Prev
Next

If we’re going to teach ethics in schools, let’s do it properly

Sev Ozdowski

by Sev Ozdowski

05 Nov 05:40am

Must Reads

Booyah for boobs, booze, brotherhood and bikies! - this is a caption

Booyah for boobs, booze, brotherhood and bikies!

83

Labor’s new strategy of Speaking No Evil - this is a caption

Labor’s new strategy of Speaking No Evil

102

A few good men and The Gaps they face - this is a caption

A few good men and The Gaps they face

45

Filed under: Children, Choice, Education, Ethics, Human Rights, Schools

94 comments

NSW is on the brink of introducing ethics teaching into classrooms across the country, but no-one, not even the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, has any notion as to what we will be teaching our children.

No one is born understanding respect and common values. Photo: Brad Newman.

The problem with modern day ethics is the lack of unified standards for deciding what is right or wrong.

Worse than this, many educators seek to frame the debate in terms of relativism, which provides the perfect platform for communities and countries to sacrifice basic human rights in the name of concepts such as religion, culture and philosophy.

Australia is at the crossroads, and we need to make sure the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights is at the front and centre of any ethics curriculum.

The proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was a landmark moment for the international community. Adopted in 1948 in the aftermath of World War 2, the declaration aims to prevent a repeat of the horrors and gross injustices of that bloody conflict. It provides certain “common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations” to advance the respect of human dignity.

It declares that all people are born free and equal in rights and that they should enjoy their rights and freedoms free of discrimination.

It provides certain basic standards such as right to life, liberty and security, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, right to family and equal rights in marriage, right to own property and right to elect and participate in government.

More than 60 years after its conception it remains one of humanity’s greatest achievements.

I was born in Poland just after World War 2, and spent my infancy against the backdrop of Nazi and Soviet crimes, ruin and unrestrained depravity.

I witnessed the 1956 Poznan insurrection and the denial of basic rights to many in the Communist Block. It’s a disturbing thing to witness humanity disintegrate and commit such hideous crimes against itself.

The consequences of this war and the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights deeply influenced my values and aspirations. During my time as Australia’s Human Rights Commissioner I was responsible for advocating for the basic human rights of refugee children in detention.

Australia’s policy was in clear breach of our international obligations, and lead me to publish the landmark report entitled “National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention: A Last Resort?”

This report challenged government policy, and like all my work was strongly influenced by my deep commitment to human rights and the common standards for the ethical treatment of all people outlined by the United Nations.

Australia has not witnessed the bloody internal conflicts (our harsh treatment of Indigenous people is a notable exception here) or the harsh dictatorships that have forced other countries to regard human rights as paramount to the good functioning of civil society.

We don’t have a Bill of Rights, and the people who feel this the most are generally the most vulnerable members of our society, such as refugees and Indigenous Australians.

But conflicts such as the Cronulla riots and the angry community responses to planned Islamic Schools in our suburbs highlight how modern Australia is still grappling with accepting diversity and defining what basic standards apply to us all.

And let us not forget that things can change – in the late 19th and early 20th centuries Germany was regarded as a model of well functioning civil society based on the rule of law.

This is why I believe children at school should learn about respect for human dignity and the freedoms which should be afforded to us all, which form the basis of human rights.

Human rights education is an extremely powerful tool to educate children about our past, to help give them the correct grounding to make sure that atrocities such as World War 2 are never repeated.

But it seems the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority does not value the lessons learnt from Europe’s bloodstained history of wars and conflict.

Instead of proactively seeking to engage the Australian community with a set of unified ethics standards that encompass universal codes on human rights, it is sitting on its hands.

It neglects the fact that these universal rights provide common ground to bridge the core values of different cultures and religions. They also do not compete with religious teaching, but instead help avoid a conflict about values in a globalised world.

The overwhelming question remains- what will our ethics classes be teaching our children? Will the Authority choose the relativist option, and teach our leaders of tomorrow that morality is culturally relative, that there are no universal truths, and that all values are subjective? Or will they look to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and teach our children that no one can take away their freedom of thought, conscience and expression?

This week more than 350 human rights academics, government officials and leaders from around the world are gathering at the University of Western Sydney to discuss these and other issues relating to human rights education. The Federal Attorney General Robert McClelland has drawn up a Human Rights framework, with a strong focus on education, and we welcome his active participation at the conference.

