A Rational Code of Ethics - Discussion Page
78Open Forum on the Rational Code of Ethics
Let me start by thanking everyone who commented on my first draft. You encouraged me to continue with the project. The amended code now comprises three fundamental axioms and nine guidelines. In this hub, I will expand on each of these in turn. But first, I would like to enlarge on the scope of the project, by explaining what the code is, and what it is not.
The code is:
- aimed primarily at junior school children
- intended to be as universally acceptable as possible
- based on three widely accepted factual axioms
- independent of faith-based belief systems
The code is not:
- in contradiction of faith-based belief systems
- intended as a blue-print for Government
- expected to solve all of society's problems
There is no longer universal agreement (in fact there never was) that religion should be taught in schools. Religious families are of course free to teach their faith at home or through places of worship, but many now accept that schools should focus on the observable, not the unseen.
Traditionally, ethics and religion have been bundled together as an all-in-one package (though this was not always so; the ancient Greeks had no problem making the distinction). In a traditional homogeneous community, this worked well enough, as dissenters were few. But nowadays our communities are far more mixed, which is why schools and religion are unhappy bedfellows, at best.
A consequence of dropping religion from the curriculum is that the ethical component is also dropped. This is unfortunate, especially as many parents are unable or unwilling to teach ethics at home. The solution suggests itself - restore Ethics to its rightful place as the independent subject that it should always have been. And teach it in schools.
So, I hope we can agree that this project is not any kind of attack on religion. It is, however, recognising the reality of our present situation and addressing the ethical void left in the wake of religious education's inevitable recession in a diverse society. I hope we can further agree that the code as presented does not contradict the ethics of any major religion. In fact, there is no reason why it should do so, as humans and human societies the world over are more similar than different.
Discussing the code, point by point
Before launching into the discussion, a couple of general points:
- Individual freedom requires that everything is acceptable in general, unless specifically it is not. For this reason, proscription generally works better than prescription.
- However, it might simply not occur to people that they have an opportunity to make a contribution for the good of others. For this reason I have added a few prescriptive guidelines (no 7 & 8)
In what follows, the code itself is in plain type and my discussion points are in italics. The italicised text is not part of the code.
Part One - The Knowledge
- We share the Earth with our fellow Humans, with Animal life and with Plant life. A simple reminder of the ecosystem and our place within it. There is plenty room for classroom discussion of the huge variety of life on Earth. Note that ethics is not concerned with how or why the Earth exists. That is the province of science and, for some, religion. Ethics is independent, pragmatic, and concerned with what is.
- We are responsible first to each other and our future generations, then to all life on Earth. This introduces our interconnectedness and the notions of responsibility and stewardship, as the Earth's most influential tenants, for the sake of the future of our kind.
- Sometimes we are subject to natural forces beyond our control. Strictly, we are always subject to such forces as gravity, but the point here is that we do not control (though we may influence) such as earthquakes, tsunamis, pandemics etc. Misfortune is part of life and this axiom merely recognises that fact.
Part Two - The Code
- Do not hurt, harm or abuse other people As the child grows in experience and maturity, s/he will learn the many and various ways we have devised for harming each other, and will at least know that they are wrong.
- Do not force your will on other people The teacher will have to explain 'force your will', with examples and encourage the children to suggest more. The aim is to instill a basic understanding of human relationships that can be built on.
- Do not take what is not yours I considered omitting this as it is a special case of both of the above, but in a society so dominated by material possessions, it probably merits its own line.
- Do not be devious, treacherous or deceitful This one could perhaps have been phrased prescriptively - be truthful, etc - but much of the time we are not called upon to 'be' anything. So it seems better to have a checklist available against which to measure particular speech or acts.
- Do not be cruel to animals Some have suggested this is advocating vegetarianism, but that is not the intention. We are omnivores by nature, and besides, even a vegetarian can beat his dog. It simply suggests that in our dealings with animals we should treat them well.
- Be moderate in your consumption The teacher can show that consumption extends from simple eating and drinking through to our use of energy and natural resources.
- Try to be helpful to other people This one is prescriptive because it might simply not occur to a child who is used to being looked after that s/he too can start to take care of others.
