Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: ippy on June 12, 2015, 04:23:10 PM
-
Got to be worth a read:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/08/tristram-hunt-labour-lost-plot-education
ippy
-
Got to be worth a read:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/08/tristram-hunt-labour-lost-plot-education
ippy
It is a good article (and about much more than faith schools).
-
Got to be worth a read:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/08/tristram-hunt-labour-lost-plot-education
ippy
It is a good article (and about much more than faith schools).
Agree - he's a smart guy.
-
Good to see you missing the whole point of the article, ippy. The issue of faith schools takes up 5 1/2 lines, two thirds of the way down an article 100+ lines long.
Furthermore, even the reference to faith schools misrepresents reality:
When every mosque, temple, synagogue, church, chapel and gurdwara wants its own free school, ...
OK, I admit that there are generally 3 types of Christian faith school - Catholic, conformist Protestant (in the shape of the CoE) and non-conformist Protestant (few and far between) but generally the other religious groups within the British population want to see their children taught in a 'Muslim', Hindu', 'Sikh', ... school. We have long had humanist schools, in other words, those schools who defy the law and have no form of religious input into assemblies and - often - combine RE into Integrated Studies, along with History and Geography.
Ironically, the vast majority of schools seek to toe a middle line whereby influences from a range of worldviews are shared at assembly and/or within the humanities curriculum as a whole.
-
I was a bit disappointed. The article didn't really point out the absurdities of having faith schools, although it did point out that they are divisive.
The real absurdity is that a head teacher claims it is OK for a child to be "taught" two days a week by a teaching assistant - well, not absurdity, scandal.
-
Agreed. I'd like to see the evidence that the Tories gave identified early years as the best area for cutbacks.
-
Good to see you missing the whole point of the article, ippy. The issue of faith schools takes up 5 1/2 lines, two thirds of the way down an article 100+ lines long.
Furthermore, even the reference to faith schools misrepresents reality:
When every mosque, temple, synagogue, church, chapel and gurdwara wants its own free school, ...
OK, I admit that there are generally 3 types of Christian faith school - Catholic, conformist Protestant (in the shape of the CoE) and non-conformist Protestant (few and far between) but generally the other religious groups within the British population want to see their children taught in a 'Muslim', Hindu', 'Sikh', ... school. We have long had humanist schools, in other words, those schools who defy the law and have no form of religious input into assemblies and - often - combine RE into Integrated Studies, along with History and Geography.
Ironically, the vast majority of schools seek to toe a middle line whereby influences from a range of worldviews are shared at assembly and/or within the humanities curriculum as a whole.
What point Hope?
I only said that, "it's got to be worth a read", how does that add up to a missing of the point, it looks to me where you've always been into things like astrology, tarot, The supernatural, superstition, mythical and any mystical type things you now seem to have branched out into the crystal ball area as well?
Cross my palm with silver?
What have I got planned for this week, should I be doing the lottery?
ippy
-
What point Hope?
I only said that, "it's got to be worth a read", how does that add up to a missing of the point, ...
Well, Tristram Hunt was talking about the state of education as a whole, as he sees it. Picking out a poorly made point about faith schools and implying in your thread title that that was the main point of the article is what is missing the point.
... it looks to me where you've always been into things like astrology, tarot, The supernatural, superstition, mythical and any mystical type things you now seem to have branched out into the crystal ball area as well?
It comes with speaking English not Esslish, ippy. ;)
What have I got planned for this week, should I be doing the lottery?
You seem to have a good grasp of all the jargon, ippy. Perhaps you're more into such activities than you like to let on ;)
-
What point Hope?
I only said that, "it's got to be worth a read", how does that add up to a missing of the point, ...
Well, Tristram Hunt was talking about the state of education as a whole, as he sees it. Picking out a poorly made point about faith schools and implying in your thread title that that was the main point of the article is what is missing the point.
... it looks to me where you've always been into things like astrology, tarot, The supernatural, superstition, mythical and any mystical type things you now seem to have branched out into the crystal ball area as well?
It comes with speaking English not Esslish, ippy. ;)
What have I got planned for this week, should I be doing the lottery?
You seem to have a good grasp of all the jargon, ippy. Perhaps you're more into such activities than you like to let on ;)
I just wondered Hope, did you have a premonition that you would be getting a crystal ball? It seems to be working, mind you, you must have known all the ins and outs of this post I'm writing before I sat down in front of the keyboard.