Sadly, our invitations to the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority went unanswered, and it appears their seats will be empty. I am also of the view that our immigration officials and other public servants could benefit from deeper exposure to human rights values.

Modern Australia needs to embrace the basic code of universal values to secure dignity and peace for future generations. 

As our churches do not reach everyone and our parents often look toward schools to teach children citizenship and social interaction, it is up to our governments to embed the standards of Universal Declaration of Human Rights into school curricula.

Let’s not forget – respect and common values are not given with mother’s milk. They need to be taught and re taught to each and every generation.

Most commented

273Modern Christians can trump Bible thumping fundies
271Class war: sounds crazy but it just might work
266Even New Zealand supports gay marriage
263Climate change and the crisis of communication
257Tell it to the court, Craig
24212 bigger issues than gay change and climate marriage
222Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone
214Voters won't forget the way Labor has conducted itself

94 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • someone says:

      06:06am | 05/11/10

      >The problem with modern day ethics is the lack of unified standards for deciding what is right or wrong.

      Ethics is not about “deciding” what is right or wrong.  Or even having a specific set of standards to make decisions and judge things by.  It’s about equipping people with the ability to make their own decisions.  To teach them about cause and effect, about intent and outcomes. 

      It’s not about saying “stealing is bad”, it’s about helping them come to a conclusion that “stealing hurts the person who that money or property belonged to, and it would hurt me if someone took my things.”

      It’s not about “gay marriage is right” or “gay marriage is wrong”.  It’s about helping children ask themselves:  “some people are gay and were born this way, and can’t be any other way.  Is it fair for them not to be able to allowed to get married like my parents can, just because they love one another and not someone of the opposite gender?  Does their marriage hurt me or hurt society?  Should the feelings of religious people be given equal consideration to the feelings of gay people?”

      There’s nothing wrong with a relativist approach, particularly to greyer areas.  I personally feel that murder is wrong as a gut instinct.  But is all killing wrong?  Is euthanasia and “mercy-killing” wrong, or killing in self-defence?  Is war always wrong?

      This is what ethics classes seek to do:  to get children and young people thinking, and equipping them to make up their own minds.  And there are different ways to think and reach conclusions.  No one way is “right”.

      Reply

    • Budz says:

      06:59am | 05/11/10

      @someone: Spot on there. It’s not really about the black and white ones where it’s obvious if it’s right or wrong. I encourage everyone to watch the following clip on teaching ethics at schools that was shown on ABC a couple of months ago. You need to understand how they plan on teaching the classes before commenting on it.
      http://www.abc.net.au/compass/s2968581.htm

    • Tone says:

      07:47am | 05/11/10

      I agree, ‘someone’.  The irony is that there is no absolutist approach anyway, as those claiming absolutism for their rules or views are just relative to others claiming absolutism for those other rules and views.

      It is, ironically, unethical for those entities or groups to deny that.

    • Tim says:

      07:50am | 05/11/10

      “This is what ethics classes seek to do:  to get children and young people thinking, and equipping them to make up their own minds.  And there are different ways to think and reach conclusions.  No one way is “right”.”

      And this is my exact problem with teaching these kinds of classes to young children.
      Do you really think that teachers will be able to teach young children to think critically without letting their own personal biases (even unknowingly) get in the way?

      These classes will become exactly what some say religious classes do: indoctrinate our young into a “right” way of thinking.

    • Tedd says:

      08:04am | 05/11/10

      Tim, today’s education is about children learning to appraise and evaluate, not about how or what teachers teach.  Check out ‘Blooms taxonomy’ or the ‘SOLO taxonomy’.

    • Tim says:

      09:06am | 05/11/10

      The problem with relativism is that it cannot conform to its own standards - if everything is relative then why should anyone believe that relativism is any better than any other way of thinking. So in essence, relativism asks us to believe that everything is relative except the idea that everything is relative. Therefore its as absolute as the absolutism it opposes.

    • Steely Dan says:

      09:35am | 05/11/10

      @ someone

      You beat me to it (by a few hours)!  Ethics is a branch of philosophy which examines morality, not a set of rules.

    • Tone says:

      09:51am | 05/11/10

      Tim, there is mostly no overt relativism and often no overt absolutism - many universal principles are agreed, negotiated, or conciliated; except when discussed for the first time in child learning situations.

      Emphasising or criticising relativism is only relevant to a degree, otherwise one gets in the relativism fallacy, stolen concept fallacy, and the slanting fallacy.  To say “everything is relative except the idea that everything is relative” is word salad.