- Be generous with your ideas and talents Prescriptive for the same reason. And because it should be incumbent on the more creative and inventive to share their natural advantages for the benefit of society.
- When misfortune occurs, do not give in to despair In recognition that misfortune, illness, bereavement, etc is a natural part of the human condition, this suggests that we should meet it with equanimity as far as possible, and get on with our lives.
End piece - realism
Some commentators on the first draft pointed out, correctly, that sometimes the correct action is to break the code, e.g. in using force to restrain an aggressor, the aggressor might be harmed. But this is not an argument against the code. All ethical guidelines are just that - guidelines, not imperatives. In an imperfect world there is always going to be the need to weigh up and choose between less than perfect options.
And the very fact that the world is imperfect argues for, not against, the need to introduce ethical education into our junior schools.
Thank you for reading.
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Hi Prettydarkhorse - moderation (previously temperance) used to be considered a virtue as largely a personal matter. But these days, when immoderate consumption is endangering our very survival, I think it certainly belongs in the field of ethics.
The Islamic countries also spend a high proportion of curriculum time on Islamic studies, arguably at the expense of science and other disciplines.
Thanks for being my first respondent after reaching the 100 hubs goal :)
I think it's a good idea. I often wish that as adults we could agree on some basic principals like this but I guess that's unrealistic or overly hopeful. It is still my conviction that when you really boil it all down most people want and need the same basic things, but adults get hung up on Part II, numbers 1 and 2. If we could prevent THAT, what an accomplishment!
Right now the schools are so bad in the city where I grew up that 90% of beginning high school students fail basic competency tests and only 40% graduate. So something like this seems wildly utopian--we can't even seem to teach them to read and do math.
Still, it's a great idea. Thanks PG.
Hi Pam - it would have to be a longterm project. But it wouldn't require much curriculum time and might help with results in other areas. And you know the old adage - if it ain't broke, don't mend it? You're telling me it (education) is broke. So we need to do something about it, no?
Your code of ethics works for me. Nothing occurs to me to add or delete so far. If it hasn't been 50 years since I had an ethics course in college I might be more helpful. One notion that I do recall was something Emmanuel Kant said about how to determine whether an individual action is ethical or not. If I remember correctly Kant said that you should go beyond asking what the effects of an individual action are and ask what the effect would be if every one took the same action. Your code seems to me to pass Kant's ethical test, (if I remember it correctly).
Ralph - I am glad you found this revision, because you were the commentator on the first draft who suggested something along the lines of point 8, sharing talents, which was not in the original. The Kant criterion is interesting. Thanks for that. Wait a second:
In fact you said this -
"You might consider adding something to the effect of "Use your talents productively and creatively." And something like "Cooperate with others to realize the common good" or some other explicit expression of the importance of communal values".
I think the new version has taken these on board.
Kudos to you Paraglider for this wonderful hub. This is indeed a rational, well crafted code of ethics. I'm definitely bookmarking this one.
Education really IS broke in the U.S. Your code would be a terrific start, and then here we could go on to actually create the conditions under which children could learn something like reading or math.
Sadly, we are facing budget cuts in the coming year of just over $200 per child because of the financial crisis. My contention is that children do what they see around them at home and elsewhere, not necessarily what they are taught at school. If they have parents and friends who are caring and they see them reading and discussing ideas, they will care about that (eventually) and learn it. If they have addicted parents who are frequently absent or friends who can't read and proclaim it stupid and unnecessary, we get what we have now.
Here at least I think we need better conditions at home and more support for parents as well as more money for education and common ethics. In so many homes no adults are ever around and when they are they don't set a healthy example. Someone has to be around to raise our kids (it doesn't have to be a Mom)--they don't do that great a job of raising themselves.
David - thanks for the vote of support. The next phase is to try to promote the idea to the schools. I'm hoping some people here might have some ideas on how to do that.
Pam - yes, peer pressure and example are very major influences. One positive spin - in a time of cutbacks, ethics costs less than science to teach!