Well you do like to delve into mysticism.
ippy
-
I just wondered Hope, did you have a premonition that you would be getting a crystal ball? It seems to be working, mind you, you must have known all the ins and outs of this post I'm writing before I sat down in front of the keyboard.
Well you do like to delve into mysticism.
ippy
As previously noted, you seem to have a far greater understanding of premonitions and crystal balls than I do. Common sense combined with experience of your posting style was perfectly sufficient to have a reasonable idea of the gist of your response.
-
What point Hope?
I only said that, "it's got to be worth a read", how does that add up to a missing of the point, ...
Well, Tristram Hunt was talking about the state of education as a whole, as he sees it. Picking out a poorly made point about faith schools and implying in your thread title that that was the main point of the article is what is missing the point.
... it looks to me where you've always been into things like astrology, tarot, The supernatural, superstition, mythical and any mystical type things you now seem to have branched out into the crystal ball area as well?
It comes with speaking English not Esslish, ippy. ;)
What have I got planned for this week, should I be doing the lottery?
You seem to have a good grasp of all the jargon, ippy. Perhaps you're more into such activities than you like to let on ;)
I just wondered Hope, did you have a premonition that you would be getting a crystal ball? It seems to be working, mind you, you must have known all the ins and outs of this post I'm writing before I sat down in front of the keyboard.
Well you do like to delve into mysticism.
ippy
What a silly post.
-
What a silly post.
No sillier than teaching children there is a "God".
-
A reasonable suggestion: http://www.bbc.com/news/education-33094305
-
No sillier than teaching children there is a "God".
Or of teaching children that there isn't a God. I am really glad that education policy is to not ignore those aspects of life that aren't catered for by a strict scientific interpretation of life.
-
No sillier than teaching children there is a "God".
Or of teaching children that there isn't a God. I am really glad that education policy is to not ignore those aspects of life that aren't catered for by a strict scientific interpretation of life.
It would be reprehensible to teach children that there is no such thing as a god.
Teaching that there is no evidence that would support the idea some people have that there is a god would only be telling it like it is.
ippy
-
No sillier than teaching children there is a "God".
Or of teaching children that there isn't a God.
I don't think state schools should be teaching that there is a god or that there isn't a god - and that should be the case both overtly and covertly. State schools should be neutral on the topic. And to do so RE should be fact-based (christians believe this, Hindus believe that etc) and also there must be a very clear additional element which makes it clear that atheists also exist and don't believe in the existence of god. Currently the last part isn't covered properly.
But much more importantly there should be a much greater emphasis on ethics, which can be taught on a 'case study type basis and will therefore allow students to explore different attitudes and ethical approaches to topics and that can include both religious and non religious.
-
No sillier than teaching children there is a "God".
Or of teaching children that there isn't a God.
I don't think state schools should be teaching that there is a god or that there isn't a god - and that should be the case both overtly and covertly. State schools should be neutral on the topic. And to do so RE should be fact-based (christians believe this, Hindus believe that etc) and also there must be a very clear additional element which makes it clear that atheists also exist and don't believe in the existence of god. Currently the last part isn't covered properly.
But much more importantly there should be a much greater emphasis on ethics, which can be taught on a 'case study type basis and will therefore allow students to explore different attitudes and ethical approaches to topics and that can include both religious and non religious.
And how do you know that? Most locally-agreed syllabuses allow for the presence of non-religious views, if somewhat limited. Just what do you expect schools to teach about atheism?
As to ethics, this is covered to a fair degree, in RE, to some extent, and in PHSE.
-
No sillier than teaching children there is a "God".
Or of teaching children that there isn't a God.
I don't think state schools should be teaching that there is a god or that there isn't a god - and that should be the case both overtly and covertly. State schools should be neutral on the topic. And to do so RE should be fact-based (christians believe this, Hindus believe that etc) and also there must be a very clear additional element which makes it clear that atheists also exist and don't believe in the existence of god. Currently the last part isn't covered properly.
But much more importantly there should be a much greater emphasis on ethics, which can be taught on a 'case study type basis and will therefore allow students to explore different attitudes and ethical approaches to topics and that can include both religious and non religious.