    • Pauline says:

      11:33am | 05/11/10

      Actually, if your curriculum aims to teach the children to think for themselves, and they manage to come up with some answer that every instinct tells you is wrong (to an adult ethic point of view) however the child can back up their argument cogently and comprehensively, showing how they reached those conclusions, then the process is validated.  After all, teaching the kids to THINK is vital.  Teaching them to think about consequences is good.  Teaching them compassion AND getting them to ingrain that into their everyday thinking is priceless and potentially the only possible way to rescue this and the future society.

      However, get them thinking first.

    • astrid says:

      11:58am | 05/11/10

      I agree you cannot teach right and wrong in ethics classes it about realising that there is a grey area. items like gay marriage or parenting are not right or wrong but they are a reflection on society. As we become more relaxed its becomes more acceptable as a society swings back to the right it becomes taboo. I will bet you what we think is a clearly right will be clearly wrong in 20 years time. Its not about right and wrong. Its about teaching children that often right and wrong is very blurred.

    • loxy says:

      12:53pm | 05/11/10

      100% agree someone!

      As for the author - shame on you for hijacking what I thought was supposed to be an article about teaching ethics in school with an article that really focused on human rights.

      Ethics is simply about equipping our children with the ability to question things and think through their actions/decisions and potential consequences.

    • Rebecca says:

      01:30pm | 05/11/10

      There is one rule when it comes to ethics: Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself. This is the key to a happy and peaceful humanity as it covers nearly every ethical issue and grey area that exists. It’s just using that principle that is the problem. Not one single person on earth has managed it (except for one guy who lived about 2000 years ago, depending on your beliefs).

    • Matt says:

      02:43pm | 05/11/10

      Ethics is relativist. This article itself has pointed out the change of ethics and values of society over the last hundred years, thereby acknowledging that what is ethical depends on what culture you are in and where you are in history. 

      Good ole Socrates pointed this one out, and realisation of it caused all sorts of mischevious behavior (if morality is manmade, then why shouldn’t I say it is moral to deface this statue?) This made him a troublemaker and was one of the main reasons he was to be sentenced for exile (he chose death instead). Ethical relativism is hardly a new question for mankind.

      However we have the benefit of hindsight, and with knowledge of ancient cultures it becomes abundantly clear that what is ethical at any time is what we have decided is ethical. In Sparta it was considered ethical to leave a sickly newborn baby on a mountain to see if it survived the night. It was also ethical for a man to take a 13 year old boy as his lover. It was about creating the ultimate warrior society that fought as a unified family. It was what the civilization stood for, and it embodied their ideologies and values.

      The right thing to do has constantly changed throughout history, and will continue to evolve despite each generation’s efforts to concrete their own set of values to stand for all time.

      I’m all for teaching children ethics, but it certainly should show how they are relativist. Realisation of this gives us the responsibility to shape ethics in the right way. Failure to acknowledge this leads to indoctrination and rigid thinking.

    • Dene says:

      02:52pm | 05/11/10

      “@Someone says” ethics is exactly about deciding what is right or wrong. In applying a “cause and effect” approach you are applying an approach to determine what is the right action versus what is the wrong action. This in itself requires some ethical judgement as even in your simple argument about “stealing” you have implied a whole heap of deterministic moral beliefs (whether you meant to or not). For someone to come to your conclusion and follow the thinkgin process they would first need to believe that:
      a) Personal rights to property exists and should be respected (a good communist would tell you otherwise);
      b) It is wrong to hurt other people (why else would you care about hurting someone else); and
      c) Your actions have an element of reciprocity (if you act in this way the other person will act in the same way)
      In effect you are using implied moral beliefs in your argument which are inherent right/wrong decisions (which is fine but not a relativistic approach).....

    • Steely Dan says:

      04:47pm | 05/11/10

      @ Dene

      “a) Personal rights to property exists and should be respected (a good communist would tell you otherwise)”
      To a certain extent anybody who believes in taxation of any kind doesn’t buy that we have an absolute right to property. 

      “b) It is wrong to hurt other people (why else would you care about hurting someone else);”
      Why?  Because I don’t want to get hurt by other people.  So signing up to the rules that protect me protects others.  Even psycopaths can live peacefully.

      “c) Your actions have an element of reciprocity (if you act in this way the other person will act in the same way)”
      Which is perfectly rational - unless your preference is not to live in a cooperative society where there’s a rule against killing you.