Yes, Paraglider, your ideas are great. Ethics is most important. :)
Hi, Paraglider. You did a great job with this Hub and your thinking is sound, in my view. I happen to be a religious man and find nothing in this that would conflict with my views. Could you clarify something? You say "many ...accept that schools should focus on the observable, not the unseen." If we did that we would eliminate the study of science from schools. If you accept that premise, forget teaching science. How many of us have "observed" an electric current coursing through a wire? Some people argue that the U.S. never really landed on the moon because they didn't observe it. That it was staged, which is ridiculous.
I could go on with example after example, but enough said.
Yours is a great code of ethics, and I don't think many people will argue with you on these. You have put a lot of time and effort in formulating them and I thank you.
Don White
Quicksand - thank you for your support :)
Dusanotes, Don - thanks for commenting and for the encouraging words. I think you might be taking the word 'unseen' too literally. The true distinction is between the observable and the unobservable, where observation is not merely seeing, but measuring or detecting with instrumentation. No-one has 'seen' an electron, but they have certainly been detected and 'observed' with instrumentation. So, no, we don't eliminate science from the curriculum!
Hi Sir Dave, I am the first who read this and comment too. Now, I am adding to my first comment! I think that in this 100th hub of yours, you shared a lot of your philosophy and the codes. It is refreshing to know that there are people like you who would hope and offer things like this for the betterment of the future!
Well, what I'm hoping now is for someone with a door into the education world to help to kick-start this, even as a pilot project. I'm considering writing an accompanying teachers' manual to help it along.
Your code and the changes it would bring, should it ever be implemented, are commendable to the highest possible degree. Children whose thought processes and principles were based on such a code would likely develop as adults predisposed to the pursuit of Peace and equanimity.
It is for this very reason that such a program would be attacked and fought, tooth and claw, in amerika. It would put the lie to the for-profit consumerist paradigm and would, in fact, invalidate it in very short order. It would be in direct opposition to what our public schools have become; factories for the mass production of highly indoctrinated, uber-nationalist consumer zombies.
You might have more luck in some of the seemingly more enlightened european nations or perhaps the nordic lands.
As I see it now, the only hope for "civilization" lies in the possibility of enough sovereign nations standing together in unified defiance of the washington consensus. A generation of minds given such a humanistic and pragmatic foundation as you propose would certainly increase the likelihood of such a standoff being resolved peacefully and successfully.
I regret that I have no "connections" that would be of advantage to you in this quest. I sincerely hope that such a person or persons will cross your path. If, in my ongoing quest for knowledge, I stumble upon any information or contact that might prove useful, it will be brought to your attention at once. In fact, I will bend some of my research efforts specifically in that direction.
Your words are eloquent and your actions exemplary.
Paraglider, I haven't been around much so I'm glad to have found this your hub.
I couldn't be more in agreement.
It would be nice though to start thinking of Ethic Codes for the tiny ones. Actually, Codes is an exagerated word for younger children, but I think there should be a guideline to circulate among parents and school teachers. I remember when I was a kid we started being considered "responsible because understanding reason" or something of the sort, at the age of 7. And it's not too early. Probably between conception and 5 a human being needs just loving attention and the teaching of basic skills. And gradually one should start adding the moral contents to our discourse. Difficult task, because no matter what, there is no better teaching of Ethics than the example of parents and other adults around the child.
Thank you for a very useful hub, and I wish you the best with its promotion to whom it may concern ...
CWB - May I commend to you the last line of the code - When misfortune occurs, don't give in to despair. We are suffering because of a badly broken system for which there is no single fix. But it took years to get here, where we don't want to be, and it will take years to go back. Well, not back, because that never works, but forward to something better. Thanks for your encouragement and support.
Rosariomontenegro - You've clearly been thinking along similar lines. Good parenting and good societal role models are the best of all, but I feel that is almost a lost cause in some places. The schools might be our last chance. I also see the progression you imply, introducing the basic code as early as reasonable, and in subsequent years introducing contextual discussion of it. This gradually leads to an understanding of society and government. Thanks for reading.
Like it as a starting point for children. Key is your generality. As a lawyer, I have seen how a Code of Ethics, if tied too closely to particular situations, can provide an excuse for the practitioner to cop out, to avoid looking at the particularities and humanness of the situation in front of him or her. Would like to see more advanced courses for older children on integrity which, in my view, is a step beyond ethics. Excellent work, Paraglider.