And how do you know that? Most locally-agreed syllabuses allow for the presence of non-religious views, if somewhat limited. Just what do you expect schools to teach about atheism?
Most locally-agreed syllabuses allow for the presence of non-religious views, if somewhat limited
Says it all really. Most kids these days aren't religious and a very small minority are actively religious, yet our school systems provide very limited exposure and discussion of non religious approaches to ethics if at all.
I don't disagree that learning about religions is important, but it must be proportionate and surely there should be much more time devoted to ethics taught in a manner which allows kids to bring their own views to the table and to help kids develop their own views, including both religious and non religious approaches.
In your average class of 30 kids there may perhaps be just 3 who are actively religious, and often none from non christian religions. Why should schools focus largely or even exclusively on the views of the 3, rather than the 27?
We really have got our priorities wrong.
-
No sillier than teaching children there is a "God".
Or of teaching children that there isn't a God.
I don't think state schools should be teaching that there is a god or that there isn't a god - and that should be the case both overtly and covertly. State schools should be neutral on the topic. And to do so RE should be fact-based (christians believe this, Hindus believe that etc) and also there must be a very clear additional element which makes it clear that atheists also exist and don't believe in the existence of god. Currently the last part isn't covered properly.
But much more importantly there should be a much greater emphasis on ethics, which can be taught on a 'case study type basis and will therefore allow students to explore different attitudes and ethical approaches to topics and that can include both religious and non religious.
And how do you know that? Most locally-agreed syllabuses allow for the presence of non-religious views, if somewhat limited. Just what do you expect schools to teach about atheism?
Most locally-agreed syllabuses allow for the presence of non-religious views, if somewhat limited
Says it all really. Most kids these days aren't religious and a very small minority are actively religious, yet our school systems provide very limited exposure and discussion of non religious approaches to ethics if at all.
I don't disagree that learning about religions is important, but it must be proportionate and surely there should be much more time devoted to ethics taught in a manner which allows kids to bring their own views to the table and to help kids develop their own views, including both religious and non religious approaches.
In your average class of 30 kids there may perhaps be just 3 who are actively religious, and often none from non christian religions. Why should schools focus largely or even exclusively on the views of the 3, rather than the 27?
We really have got our priorities wrong.
Do you realise how little time is allotted to both RE and PHSE in the curriculum? It is very difficult to do justice to either . And in my experience, there is limited interest in religion or ethics amongst the average student anyway. This concept that ippy and his like have of children having religion thrust down their throats is so wide of the mark.
In my school the Directive said: "RE syllabuses can promote pupils' understanding of the different impacts that religion and belief have on individuals and communities and enhance pupils' awareness of the kinds of questions raised by religion and ethics and how different religions answer them." And, as I have said, the ethics side of it is covered more fully in PHSE. If any parents were not happy, they were/are, free to withdraw their children from the RE lessons. So what is the problem?
-
No sillier than teaching children there is a "God".
Or of teaching children that there isn't a God.
I don't think state schools should be teaching that there is a god or that there isn't a god - and that should be the case both overtly and covertly. State schools should be neutral on the topic. And to do so RE should be fact-based (christians believe this, Hindus believe that etc) and also there must be a very clear additional element which makes it clear that atheists also exist and don't believe in the existence of god. Currently the last part isn't covered properly.
But much more importantly there should be a much greater emphasis on ethics, which can be taught on a 'case study type basis and will therefore allow students to explore different attitudes and ethical approaches to topics and that can include both religious and non religious.
And how do you know that? Most locally-agreed syllabuses allow for the presence of non-religious views, if somewhat limited. Just what do you expect schools to teach about atheism?
Most locally-agreed syllabuses allow for the presence of non-religious views, if somewhat limited
Says it all really. Most kids these days aren't religious and a very small minority are actively religious, yet our school systems provide very limited exposure and discussion of non religious approaches to ethics if at all.
I don't disagree that learning about religions is important, but it must be proportionate and surely there should be much more time devoted to ethics taught in a manner which allows kids to bring their own views to the table and to help kids develop their own views, including both religious and non religious approaches.
In your average class of 30 kids there may perhaps be just 3 who are actively religious, and often none from non christian religions. Why should schools focus largely or even exclusively on the views of the 3, rather than the 27?
We really have got our priorities wrong.