      “In effect you are using implied moral beliefs in your argument which are inherent right/wrong decisions (which is fine but not a relativistic approach)”
      All these can stem from some basic and uncontroversial propositions - that we want as many freedoms as we can get, and we don’t like getting hurt.

    • Steely Dan says:

      04:55pm | 05/11/10

      @ Matt

      “Ethics is relativist.  This article itself has pointed out the change of ethics and values of society over the last hundred years”
      Ethics is the study of morality.  People can and have pondered what is right and wrong and come up with different answers, but that doesn’t make ethics ‘relativist’. 

      “thereby acknowledging that what is ethical depends on what culture you are in and where you are in history.”
      That shows that what we consider moral depends on the values of the observer.  But that doesn’t mean that one system can’t provide better outcomes for a society than another.

    • acotrel says:

      06:07am | 05/11/10

      My compliments - avery well written article!  The discipline related to ethics is well established, and well known to science professionals.  It’s certainly time it was taught to our kids, by people with no authoritarian agenda to push!
      http://faculty.stedwards.edu/ursery/norm.htm

      Reply

    • Adam Diver says:

      07:09am | 05/11/10

      As a human rights commissioner you would obviously oppose any Islamic schools considering much of thier teachings deny human rights to women?

      Also you must understand the the unequivocal application of human rights to asylum seekers, particularly children (and I am assuming freedom is the only one infringed here), would have the knock on effect of encouraging assylum seekers to bring thier kids on a dangerous journey, already claiming 170 lives, whilst also denying human rights to other needy people in refugee camps?

      Can the academia ever address any real issues beyond the theoretical utopia that is proposed? I am all for human rights, but thier are situations where the consequences can outweigh the liberal application of all rights. Worse still there are people and organisations who infringe on other peoples rights whilst still generously given the benefit of these rights.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      08:49am | 05/11/10

      Adam Diver, Treat all others with respect, even if their culture is based on ignorance and authoritarianism. Just worry about your own ethics, and not those of others - lead by example!

    • Adam Diver says:

      09:09am | 05/11/10

      @ Acetrol - Respect is earned not given. I will respect you, if you show respect for others (not directed at you personally:).

      Our acceptance and in many ways submissions to cultures, leaders and people who do not show the kind of respect expected of humanity, under the guise of “tolerance” is nothing short of a disgrace and pure cowardice.

    • Bob H says:

      07:35am | 05/11/10

      It would be great to have a human rights standard we can all work to.  Religions pretend to have ethics but are “opt in” only and even if you have opted in, the obligations can be interpreted out to suit religious agendas.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      02:18pm | 05/11/10

      BObH, the Liberal party will tell you we don’t need a Bill of Rights to spell it out!  You need to look at their agenda which is basically authoritarian, and about contro - l just like that of the mullahs in the Hillsong Church or of Wee Georgie Pell!

    • SchoolsProud says:

      07:36am | 05/11/10

      In saying “the problem with modern day ethics is the lack of unified standards for deciding what is right or wrong”, Sev Ozdowski implies pre-modern ethics (or societies) had a unified standard, which it (and they) did not.

      He is right to point out the United Nation’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights - http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/ - yet implies it is not embedded into school curricula: the care and standard generally in Australian schools strongly suggests the teachers and education department administrators do so, even if informally.  I say that as a parent of a child in a NSW public school (with education qualifications and experience).

      Reply

    • Hal says:

      07:41am | 05/11/10

      A good article - it cover the Rights half of the equation well, but is silent on the Responsibilities which come with them.

      Reply

    • acotrel says:

      09:05am | 05/11/10

      Cost/benefit analyses are often unethical, think about how that applies to asylum seekers?  What is our responsibilty to them as fellow human beings?

    • Gregg says:

      04:16pm | 06/11/10

      Not too sure acca what the claim of c/b analyses as being unethical nor their application to asylum seekers has to do with the responsibility of Rights but as to our responsibility to asylum seekers as fellow human beings?
      Do you mean with global relativism and the answer to that would seem to be in the work that the UNHCR does relative to our time.

      Relative to Australia which has a humanitarian program built around UNHCR activities there are some of us who would believe that in continuing to support UNHCR activities we should do whatever it takes to maintain a global UNHCR program amd have asylum seekers make claims at UNHCR centres closest to their homeland.
      Doing anything short of that is undermining both the UNHCR and Australia’s programs not to mention what many may view as an unethical approach being used and forced upon Australia.