Steve - agreed. It is meant as a starting point. I think that integrity grows from mature consideration of contextual situations. But any such consideration will lead to infinite regress if there is not already in place a basic framework, which is what my axioms and guidelines aim to provide. Thanks for the comment.
Hi PG - I like the revisions and find nothing there to take issue with. Your code is intuitive and reaches a fine compromise between the various different influences upon the complex field of ethics.
To partly answer CWB's point above, re. Europe, I cannot see Greeks having a problem with anything. Whilst a Christian country, they are exposed to Aristotelian ethics at a young age and that has a far greater influence upon the Greek mentality than the Judeo-Christian commandments - it is not a huge leap from the philosophers to your code :)
Hi Sufi - thanks for that. Maybe I should try to get it piloted in Greece first? Of course I'd have to have it translated. Greece, France and the Netherlands might be about the last remaining European countries where you could bring up Ethics or Philosophy in a bar or cafe. In UK you can too, but mainly in the University areas. Pity.
Can't help with the translation, I am afraid, although I do have a friend who specialises in translating academic and legal work.
Have to agree - Sweden was pretty good for ethical conversations, too, although it is nearly 15 years since I lived there. It is a shame about the UK - philosophy, in general, is sadly neglected over there. Even universities are not immune - in the course of a four-year science degree, we did not discuss the ethics of science even once - that is a glaring omission.
Ethics of Science - similar story. In my four-year Physics course it was discussed once only, and that by a mathematics prof., not a physicist.
Here's a comment which provides a clue to the ethics of chief tea bagger, Dick Armey:
“Europe is governed by a concern for the well-being of the collective. That’s what they care about. What makes us different is we begin with the liberty of the individual. We got it right, and they got it wrong.”
Hehe - Dick Armey is welcome to visit a Greek taverna anytime and accuse the Greeks of not understanding the liberty of the individual.
Watch out for the verbal explosion and flying plates!
There is a balance between the individual and society - overemphasis on one side unbalances things. That is why I like this code of ethics - it incorporates elements of both. :)
PG - I find nothing really at fault with your proposed code, however I believe that you could shorten it a whole lot. Maybe "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" would suffice. Gus
Ralph - as Sufi said :)
Gus - not really, because that would allow a masochist to practise sadism. The 'golden rule' only serves as a handy panacea for people who are already 'basically sorted', you see?
Unfortunately, I don’t think education was ever really about preparing children for life; it’s more about training children for a life of work - the economy. Business isn’t about ethics; it’s about ‘the bottom line’? Can you imagine Gordon Brown trying to get this idea past his overlords in big business?
It’s a damn good idea though - and it‘s what education should be about.
Hi Amilar - I agree with you about business, especially in recent years where the profit chase has been taken to extremes. But don't UK schools already have time set aside for PSE (I think that's the acronym, personal and social education) which I think is occupying the space left by RE, religious education. Maybe the ethical component could be formalised into this slot which often seems to be steered at the whim of the registered teacher, for better or worse.
i would LOVE to see an ethical code in schools which is not religious. my son's school recently gave every child a bible which i was livid about, they didnt even ask me first or offer anything from other religions or preferably any other ethical non religious text. i offered to give copies of my book to counter this but they didnt take the offer up.
not forcing your will on others is key, which is why i wrote about it calling it the prime directive - not to coerce, eg religious schools are seriously forcing their will on the naive young minds of their pupils which is very wrong.
i agree with not being cruel to animals, as a vegan. but i would say you cant get much more cruel than murdering them for the selfish unnecessary pleasure of eating them. you have suggested that this is in our nature. this is a false argument, it is also in our nature to punch people and rape women, but these are completely unethical. we are no longer creatures of nature (at least not entirely) we now have a brain which can control our environment and our civilisation, so we can survive very happily, in fact better, by no longer resorting to killing animals. you are definitely wrong in trying to justify it by saying it's in our nature. i used to say that many years ago to justify my own selfish meat eating, i was in denial.
we need a code for kids as they are often more receptive to ethical truths than adults. eg i know plenty of kids who want to be vegetarians but their less ethical parents won't let them.
getting in at this early stage may be a good way to tackle the primary problem for the human race - psychopathy. yes we are all psychopaths to varying degrees, which is what your list is trying to tackle. any shrink knows how difficult it is to treat psychopathy in an adult - virtually impossible. so maybe yours is a wise way to tackle this.
but are you yet aware of the gargantuan scale of the problem of human psychopathy?