Do you realise how little time is allotted to both RE and PHSE in the curriculum? It is very difficult to do justice to either . And in my experience, there is limited interest in religion or ethics amongst the average student anyway. This concept that ippy and his like have of children having religion thrust down their throats is so wide of the mark.
Of course I understand how little time can be devoted to those subjects - I have school age kids and am also a secondary school governor.
That's one of the reasons why I think that many (if not most) schools have their priorities wrong in devoting too much time to RE and too little to ethics (which is often merely a little bit of PHSE which is much broader than just ethics).
And I'm not sure I agree with you on the interest of students - sure you are right that most kids find RE pretty pointless as it doesn't seem to have any relevance to their non religious life. But I disagree on ethics - I think many kids find discussing some of the issues really stimulating and motivating and also find it interesting to consider how and why they consider right and wrong approaches, but also comparing that to others. It is much less 'dry' for kids to be discussing the ethics of climate change, or gay rights, or civil rights, than to be learning about christian festivals or jewish cultural traditions.
-
Professor,
I cannot agree with your assumption that too much time is devoted to RE. It receives meagre allocation of time and very often the ethical issues it raises spill over into the lessons anyway. I have always found as much interest in the study of the life of Jesus as in ethical considerations, which tend to be a turn-off for many. Perhaps my experience is not the usual, but I doubt it. Schools do their best to adequately cover what is asked in the Curriculum, and I think what is being done is fair and sound.
-
Professor,
"Of course I understand how little time can be devoted to those subjects - I have school age kids and am also a secondary school governor.
That's one of the reasons why I think that many (if not most) schools have their priorities wrong in devoting too much time to RE and too little to ethics (which is often merely a little bit of PHSE which is much broader than just ethics).
And I'm not sure I agree with you on the interest of students - sure you are right that most kids find RE pretty pointless as it doesn't seem to have any relevance to their non religious life. But I disagree on ethics - I think many kids find discussing some of the issues really stimulating and motivating and also find it interesting to consider how and why they consider right and wrong approaches, but also comparing that to others. It is much less 'dry' for kids to be discussing the ethics of climate change, or gay rights, or civil rights, than to be learning about christian festivals or jewish cultural traditions."
I cannot agree with your assumption that too much time is devoted to RE. It receives meagre allocation of time and very often the ethical issues it raises spill over into the lessons. I have always found as much interest in the study of the life of Jesus as in ethical considerations, which tend to be a turn-off for many. Perhaps my experience is not the usual, but I doubt it. Schools do their best to adequately cover what is asked in the Curriculum, and I think what is being done is fair and sound.
In an ideal world there would be loads of time to study all sorts of things to the level they perhaps deserve.
But we don't live in an ideal world and schools need to take decisions about prioritisation and when time is limited I'd prefer to see more time devoted to practical ethics which is going to mean less time on RE.
I cannot agree on your view on interests of kids. Just to give a real example. The school where I am a governor has taken a decision no longer to offer RE to GCSE level but instead to offer Philosophy and Ethics, basically because the latter is much more popular (and of interest) to students than the former. And it is no coincidence that GCSE RE has a very poor take-up across the country where it is an option. That there are so many students who gain GCSE RE is because many schools (usually faith schools) still make it compulsory.
It is also worth noting that kids from religious backgrounds will usually get religious education and instruction outside of school within their religious organisations, so they are to an extent already catered for. But if you aren't religious being required to learn about the life of a person from 2000 years ago whose key religious claims you don't believe is a big turn off.
-
Teaching that there is no evidence that would support the idea some people have that there is a god would only be telling it like it is.
As someone who has supported non-native speaker pupils within mainstream classes and subjects I've come across a host of different teachers. Some of the best science teachers have used the 'believe' term in regard to science and its understandings.
In fact, it was from one of them that I got my oft-repeated comment about emotions - that we can see symptoms of emotions (the chemical responses that many talk about), but have to believe that those responses are symptoms of the real thing; she even pointed out that all the evidence we have for current scientific understandings are but symptoms, rather than the real thing
-
I don't think state schools should be teaching that there is a god or that there isn't a god - and that should be the case both overtly and covertly. State schools should be neutral on the topic. And to do so RE should be fact-based (christians believe this, Hindus believe that etc) and also there must be a very clear additional element which makes it clear that atheists also exist and don't believe in the existence of god. Currently the last part isn't covered properly.