    • Liz says:

      07:44am | 05/11/10

      Not all of us receive mothers’ milk and chilkdren need to be taught how to think creatively.

      Reply

    • Tedd says:

      08:01am | 05/11/10

      Good point, Liz - it takes community or society to raise a child, especially for today’s heterogenous world.

    • P. Darvio says:

      08:49am | 05/11/10

      No - I demand we teach children the “truth” in the Christian Bible (and its equivalents in Islam and Judaism). Bible “truth” says the following

      1. The Earth is flat
      2. The Earth is the Centre of the Universe
      3. The Universe is less than 10,000 years old
      4. The Dinosaurs died out when they fell off the Ark in a BIG flood
      5. Some non-existent person called Jesus, in which there is no actual evidence of his or her existence from that time 2000 years ago, did some magic tricks and the whole basis of religion is based on this mystical non existent person and that we should run our lifes and morals based on this and the sky fairy called GOD who will send us to HELL if we are naughty.
      6. Raping children is OK because a bunch of frocked men in a palace in Rome do it and get away with it and say to anyone who questions them that it is “idol gossip”
      7. Stoning women is OK because the Bible says so.
      8. Gays should be all killed because the Bible says so.

      Yep - these are the principles and ethics we should teach children. Society is sick when it thinks ethics from a book written by a bunch of goat herders 3000 years ago should be held up as the shining light or morality and ethics.

      Reply

    • Tim says:

      09:53am | 05/11/10

      No P Darvio, society isn’t sick, you are.

      Do you actually think even religious people believe what you say?

    • Steely Dan says:

      10:11am | 05/11/10

      @ P. Darvio

      A few notes…
      1. True (it doesn’t say ‘flat’, but it implies ‘disc-like’, instead of opting for ‘sphere-like’).
      2. True.
      3. True.
      4. Dinosaurs aren’t mentioned in the Bible… but if the Flood story is accurate, that would be the best explanation for why we’re not riding velociraptors to work…
      5. Verbose, but true.
      6. Not in the Bible. It’s an institutional issue - and one that’s not limited to Catholicism.
      7. True, if they’ve committed crimes.  But according to the Bible, being a victim of rape can be a crime.
      8. True.

      I’ll add that despite these appalling guidelines in the Bible, very, very few Christians are the monsters the Bible tries to direct them to be.  Why?  Secular ethics.  Most Christians are faux-Christians.  And thank God.

    • P. Darvio says:

      12:32pm | 05/11/10

      Quote: Do you actually think even religious people believe what you say?

      40% of Americans and about 27% of Australians (according to recent surveys) literally believe in what the Bible says (No evolution, age of the Universe, GOD created everything) - yeah society really is sick when these people vigorously try and impose their sick perverted beliefs and so-called morals on little children.

      37 per cent of Australians believe in the devil, 51 per cent in angels, 22 per cent in witches, 41 per cent in astrology, 63 per cent in miracles. Society isn’t sick? – m’mmm yeah it really is.

      Maybe go get some facts before you trumpet your ignorance of the facts. Try Google: australia religion survey

    • marley says:

      01:08pm | 05/11/10

      @P. Davio:  Actually, none of what you’re describing involves ethics at all.  Why don’t you look at the actual ethics in the Bible and criticise them, rather than attack a straw man.  Start with “love they neighbour as thyself” and go from there.

      The fact is, most if not all organized religions have an ethical structure to them, not necessarily handed down from on high, but reflective of the social values of the eras and societies in which those religions arose.  Are they absolute or even correct? Certainly not.  Are some of their precepts worth incorporating into our own ethical structure.  Absolutely yes.  Some ethical values seem to exist in most cultures and religions - those are the ones with universality to them.

    • P. Darvio says:

      02:47pm | 05/11/10

      Quote:  Actually, none of what you’re describing involves ethics at all.

      Everything I stated has to do with morals and ethics hence my use of the phrase “bible truth” in my original post. Morals and ethics starts with the real truth. So do religious people actually believe in their respective religious texts or not? A simple Yes or No. How truthful, moral and ethical can a religious person be when they pick and choose what they want out of these religious texts and always only ever selecting the so-called good bits or the bits that suit their religious lifestyle or their politics? This religious practice is obviously immoral and un-ethical and also deceitful.

      Quote: Why don’t you look at the actual ethics in the Bible and criticise them

      Answer …because there aren’t any.