Alex
Hi Alex - I was very careful in my intro to point out that Ethics is independent of religion. True, all religions have an ethical component, but they also have much more, most of it on the other side of a bridge of faith which schools should not ask young people to cross.
I won't argue with you about vegetarianism as I am familiar with these arguments and not convinced by them, just as you would not be convinced by mine. So we can park that topic.
On human psychopathy, I am very aware of the scale of it and also aware that the worst exemplars of it are that small proportion of people who control the vast proportion of the worlds resources for their own benefit, at everyone else's expense. Can I point you at my hub called Can we Engineer a Bloodless Revolution http://hubpages.com/hub/bloodless-revolution Thanks for commenting.
A bit off topic but an interesting question from today's NYT: An Ethical Question: Does a Nazi (Martin Heidegger) deserve a place among philosophers?
I've not read Heidegger, but could ask - does Wagner deserve a place among artists, since his art was largely devoted to his theories of Ayrian supremacy? As it happens I don't much like his music but it's still a hugely impressive body of work. Lots of our greatest poets held pretty obnoxious views too.
True, T.S. Eliot is one. I prefer Whitman.
Paraglider, hope you'll bear with me on this, and that you don't find this comment offensive.
On the last draft of your code of ethics, I offered suggestions for changes, thinking we were sort of on the same page, but it could use a little tweaking. I now know you better, and I realize we're not on the same page at all.
For this reason, I'm not even going to go into what I disagree with in the substance of your ethics. I am not going to try to convert you to my way of thinking or even share with you my own personal code of ethics.
My only hope is to get you to see that rational minds can disagree about ethics. For this reason, a code of ethics is kind of like a religion: a very personal matter that should not be imposed from without.
I wish you the best of luck in instituting this in private schools where the proprietors agree with your ethics. However, I certainly hope that no government run school ever imposes your way of thinking on the children of people who think differently.
I don't know if this will be of any use but I'll provide it anyway.
Maybe it will lead you to someone who can be helpful. I think amerika is in greater need of this plan than just about anyone else. After all, what happens here seems to have massive impact on the rest of the world. It would be nice if more of it were positive.
Aya - your comments to my first draft were based on a misunderstanding. You assumed I was writing a code for adult society. I was not. I am looking for a common code, widely acceptable, that can be taught to children.
I would be very interested to know what you find unacceptable in the code as proposed? For example:
Do you think it OK to hurt, harm or abuse others?
Do you think it OK to force your will on others?
Do you think it OK to take what is not yours?
Do you think it is OK to be devious, treacherous or deceitful?
Do you think it is OK to be cruel to animals?
Do you think it is OK to be immoderate in your consumption?
Would you rather we did not help other people?
Would you prefer to keep your talents and ideas to yourself?
Do you think it is good to give in to despair?
We do not agree on higher level politics. We do not agree about societal organisation. But these things are not the concern of junior school children. I am genuinely interested to learn what you find unacceptable in the schema I have presented.
I am not remotely offended, but I am nonplussed. Please elucidate.
CWB - thanks for the link. I think I will try to promote the idea in Europe first where I have more chance of making some headway. I still feel like a foreigner on the American intellectual landscape. For example, I really have no idea at all how to understand Aya's last post. I'm trying, but struggling!
Paraglider, since you ask, it's your approach to avarice and greed, among other things, that I disagree with. It is not all that different from that of the Catholic Church.
"6. Be moderate in your consumption."
While I enjoy sharing my ideas and talents, I feel that is a choice and not an ethical imperative.
But as I said, I'm not trying to convert you. It's okay that we feel differently about this. It's especially good that we are free to express our different feelings.
Can you see now that rational minds can differ?
