''at least some degree of anxiety and concern'' about the impact of classes on religious education, and about the intense media focus.

One noted ''polarised and emotive views among the parent community'' and had received ''extensive verbal and written feedback, some personal in nature'' from people opposing the trial.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/educatio ... 16sl0.html

[Guinevere]

I quickly read the Minister's name as Verity Faith, which put an even more interesting twist on it. Truth *and* Faith. Isn't that what ethics is all about?

[oldr_n_wsr]

Hey Gob, is that an "either/or" deal or can one opt out of both?
OBefore the change could one opt out of the religious class?

[Gob]

Here you go mate!

Religious Education
A basic level of religious education, called Special Religious Education (SRE) is provided in all NSW public schools.

Authorised representatives of approved religious groups are invited to the school to teach students. Currently there are more than 90 religious groups that have approval.

An hour a week
A basic level of religious education, called Special Religious Education (SRE) is provided in all NSW public schools.

Authorised representatives of approved religious groups are invited to the school to teach students. Currently there are more than 90 religious groups that have approval.

Not compulsory
Parents/caregivers are asked to advise the school of their child's religious denomination at enrolment. SRE is not compulsory and a child may be withdrawn from SRE classes at any time by notifying the principal. Students not attending SRE will be appropriately cared for at school. This may include private study, but not timetabled lessons or scheduled school activities.

Schools also provide general religious education in Human Society and Its Environment (HSIE). These lessons explore the place of religion in society, the diversity and history of religions, and the importance of religious beliefs for particular individuals and communities.

Like scripture classes, the ethics classes would be voluntary, and schools would be left to decide whether to provide them, she said.

[oldr_n_wsr]

thanks

[loCAtek]

Seems like a win/win

[oldr_n_wsr]

More like a win/win/win

[Gob]

It seems like sensible.

There should always be a place for ethic education, as well as philosophy, within schools.

Taking any bias towards any religion out of it, has to be a good idea.

[dgs49]

Although the traditional teaching of ethics has merit, trying to make headway by teaching “ethics” to school kids for an hour or so a week is folly. Such teaching must originate in the home and it will have no effect unless it is reinforced by substantive and intensive religious teaching.

Half-assed “ethics” instruction will surely fail – and may even be counterproductive because:

(a) Our popular culture (including Australia) teaches little other than pure Hedonism. It shows up in music, video games, film, television, and even at school. Self-gratification is the highest ideal, and the only constraint is the desire not to get caught & punished. Even ridicule is an impotent tool now; the childrens’ cultural heroes are the most ridiculous of all and they are greatly admired.

(b) The justification for ethical behavior is often obscure or invisible to one who has only a few years of life experience under his or her belt. Why not cheat on a test if the chances of being caught are slight? Why not pick on a smaller kid if he can’t effectively do anything about it? Why not enjoy controlled substances or illicit sexual activity if the chances of discovery are slight and many of your friends do it with no visible harmful effects? In fact, they are COOL.

You think an hour of “ethics” training once a week is going to overcome all this?

Get serious.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Such teaching must originate in the home and it will have no effect unless it is reinforced by substantive and intensive religious teaching.

While I do agree "once a week" ethics training will have little to no effect I do take issue with this "substantive and intensive religious teaching". I have given my children little to no religious teachin yet they are ethical and kind and have the credo "do unto others" and go even further. Religion need not play a part, parents are still the best teachers.

[Gob]

Although the traditional teaching of ethics has merit, trying to make headway by teaching “ethics” to school kids for an hour or so a week is folly. Such teaching must originate in the home and it will have no effect unless it is reinforced by substantive and intensive religious teaching.

Half-assed “ethics” instruction will surely fail – and may even be counterproductive because:

(a) Our popular culture (including Australia) teaches little other than pure Hedonism. It shows up in music, video games, film, television, and even at school. Self-gratification is the highest ideal, and the only constraint is the desire not to get caught & punished. Even ridicule is an impotent tool now; the childrens’ cultural heroes are the most ridiculous of all and they are greatly admired.

(b) The justification for ethical behavior is often obscure or invisible to one who has only a few years of life experience under his or her belt. Why not cheat on a test if the chances of being caught are slight? Why not pick on a smaller kid if he can’t effectively do anything about it? Why not enjoy controlled substances or illicit sexual activity if the chances of discovery are slight and many of your friends do it with no visible harmful effects? In fact, they are COOL.

You think an hour of “ethics” training once a week is going to overcome all this?

Get serious.

Oh god, where to start, the bigotry in this is so profound, is it worth even addressing?

[Gob]

Update ...

PARENTS will have the right to ethics classes as an alternative to scripture in their child's school even if the principal and the majority of the school community opposes them.

The state cabinet is expected to approve the introduction of ethics classes to primary schools today after a successful trial this year. They will begin as early as term one next year.

While the classes will be voluntary for schools, the Herald has confirmed that parents who want their children to attend the classes will be able to appeal to the Education Department if the principal opposes them.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/educatio ... 182mj.html

[Scooter]

The decision will anger church leaders, particularly the Anglican and Catholic archdioceses of Sydney, which have campaigned against the trial. They argue that holding the classes at the same time as scripture classes would disadvantage scripture students, who would be unable to attend.

Why should they want to attend, if they are already taking scripture classes. Aren't scripture classes doing a good job teaching ethicks?

[dgs49]

Gob, do you know what the word "bigotry" means? Do yins speak English where you are at?

[Scooter]

Let's start from "you can't be ethical unless you are religious" and move on from there.

[Gob]

Beat me too it;

big·ot·ry   


–noun, plural -ries.
1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2. the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.


Origin:
1665–75; bigot + -ry, formation parallel to F bigoterie


—Synonyms
1. narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination.