    • Tim says:

      03:52pm | 05/11/10

      P. Darvio,
      i’m not your researcher, how about you provide links to your own “facts”.

      Provide links to these surveys that show religious people believe in the exact things you quote. And not general statements about how people “believe in the bible” either.

      And how have you gone from a statistic about people believing in god to concluding :
      “society is really sick when these people vigorously try and impose their sick perverted beliefs and so-called morals on little children.”

      After your talk of dinosaurs and the raping of children in the Bible I wouldn’t be the one talking the ignorance of others.
      You should seek help, and fast.

    • Steely Dan says:

      04:59pm | 05/11/10

      @ marley

      “Start with “love they neighbour as thyself” and go from there.”
      Why start in the New Testament?  And why ignore the contradictory passages in the Old and New Testaments? 

      “Some ethical values seem to exist in most cultures and religions - those are the ones with universality to them.”
      What makes religiously-based values better or ‘universal’?

    • marley says:

      06:39pm | 05/11/10

      @P. Darvio - so “love they neighbour” isn’t an ethical standard. “Thou shall not kill” isn’t an ethical standard.  “Thou shall not steal” isn’t an ethical standard. 

      Explain to me why these are not ethical standards.  And please, please, don’t move next door to me.

    • P. Darvio says:

      09:29am | 06/11/10

      Quote: I’m not your researcher, how about you provide links to your own “facts”.

      How about you lift a finger and find the links yourself – are you scared of the truth? I gave a Google reference.

      Try http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/editorial/survey-shows-religion-still-has-the-numbers-20091218-l5oi.html  for starters

      “27 per cent - believe those scriptures are literally true” Yes society is very very sick. 27% of Australians (thats over 5 million people!) have no problem with women being stoned to death in accordance with “Bible Law”, 27% of Australians have no problem with gays being killed in accordance with “Bible Law” because it the will of the sky fairy GOD and his/her followers must obey like blind sheep. Are you one of them?

      Dinosaur Ark Denial! – there is a special dedicated museum (Creation Museum) in the USA that “proves” its all true – please go and visit it one day, you will be so happy to be so enlightened by it.

      The abuse and murder of Children is common throughout the Bible – do I have to provide links to these as well?

      Now please – your denial of these Bible “facts” is breathtaking. You obviously don’t know your Bible – you need to go and actually read it and not rely on the Sunday school brainwashing you have obviously been exposed to. If you don’t believe in your GODs authorative word in his/her Bible don’t go blogging off about other people who simply point out the immoral, unethical and deceptive non-sense of religion.

      The hate, violence and terror that religion promotes through its religious texts and in practice is the greatest moral and ethical challenge for modern ethical and moral secular society and the greatest threat to the Planet and the long term survivability of the Human Species.

    • marley says:

      10:17am | 06/11/10

      @SteelyDAn - don’t misunderstand me.  I’m not a religious person and I’m not putting up the Bible, or any religious text, as a model for modern-day ethics. 

      What I’m saying is that the Bible, and most religions, do contain ethical standards, many of which grew out of the social values of the time (which is why the Old and New Testaments, written in different eras, reflect different values).  Some of those standards have stood the test of centuries, others obviously have not.  “Love thy neighbour” is a pretty good standard, stoning adulterers is not. 

      The value of ethical standards in the major religious texts is not that they were passed down from on high by some god-figure, but that they reflected the ethical standards of their time.  Hammurabi’s Code of Laws, for example, set down some rules which the Bible later incorporated, at least in part, because they were a part of the social and legal framework of the day.

      Should we adopt a particular religious text as our ethical framework? No we should not.  Any more than we should adopt Hammurabi’s Code. There are a great many other documents on ethics and law that would supplant the thinking of several thousand years ago.  But that does not negate the fact that those texts do contain fundamental ethical standards, some of which are still valid today.  They were all written by humans, after all.

      And when I said that “some ethical values seem to exist in most cultures and religions - those are the ones with universality to them ”  - I meant exactly that.  That some values can be found in both religion and in secular thought, and transcend boundaries and cultures - that’s what makes them universal.

      Anyway, to argue, as P. Darvio has done, that the Bible contains no ethics at all is simply silly.

    • Steely Dan says:

      10:11am | 08/11/10

      @ Marley

      “The value of ethical standards in the major religious texts is not that they were passed down from on high by some god-figure, but that they reflected the ethical standards of their time.”
      That’s historical value.  The Code of Hammurabi is valuable in the same way Dianetics is.  As historical record.