Aya, of course rational minds can differ. No problem with that. But regarding consumption, if that's the sticking point, I'd offer this - that in a land of plenty, with few people, consumption reduces to personal choice, but in a Globalised world such as ours, with a large population, immoderate consumption by some is directly harming many others. That is why nowadays consumption has moved from the field of personal morality (e.g. temperance) into the field of societal ethics. We are not doing our nurturing role properly if we let kids grow up with the idea that it's ok to consume disproportionately.
Wow - what a great Hub, Para. I agree completely with the code and wish it could be introduced to children at school in South Africa. There was an attempt last year, which I think has gone the way of all, to introduce a kind of loyalty oath into schools here because people were concerned about the perceived lack of values in our schools and saw such an oath as being one way to introduce values. I was, and still am, vigorously opposed to such an idea as being a kind of indoctrination.
However, a code like this would be a more open way to introduce real values in discussion rather than imposition.
As far as the item on consumption goes - I totally agree with it and with you on it. Consumption, or rather excessive consumption, is a direct threat to peace and is an injustice. In a world where children die of hunger and preventable disease every day, the incredible pursuit of wealth which characterises so much of business and government these days is, as I have said elsewhere, pornographic, it is obscene.
What a lot we have to thank the cosmic cowboy and the plutonium blonde for!
Thanks for a well-reasoned and thoughtful Hub, as always.
Love and peace
Tony
Hi Tony - thanks for the visit. I'm encouraged by the response to this latest version of the code. Most of the commentators have been in favour and those who suggested improvements to version one have for the most part agreed with the new items that are based on that feedback. So now the challenge is to work out how to promote the project in the education world. Still thinking about that!
Paraglider, I'm as worried as you are about running out of planetary resources. I just happen to believe the problem will not be solved by exhorting people to be "less selfish". I think that only self-interest can cause people to tighten their belts, and that is why I believe in a free economy.
Want to save the planet? Hope for a massive, global economic depression!
Aya - it is hard to persuade adults to consume less. That is why it is better to introduce the idea of moderation to children, in the hope they will grow up more responsible than (some of) this generation.
The planet is in no danger. We are, along with countless blameless species. Overconsumption is one of the reasons.
And there is nothing in my code that contradicts a free economy. You are wearing your libertarian-tinted glasses again :)
Yes the issue of dealing with overconsumption is a really tricky one. I'm not sure that it can be dealt with in a way that doesn't inhibit the "rights" of people to consume wastefully. My worry is that waiting for the next generation might be too late. However it is dealt with some people are going to have to make do with less.
Hoping for a "massive, global economic depression" sounds just too depressing, and such a depression would just compound the problems faced by the poor and disadvantaged further. And just individually consuming less, while it might be a worthwhile thing to do for the individual, would have little impact until literally millions did so. And that's not going to happen easily or quickly.
I also have a concern that even if the code were introduced into schools there would be a gap between the precepts of the code and the way children experience adults actually behaving which could result in cynicism or worse.
Sorry to be so negative - I'm really 100% in favour of the code and your efforts. I believe them very worthwhile. I will do whatever I can to promote the code.
Thanks again for setting this in motion. Maybe we will get a tsunami of concerned people going here! The bloodless revolution must come!
Love and peace
Tony
On a third read through I would like to make a suggestion about Number 7 - try to be helpful, etc. The other items are written fairly positively, like "Be generous" or "Be moderate". Why don't we also write here "Be helpful"? To say "Try to be helpful" is too vague for me. What does it mean "to try"? And if someone is unhelpful, can they legitimately say "Well I tried"?
Just a thought...?
Love and peace
Tony
I would try to decrease the amount of wordage. It smacks of lawyer talk. Does anyone read the fine print on Drug ads? You have tons of fine print for grade school children. Think of the Boy Scouts Oath and change it a bit.
Warning: If you are going to issue a Code of Ethics do not and I repeat do not go against what you swear to.
Or it will be regarded as your folly!
Tony - Well spotted. I'm still unsure about that 'try to'. It is ok if the code is seen as guidelines but not ok if it is seen as imperatives. I think the correct injunction is 'be helpful when you can', but that is also vague. The fact is that some people can help in some situations where others can't.