I've been in many RE lessons and used many RE syllabi, in which what you suggest is the norm. The term 'atheist' is not often used, but the fact that there are those who do not believe in the existence of a deity comes up pretty often. In the last school I taught in, there was a staffroom debate about which subject(s) should take over the 3 lessons a fortnight given over to RE and PHSE. It was generally felt that Citizenship should replace PHSE; but there was no great wish to replace RE as folk believed that the factual nature of the subject (this is what X, Y and Z faiths believe) was too important for an understanding of our multicultural population to be lost.
But much more importantly there should be a much greater emphasis on ethics, which can be taught on a 'case study type basis and will therefore allow students to explore different attitudes and ethical approaches to topics and that can include both religious and non religious.
This tends, however, to over-emphasis situational ethics, which I believe to be a bad idea.
-
PD,
I might point out that RE is not, of course, obligatory in the National Curriculum and it is down to each Local Authority to work out an Agreed Syllabus. In junior schools, where the children are generally so much more keen to learn such things, this works well enough. At the older level the need for a broader study of ethics, etc, is more appropriate; but to my way of thinking, it would be totally wrong to minimise RE, as it covers, not only the religious aspect of belief, etc, but broader issues which are encompassed in it. If older children, or their parents, are not happy with the time-table, or inclusion of RE in it, as I have pointed out, they are free to withdraw their child. But this does not seem to be happening.
-
This tends, however, to over-emphasis situational ethics, which I believe to be a bad idea.
Why?
-
PD,
I might point out that RE is not, of course, obligatory in the National Curriculum and it is down to each Local Authority to work out an Agreed Syllabus. In junior schools, where the children are generally so much more keen to learn such things, this works well enough. At the older level the need for a broader study of ethics, etc, is more appropriate; but to my way of thinking, it would be totally wrong to minimise RE, as it covers, not only the religious aspect of belief, etc, but broader issues which are encompassed in it. If older children, or their parents, are not happy with the time-table, or inclusion of RE in it, as I have pointed out, they are free to withdraw their child. But this does not seem to be happening.
If parents feel the need to remove their child that is always likely to be a very last resort so if this is happening to any great exert that suggest the syllabus used is getting it really badly wrong.
-
This tends, however, to over-emphasis situational ethics, which I believe to be a bad idea.
Why?
As you said in your own post, the case study nature of such a study tends to fragment the ideas. I've seen it happen.
-
PD,
I might point out that RE is not, of course, obligatory in the National Curriculum and it is down to each Local Authority to work out an Agreed Syllabus. In junior schools, where the children are generally so much more keen to learn such things, this works well enough. At the older level the need for a broader study of ethics, etc, is more appropriate; but to my way of thinking, it would be totally wrong to minimise RE, as it covers, not only the religious aspect of belief, etc, but broader issues which are encompassed in it. If older children, or their parents, are not happy with the time-table, or inclusion of RE in it, as I have pointed out, they are free to withdraw their child. But this does not seem to be happening.
If parents feel the need to remove their child that is always likely to be a very last resort so if this is happening to any great exert that suggest the syllabus used is getting it really badly wrong.
But it is not happening to hardly any extent, as far as I am aware. So, presumably, most are happy enough with things as they are. Incidentally, as you will be aware, children can also be withdrawn from Assemblies, or such things as Christmas celebrations or activities: this hardly ever happens, either. So, again, it seems there is general satisfaction with what is happening.
I might add, it is not so much a matter of whether RE is taught in school, but how it is presented: the preparation of teachers in the subject is pretty dire.
-
This tends, however, to over-emphasis situational ethics, which I believe to be a bad idea.
Why?
-
Teaching that there is no evidence that would support the idea some people have that there is a god would only be telling it like it is.
As someone who has supported non-native speaker pupils within mainstream classes and subjects I've come across a host of different teachers. Some of the best science teachers have used the 'believe' term in regard to science and its understandings.
In fact, it was from one of them that I got my oft-repeated comment about emotions - that we can see symptoms of emotions (the chemical responses that many talk about), but have to believe that those responses are symptoms of the real thing; she even pointed out that all the evidence we have for current scientific understandings are but symptoms, rather than the real thing
"As someone who has supported non-native speaker pupils within mainstream classes and subjects I've come across a host of different teachers. Some of the best science teachers have used the 'believe' termAs someone who has supported non-native speaker pupils within mainstream classes and subjects I've come across a host of different teachers. Some of the best science teachers have used the 'believe' term in regard to science and its understandings".