      “But that does not negate the fact that those texts do contain fundamental ethical standards, some of which are still valid today.”
      Some, yes.  But the problem with religious sources is that when they promote ‘universal’ morals they do so for the wrong reason.  ‘Be good to your neighbour because God says so’ is a useless statement unless you believe that god to 1) exist and 2) be the author of morality.  It might be a good rule of thumb, but without secular justification for the statement it’s as helpful as saying that E=MC2 ‘because the pixies told Einstein that it was so’.  And in the case of the Bible, the ‘be nice because God said so’ passages are surrounded by ‘kill the infidels because God said so’.  P Darvio was not attacking a straw man when he/she said that the Bible is full of terrible moral commands.

    • Ben says:

      09:05am | 05/11/10

      Critically discussing relativism is not the same as ‘being’ a relativist. Students need to see the inconsistencies that often come with relativist arguments. For example, the fact that values change in history is often used as an argument for relativism - if values are ‘objective’, why are they always changing? There’s no historical consistency etc…one reply to this is that values don’t change arbitrarily, but often for good reasons. Slavery was founded on a false belief that African Americans were not ‘persons’. White Australians failed to understand indigenous conceptions of ownership. Underlying these shifts in values are corrections in false beliefs that put a particular group outside of the category ‘full personhood’, and it is this recognition of prejudice that explains the shift in values and attitudes. In this way, students need to understand the moral foundations of the legal framework of human rights to fully understand its significance - what is a ‘person’? Why should personhood be respected? Where do these moral ideas come from? This is the basis for deeper understanding. Let’s not turn ethics into ‘doctrine’.

      Reply

    • Akrasiel Rising says:

      05:43pm | 05/11/10

      Well said Ben!

      Let us not forget that we are talking about foundation teaching and providing the basic tools for critical thought, not Doctorate level relative ethics. Religious studies are generally age appropriate, from basic parables through to reflection on theological doctrine but school children are not expected to converse at the level of a tenured Theologian.

      I, for one, support a move away from the emphasis placed on indoctrinated religious based morality to a more secular, critical thinking based approach. The Charter of Human Rights is a great place to start but as with any form of declarative ideology it should be de-constructed, critically reviewed and reflected upon… as should be done with science, religion and politics. Give a man a fish….

    • Rachel says:

      09:58am | 05/11/10

      Tim posted: Do you really think that teachers will be able to teach young children to think critically without letting their own personal biases (even unknowingly) get in the way?

      I’m a teacher and I don’t allow my personal biases get in the way - I’m trying to EDUCATE, not brainwash. I openly encourage discussion, encourage questioning and hope that when we teach kids to question and analyse what we read, that they will take those lessons further in life. I don’t offer my opinion - I give them arguments for and against an issue and let them find their own way through.

      We also look into human rights - we’ve used books such as ‘Walk in My Shoes’ which is about asylum seekers and ‘The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas’ which is about the Holocaust. Students are invited to discuss and argue the themes, characters and events in these texts and have enjoyed the experience. The NSW syllabus clearly states that we need to teach things like multiculturalism, indigenous issues, civics and citizenship and difference and diversity. How schools choose to interpret that is up to them but many of the schools I have either taught at or know someone who works at/attends choose to look at human rights.

      Reply

    • Gregg says:

      05:01pm | 06/11/10

      Encouraging discussion is fine Rachel and hopefully the greater majority of teachers adopt similar approaches.
      Ben also mentions (unknowlingly) and that for instance could even occur with provision of arguments for and against, even if not in your case.

      On Human Rights, whilst the holocaust is well documented even if not having always been greatly used for teaching, Asylum Seekers is another issue for does the Walk in my Shoes author tell of thoughts about the millions of people in refugee centres and whether in seeking asylum a refugee centre was used?

      For teaching about indigenous matters, there are no doubt many bad events that can be used, perhaps the stolen generation amongst them.
      Is the situation of many of the stolen generation accepting that they have received opportunities far better than those they would have had without being stolen learnt about? , how the life expectancy of those stolen might be considerably higher than for those not? and what underpinned the intervention program of a few years ago.

      Perhaps a good educational discussion could be held on the ethics of removing children from where harm may occur and whether the benefits to result might outweigh what removal is seen to be.
      We have this huge question in our society of how to assimilate our indigenous population, provide a decent future for them etc. and ironically it may be that the majority of those ” stolen ” may be doing far better than most of those not.
      Is an answer for our indigenous people somewhere in the midst of that ” unethical ” stealing. 