BTW - you are not coming across as negative; you are 'trying to be helpful'!
Hi-jinks - I think you might have missed that this is a discussion version, with notes in the body of the text. The code itself is fairly sparse and is set out with no commentary, here - http://hubpages.com/hub/Rational-Code-Ethics
As to your warning - thanks, but again I think you are missing the point. Ethical guidelines are not imperatives. I am not 'swearing to' anything. In fact, I do not really know what swearing to a code of ethics could mean in practice. History is littered with examples of people who tried to do just that and failed. We are asking children to buy into the idea that some behaviours are better (for society) than others. Not so hard.
I like very much your idea about Ethical Code. It sounds much better then "10 commandments" or any other type of pressure in the name of any possible "God" - which is imposed on people by any possible religion.
In one period of my life, I was very religious, but discovered that in every religion exists part of the teachings created only to mislead people...to make them more weak, more dependable, to lead them to any type of religious slavery.
Today I am very grateful for the best I learned from exploring the religions, and know what is value of that, but cannot be part of any particular religion or spiritual path, because whenever is group of people up to something "in the name of God", somebody tries to convince the others that is much closer to that God then the rest of people and knows the best what is good for the whole group.
Human nature is what human nature is - we have more active and/or aggressive people and more passive. From first type come leaders, from second one - the followers.
"Commanmmends" in any form should never exist, because if somebody really wants to break that "law", this person will do it, sooner or later.
Even command "do not kill" is not working, because people tell "God will forgive you if you kill in the war", what is nonsense...that means that wars have to exist only that we can kill the others without punishment "from above".
People learn from examples.
The code is great... and certainly inspiring...my mind is full of ideas, any my heart is open.
Thank you.
Hi Tatjana - thank you for the detailed comment. Personally, I agree with what you say about the organisation of religions. However in the presentation of this code I am trying not to confront such groups, but to treat them exactly as I would treat a group of tennis players - i.e. people whose shared interest is their own concern and who have no special privilege when it comes to discussing ethics, which is the province of all humanity. The aim is to find consensus, not contention. My question now is how to take this to the next stage...
The next stage? Hm....
If you can live according to your own code and forgive yourself whenever you do something what breaks the code, you will be the most possible example of that code, so your energy will automatically affect the others....
As well as this code affected me.
Of course, I would change some lines in the code to make it more useful for my own guidance in the life. But everyone would do the same - everyone would change something, because everyone is unique.
I learned that is the best to live according to my own code in order to be happy, because nobody else can see the world exactly with my eyes. As everyone else, I am unique, but at the same time I am part of the whole. I also learned that I need to adjust my own code to changes which I make in my life...to the various people I meet, so everything is relative.
We all influence each other...and yes, we are all tennis players on this planet...
Of course, this is just my own opinion...
Thumbs up and thank you for inspiring me.
Tatjana - As adults we have to keep modifying and adapting almost with each new experience. But for children, I think to learn and discuss a common framework could save a lot of painful trial and error. For me, the next stage might be to expand this to a teachers' handbook and try to promotr its use in schools. Time, that's all I need!
Hello Paraglider, nice to talk to you. What an interesting and difficult endeavour you've embarked upon. Certainly a worthy one in my opinion.
I'm not sure these comments are strictly within scope as they're not about the new draft. More like queries from an interested party, so I hope you don't mind.
The perception of the code would change as children develop. How would this be addressed? Is the intention to revisit this at different key stages? A seven year old might accept the code of ethics at face value, a bright fourteen year old might not.
Following on from that, the code is based on the underlying assumption that (exceptions notwithstanding) adhering to the elements of the code will result in a 'good' outcome. This begs the question, are the results of adhering to this ethical code 'good'? If so, for whom, why and who decides?
I can envisage a particularly nihilist bunch of teenagers for example asking "why should I adhere to this code of ethics?", "What is 'good'?", "how is good determined?", "Who determines what is 'good'?". How would these questions be addressed? I understand the code is aimed at junior school children, but I assume the intention is to instil something that will stay with them beyond junior school. The 'teenager test' is one that all beliefs, mores, conventions and values goes through. Some survive, some don't. How do you envisage this code of ethics surviving the teenager test?