Some of the best science teachers have used the 'believe' term in regard to science and its understandings and dismiss them if they don't hold up through lack of credible evidence; nothing new there.
=====
"In fact, it was from one of them that I got my oft-repeated comment about emotions - that we can see symptoms of emotions (the chemical responses that many talk about), but have to believe that those responses are symptoms of the real thing; she even pointed out that all the evidence we have for current scientific understandings are but symptoms, rather than the real thing".
So that was her opinion, has it been tested/challenged in any way that might move this idea of hers on?
ippy
-
PD,
I might point out that RE is not, of course, obligatory in the National Curriculum and it is down to each Local Authority to work out an Agreed Syllabus. In junior schools, where the children are generally so much more keen to learn such things, this works well enough. At the older level the need for a broader study of ethics, etc, is more appropriate; but to my way of thinking, it would be totally wrong to minimise RE, as it covers, not only the religious aspect of belief, etc, but broader issues which are encompassed in it. If older children, or their parents, are not happy with the time-table, or inclusion of RE in it, as I have pointed out, they are free to withdraw their child. But this does not seem to be happening.
If parents feel the need to remove their child that is always likely to be a very last resort so if this is happening to any great exert that suggest the syllabus used is getting it really badly wrong.
But it is not happening to hardly any extent, as far as I am aware. So, presumably, most are happy enough with things as they are. Incidentally, as you will be aware, children can also be withdrawn from Assemblies, or such things as Christmas celebrations or activities: this hardly ever happens, either. So, again, it seems there is general satisfaction with what is happening.
I might add, it is not so much a matter of whether RE is taught in school, but how it is presented: the preparation of teachers in the subject is pretty dire.
preparation of teachers in the subject is pretty dire.
Well face it BA there's very few people that are interested any more.
ippy
-
PD,
I might point out that RE is not, of course, obligatory in the National Curriculum and it is down to each Local Authority to work out an Agreed Syllabus. In junior schools, where the children are generally so much more keen to learn such things, this works well enough. At the older level the need for a broader study of ethics, etc, is more appropriate; but to my way of thinking, it would be totally wrong to minimise RE, as it covers, not only the religious aspect of belief, etc, but broader issues which are encompassed in it. If older children, or their parents, are not happy with the time-table, or inclusion of RE in it, as I have pointed out, they are free to withdraw their child. But this does not seem to be happening.
If parents feel the need to remove their child that is always likely to be a very last resort so if this is happening to any great exert that suggest the syllabus used is getting it really badly wrong.
But it is not happening to hardly any extent, as far as I am aware. So, presumably, most are happy enough with things as they are. Incidentally, as you will be aware, children can also be withdrawn from Assemblies, or such things as Christmas celebrations or activities: this hardly ever happens, either. So, again, it seems there is general satisfaction with what is happening.
I might add, it is not so much a matter of whether RE is taught in school, but how it is presented: the preparation of teachers in the subject is pretty dire.
preparation of teachers in the subject is pretty dire.
Well face it BA there's very few people that are interested any more.
ippy
I don't think it's that so much as inadequacies in the teaching of teachers, and there's nothing new in that.
-
This tends, however, to over-emphasis situational ethics, which I believe to be a bad idea.
Why?
As you said in your own post, the case study nature of such a study tends to fragment the ideas. I've seen it happen.
No I didn't.
Why are ideas any more fragmented than a different form of topic based approach that uses a particular religion as a topic, or the idea of ceremonies as a topic and compares religions.
I can't see why this is any less fragmented than a topic based approach based on ethical issues, nor why this is fundamentally a problem.
-
Why are ideas any more fragmented than a different form of topic based approach that uses a particular religion as a topic, or the idea of ceremonies as a topic and compares religions.
I can't see why this is any less fragmented than a topic based approach based on ethical issues, nor why this is fundamentally a problem.
If you deal with ethics in a 'case study' format, one will tend to look at the case in point and decide on what one's response should be within the 'vacuum' of that single case or set of cases. This can lead to creating ethical codes that have this segmentation built into the process. I prefer to teach ethical principles and then look at how they apply to individual cases. For instance, how does war impact on the idea that one should not kill? Or is taking perfectly good food from a trash bin outside a supermarket to help feed the homeless stealing or not?