[alice]

dgs49

Although the traditional teaching of ethics has merit, trying to make headway by teaching “ethics” to school kids for an hour or so a week is folly. Such teaching must originate in the home and it will have no effect unless it is reinforced by substantive and intensive religious teaching.

It's a fairly broad subject, but it is hardly only an hour a week to try to teach the 'whole subject' of ethics. In a general sense, ethical standards are 'taught' just through various life things, like knowing and obeying the law, and knowing it is correct to be polite and respectful to teachers and/or others. In addition to these general life lessons, I imagine it would be helpful to have some added classes to help reinforce and develop an individual's own ethical standards .
And I agree with the sentiments already expressed: ethics is not something confined to religion.

I found an article that I thought quite neatly described ethics in a good, all-round way (without going into all the philosophical definitions and discussions)

What is Ethics?
...
The meaning of "ethics" is hard to pin down, and the views many people have about ethics are shaky.
... many people tend to equate ethics with their feelings. But being ethical is clearly not a matter of following one's feelings. A person following his or her feelings may recoil from doing what is right. In fact, feelings frequently deviate from what is ethical.
Nor should one identify ethics with religion. Most religions, of course, advocate high ethical standards. Yet if ethics were confined to religion, then ethics would apply only to religious people. But ethics applies as much to the behavior of the atheist as to that of the saint. Religion can set high ethical standards and can provide intense motivations for ethical behavior. Ethics, however, cannot be confined to religion nor is it the same as religion.
Being ethical is also not the same as following the law. The law often incorporates ethical standards to which most citizens subscribe. But laws, like feelings, can deviate from what is ethical. Our own pre-Civil War slavery laws and the old apartheid laws of present-day South Africa are grotesquely obvious examples of laws that deviate from what is ethical.
Finally, being ethical is not the same as doing "whatever society accepts." In any society, most people accept standards that are, in fact, ethical. But standards of behavior in society can deviate from what is ethical. An entire society can become ethically corrupt. Nazi Germany is a good example of a morally corrupt society.
Moreover, if being ethical were doing "whatever society accepts," then to find out what is ethical, one would have to find out what society accepts. To decide what I should think about abortion, for example, I would have to take a survey of American society and then conform my beliefs to whatever society accepts. But no one ever tries to decide an ethical issue by doing a survey. Further, the lack of social consensus on many issues makes it impossible to equate ethics with whatever society accepts. Some people accept abortion but many others do not. If being ethical were doing whatever society accepts, one would have to find an agreement on issues which does not, in fact, exist.
What, then, is ethics? Ethics is two things. First, ethics refers to well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues. Ethics, for example, refers to those standards that impose the reasonable obligations to refrain from rape, stealing, murder, assault, slander, and fraud. Ethical standards also include those that enjoin virtues of honesty, compassion, and loyalty. And, ethical standards include standards relating to rights, such as the right to life, the right to freedom from injury, and the right to privacy. Such standards are adequate standards of ethics because they are supported by consistent and well-founded reasons.
Secondly, ethics refers to the study and development of one's ethical standards. As mentioned above, feelings, laws, and social norms can deviate from what is ethical. So it is necessary to constantly examine one's standards to ensure that they are reasonable and well-founded. Ethics also means, then, the continuous effort of studying our own moral beliefs and our moral conduct, and striving to ensure that we, and the institutions we help to shape, live up to standards that are reasonable and solidly-based.

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/de ... thics.html
from: Santa Clara University: The Jesuit University in Silicon valley

[dgs49]

My point is (was) not that non-religious people cannot be ethical, or maintain highly-ethical standards. This is clearly not the case.

But I submit that teaching children and motivating them to be ethical human beings in the absence of a finite moral framework (i.e., a religious tradition) is most likely going to fail. The result will be kids who will behave "ethically" when they perceive that their behavior will be observable and/or their may be negative consequences for unethical behavior, but when "no one is looking," they will revert to the behavior that they find most gratifying or rewarding, ethics be damned. Witness military academies where ethical behavior (i.e., The Honor Code) is beaten into their heads without mercy...and academic cheating is endemic.

Children need to perceive that there is a "right" and a "wrong," independent of the obvious ramifications that they can observe, and that "someone" sees their behavior (i.e., god) even when no one around them (parents, teachers) can. Also, they need to believe that "good" behavior" will ultimately be rewarded and "evil" behavior will ultimately be punished, even when they don't get a cupcake for doing something good or a whuppin' for doing something bad. These reinforcing mechanisms to ethical behavior are furnished by the various religious traditions.

Once they reach emotional adulthood (and some of us never reach that point), they can ponder ethics intellectually and decide whether to commit themselves to a life of ethical conduct. Or not. And of course, when we observe others we also begin to recognize that different highly-motivated and well-intentioned people, seeking to act ethically, come to opposite conclusions about what ethical conduct entails (e.g., w/r/t abortion, euthanasia, sodomy, "recreational" drugs, etc).

But kids need some basic religious teaching, otherwise they are likely (with some exceptions) going to reach adulthood as self-absorbed jerks. Which is not to say that some kids who have been raised within religious traditions may not end up the same way.

The proof is all around us.

[tyro]

Dgs49,

Whether or not you meant to, you have indicated that a fundamental quality of religion is to control by fear.

You are saying that a child raised to ethical standards, but with out a God, will be less ethical when the Man isn’t watching whereas someone raised in a belief in God is fearful that his every action is being watched – so step carefully.

That is a pathetic incentive to adhere to ethical standards, and the belief that ethically raised children are more likely to lower their standards when no one can see them is a doubtful assertion.


Frankly, I think the difference between “good children” and “bad children” is usually the reality of their home life.

[Gob]

How can a child who is raised in a family with little or no ethics be expected to choose to act in a moral way, if they have never been given an education in what and why a moral decisions is?