Don W - These are fair questions, but I would ask what is better - a group of teenagers rebelling against a code they once learned, or the same group rebelling without any foundation? Because, in many schools, nothing has replaced the traditional Religious Education. (In my day, it was called Religious Instruction!)
I approve of the removal of RE from the curriculum, but would like to replace it with EE (Ethical Education). Ethics and religion should not be bundled together, and of the two, Ethics is the key to socialisation and is inclusive, not exclusive.
I would see the code being introduced to young children with illustrative stories and examples. Older children should be encouraged to discuss the code with reference to real scenarios, e.g. conflict, politics, etc, where the choice is between imperfect options.
Teenagers are always with us, but the scenario of some rebelling against the code doesn't negate the code any more than it negates mathematics if they choose to eschew that too.
Just thinking out loud:
I agree something is better than nothing. And I’d expect advocates of religions professing to having social harmony as a core tenet, to be in support of this. Although I do think parents should have the right to send their children to so-called faith based schools if they wish.
The idea of older children discussing the code with real world scenarios with imperfect options is a good one in my opinion, as it would equip children with skills they need to make ethical decisions in a pragmatic way.
While part one of the code consists of three axioms, part two is based on a set of assumptions and are not axiomatic. I don't think there's anything wrong in that. Drawing a line in the epistemological sand and calling it a starting point is a pragmatic approach that allows forward movement rather than getting stuck in a philosophical quagmire. Sometimes the most we can do is make reasonable assumptions and use them as a starting point which I think you have done.
But it does mean anyone could create a code of ethics based on a different set of equally reasonable assumptions. This code would look very different, but be no more or less meaningful than the one you’ve created. Is that a weakness? Perhaps not if the aim is simply to encourage children to think about ethics, gain some understanding of how their actions and decisions affect other people and the world, good and bad, and instil something approximating a moral compass. If the aim is to actually get people to adhere to this particular code of ethics, then it is a weakness. Having said that, a starting point with some weaknesses is better than nothing.
I disagree about religious education. There is a vast difference between being taught about different beliefs and religions (modern religious education), and being taught a religion (old religious instruction). I’m in favour of the former. In my opinion, not giving children any idea of what some people believe and why is failing to prepare them to live in a diverse society. I believe lack of knowledge and understanding feeds fear which in turn feeds bigotry and is not conducive to a tolerant, cooperative society. Whether that be religious vs. non religious (and vice versa), or one religion vs. another religion.
I do agree however, that ethics is better taught separately. It would be useful to get away from the idea that ethics falls only within the domain of religious belief, which is clearly not the case.
I'd like to give some practical help if possible. You mention filling the vacuum left by the removal of religious education from the curriculum. Not sure where you were referring to, but in the UK RE is still part of the national curriculum, and there is also an element of ethical education which is taught separately. Citizenship Education (CE) and Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE) have been national curriculum subjects in the UK since 2000 and 2002 respectively. One of the units within citizenship education is “social and moral responsibility”. In France I believe they have a similar subject called Education Civique, Juridique et Sociale (ECJS) which has an ethical element. If this falls short of what you are aiming for, could developing the existing citizenship education framework in these curriculums be an easier route for you?
Might also be worth looking at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) to see if contacting that organisation would be useful. I believe UNESCO have developed ethics education programmes for adults. Not sure if there are any similar projects relating to children, but the UN might be a good place to make contact with regarding a universal code of ethics adopted. Probably not that useful, but just wanted to some offer some kind of support for your project.
Don W - thank you very much for the helpful suggestions and encouragement. I am pressed for time now (a normal state of affairs!) but will comment further in due course. I appreciate the input.
prettydarkhorse says:
3 weeks ago
hi Paraglider, nice guidelines and axioms. I havent read the first one although, we will read it later. There are still societies like in the Philippines who teaches religion as one of its curriculum until college. It is true theat they should dwell instead on ethics.
The respect for ecosystem, for other forms of living things, helpfulness and being generous.If everybody would just do thiese things, then the concept of paradise (not in religious terms) is there. I saw the word in moderation in consumption...Are these not virtues Sir Dave?
What an article to share, very nice one!