I got the impression that you would like to see the context be the starting point and an ethical principle be developed from it. If I've misunderstood you, my apologies.
-
Why are ideas any more fragmented than a different form of topic based approach that uses a particular religion as a topic, or the idea of ceremonies as a topic and compares religions.
I can't see why this is any less fragmented than a topic based approach based on ethical issues, nor why this is fundamentally a problem.
If you deal with ethics in a 'case study' format, one will tend to look at the case in point and decide on what one's response should be within the 'vacuum' of that single case or set of cases. This can lead to creating ethical codes that have this segmentation built into the process. I prefer to teach ethical principles and then look at how they apply to individual cases. For instance, how does war impact on the idea that one should not kill? Or is taking perfectly good food from a trash bin outside a supermarket to help feed the homeless stealing or not?
I got the impression that you would like to see the context be the starting point and an ethical principle be developed from it. If I've misunderstood you, my apologies.
Well I guess that you like me have actually studies and taught ethics, so actually have some experience.
So on that basis, yes there are different approaches, but I don't see that one is fundamentally better than the other.
Personally with a group of students I first like to explore some case studies and get the students to give their 'gut' reaction to right and wrong within the cases. I do this for a number of reasons:
1. It is easier I think for a student to consider their own reaction to abortion (for the sake of arguments) or the practical examples you used rather than start by dry ethical theory and then to begin to explore why people react in a particular manner.
2. When done in a confidential and anonymised manner (which is what I do) it allows the range of view to be revealed within the group. This is helpful as it support the notion that students should be mindful that the person next to them might disagree, perhaps quite radically, and to respect the group so to speak. Further to recognise that there are a range of opinions and when legislators etc try to make decisions they actually can't decide on the basis of the consensus view, because often there isn't one.
3. Many people develop an approach to ethics with is inherently 'hybrid' a bit religious upbringing-driven, a little bit golden rule humanism, a touch of consequentialism etc etc. Few of us adopt a pure ethical theory and apply is consistently.
Only having done that do I tend to introduce classical ethical theories - why, because I find that students tend to engage with them much better when considered in the context of their own views on particular cases. Further it helps students to understand the limits of their adherence to a particular ethical approach.
I find this works pretty well. Perhaps you do it differently and that's fine if it works for you. But I guess to my mind ethics (certainly practical ethics) is about exploring individual views on topics in the context of ethical theory. It isn't about learning an ethical theory (even less so learning the 'correct' ethical theory) and then practicing it by applying it to situations.
Where I do lean toward the 'learn the theory and then apply it' approach is only where ethical practice is legally codified - a good example being the requirement for consent in medical ethics.
-
Thought I'd bump up the oldest thread, just for the hell of it.
The only ethical system that makes sense is rule-utilitarianism. I certainly wouldn't want to ban faith schools, but I don't think they should be state-funded.
-
Right on bro.
-
The only ethical system that makes sense is rule-utilitarianism. I certainly wouldn't want to ban faith schools, but I don't think they should be state-funded.
I'd agree with that - no school funded by the state should be biased in favour of and run by a particularly religion, any more than they should be biased in favour and run by a particular political party.
If religious organisations wish to set up their own private schools, so be it (subject to the caveats below), but they, not the tax payer, should fund them.
But I also think that even if privately funded there need to be certain ground rules in legislation that prevent any school being a place of religious indoctrination and failing to provide a broad and balanced curriculum. There are too many faith schools outside the state sector that completely fail their children on the fundamentals of freedom of religion (children should be able to choose whether to be religious, or not religious and to change their minds) and the basis human right to receive a broad and balanced education.
-
If you deal with ethics in a 'case study' format, one will tend to look at the case in point and decide on what one's response should be within the 'vacuum' of that single case or set of cases. This can lead to creating ethical codes that have this segmentation built into the process. I prefer to teach ethical principles and then look at how they apply to individual cases. For instance, how does war impact on the idea that one should not kill? Or is taking perfectly good food from a trash bin outside a supermarket to help feed the homeless stealing or not?
I got the impression that you would like to see the context be the starting point and an ethical principle be developed from it. If I've misunderstood you, my apologies.
Well I guess that you like me have actually studies and taught ethics, so actually have some experience.
So on that basis, yes there are different approaches, but I don't see that one is fundamentally better than the other.
Personally with a group of students I first like to explore some case studies and get the students to give their 'gut' reaction to right and wrong within the cases. I do this for a number of reasons:
1. It is easier I think for a student to consider their own reaction to abortion (for the sake of arguments) or the practical examples you used rather than start by dry ethical theory and then to begin to explore why people react in a particular manner.
2. When done in a confidential and anonymised manner (which is what I do) it allows the range of view to be revealed within the group. This is helpful as it support the notion that students should be mindful that the person next to them might disagree, perhaps quite radically, and to respect the group so to speak. Further to recognise that there are a range of opinions and when legislators etc try to make decisions they actually can't decide on the basis of the consensus view, because often there isn't one.
3. Many people develop an approach to ethics with is inherently 'hybrid' a bit religious upbringing-driven, a little bit golden rule humanism, a touch of consequentialism etc etc. Few of us adopt a pure ethical theory and apply is consistently.
Only having done that do I tend to introduce classical ethical theories - why, because I find that students tend to engage with them much better when considered in the context of their own views on particular cases. Further it helps students to understand the limits of their adherence to a particular ethical approach.
I find this works pretty well. Perhaps you do it differently and that's fine if it works for you. But I guess to my mind ethics (certainly practical ethics) is about exploring individual views on topics in the context of ethical theory. It isn't about learning an ethical theory (even less so learning the 'correct' ethical theory) and then practicing it by applying it to situations.
Where I do lean toward the 'learn the theory and then apply it' approach is only where ethical practice is legally codified - a good example being the requirement for consent in medical ethics.
What good timing to re-boot this thread.
Today I'm teaching the first session on my ethics course, to a whole new cohort of students. With some minor modifications I'm still using the approach I described in the post above over 5 years ago.
Of course today, unlike in 2015, everything will be on-line and taught remotely, so the opportunities for interaction with the students and the students with themselves will be rather different. Will let you know how it goes.
-
Thought I'd bump up the oldest thread, just for the hell of it.
The only ethical system that makes sense is rule-utilitarianism. I certainly wouldn't want to ban faith schools, but I don't think they should be state-funded.
I don't really get the desire to end segregation of children by faith schools at the same time as having an unquestioning attitude over segregating Kids according to wealth.
-
I don't really get the desire to end segregation of children by faith schools at the same time as having an unquestioning attitude over segregating Kids according to wealth.
Are you talking about private schools Vlad?
-
I'd agree with that - no school funded by the state should be biased in favour of and run by a particularly religion, any more than they should be biased in favour and run by a particular political party.
If religious organisations wish to set up their own private schools, so be it (subject to the caveats below), but they, not the tax payer, should fund them.
But I also think that even if privately funded there need to be certain ground rules in legislation that prevent any school being a place of religious indoctrination and failing to provide a broad and balanced curriculum. There are too many faith schools outside the state sector that completely fail their children on the fundamentals of freedom of religion (children should be able to choose whether to be religious, or not religious and to change their minds) and the basis human right to receive a broad and balanced education.
Good post, I agree with you.
-
Are you talking about private schools Vlad?
Yes indeed.
-
I don't really get the desire to end segregation of children by faith schools at the same time as having an unquestioning attitude over segregating Kids according to wealth.
The existence of one form of discrimination doesn't justify the existence of another form.
-
The existence of one form of discrimination doesn't justify the existence of another form.
That's true.
But there is also a fundamental difference between what the state funds directly via public funding and what the state allows people to spend their own money on. Within reason, with our current society, the state gives us freedom to spend our own money as we wish, whether on a nice car, a holiday, private schooling or private healthcare. The state largely gets out of the way in terms of those decisions.
That is entirely different to decisions on what the state directly funds in terms of public funded services. And certainly those publicly-funded services should be provided without discrimination on the basis of faith. I think we'd be pretty horrified if we turned up at an NHS hospital to be told to go away because they prioritise people of a different religion. More so if we found out that no hospital prioritised people with our own beliefs. So why should that apply to schooling.
And a further point - while you might argue that it shouldn't be the case - fundamental human rights typically ascribe certain characteristics that should be protected from discrimination. These include religion (or lack of religion) - it doesn't include level of wealth.