      Ironically, there is condemnation for the stolen generation action and yet it is seen as appropriate not to keep children in detention centres.
      What if their parents are in detention/
      Do we split the family? or do we just say Oh!, OK, apart from your queue jumping, you have risked your childrens’ lives and so we will reward you for that with a better situation - ” but please oh please don’t jump on the free internet service and spread the message that Australia is the promised land “
      Should that also be addressed in teaching Human Rights along with Australias’ capacity for how many hundreds of thousands of so called asylum seekers shall we say?
      What of the medical services to be provided for free, services unlikely to be made available to our own aged and those in need of care, some that may die while waiting.

      Yes, there are a lot of different aspects of human rights that could be addressed and it could certainly be very difficult at times for a teachers views not to be involved.
      ” Well what do you think Miss Rachel?, says little Tommy ”

    • brandon says:

      10:14am | 05/11/10

      @P. Darvio… no one mentioned the bible.

      Love the article, I believe classes like philosophy should be available earlier in high school. I did not do that subject until I returned (a few years later) to complete my VCE, and it blew my mind.

      @someone:  “It’s about equipping people with the ability to make their own decisions.  “
      and that is what the whole school curriculum needs to lean towards, obviously with the right amount of literacy and numeracy. We need to teach children to learn, not teach to past the end of year exam.

      Reply

    • Ryan says:

      11:05am | 05/11/10

      Right, I am going to let some left wing hippie brainwash oops I mean teach my kids about “ethics”. NO WAY.
      Instructions to school are simple, teach my kids how to read and write, teach them about science, biology mathematics etc… Keep your brainwashing psychotic left wing green/commie ideals to YOURSELF and stay away from my kids.

      Reply

    • Grant says:

      12:05pm | 05/11/10

      I can only assume you are being sarcastic.

      If not then, you do realise that we are talking about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a basis for the ethics classes. 

      This is a very important document and I strongly suggest you read it.

      http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

    • Tedd says:

      12:23pm | 05/11/10

      Ryan, kids need more than the 3Rs these days, as the information-loaded world requires us all to discern that information.  Even science requires critical thinking and reasoning.

    • Ryan says:

      01:36pm | 05/11/10

      @Grant: I am well aware of the universal declaration of human rights, that’s the same declaration of human rights that the Greens don’t believe in. I believe one of their published policies is in direct contravention of Section 20 part 2 of the universal declaration of human rights. So is that part of the “ethics” lesson, we say one thing but actually do another. Sorry I want my kids to grow up where their word is their word!

    • Grant says:

      02:59pm | 05/11/10

      @ Ryan,

      I am not sure what you mean.

      Your original post states that you do not want ethics taught, even though, the commentator is proposing that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights be used as the source material.

      Your reply to me refers to something about the Greens not believing in it (relevance) and that they contravene it, and then something about your kids and their words.

      I do not mean to be rude, but I do not understand what you are trying to say.

    • acotrel says:

      04:03am | 06/11/10

      Ryan, I hope you are not one of those people who rely on teachers to fix their kid’s behavioural problems?

    • Ryan says:

      10:09am | 06/11/10

      @Grant: sorry I should have been clearer, most teachers are left wing greenie nut jobs, hence Greens supporters. The same type of hypocrite that would say that they are teaching the universal declaration of human rights but instead brainwash your kids with left wing nut job rubbish.
      Too dangerous to let these people anywhere near teaching kids about “ethics” when we know that greenies have none.

    • Mother says:

      11:30am | 05/11/10

      I don’t agree with Ethics classes being taught in school, as I believe it is the job of a parent to educate through life, the morals and ethics that reflect the belief system of the family.  We have taken away many parental rights and where has it left us?  Teachers are now teaching our children about Sex and Sexuality and whether you want to accept it or not, sexual activity and birth rates in the young are increasing.  Parents need to be able to parent and using the reasoning “Parents aren’t doing it so we’ll let the schools” is rubbish.  My daughter’s 7th Grade teacher used every opportunity to express his belief in Evolution.  It is not part of the school curriculumn, yet he used it in each lesson regardless of what the lesson was.  This is not ethical behaviour as he was not following school guidelines nor was he respectful to others who may not aggree.  If this teacher was Muslim or Christian and used the classroom as their platform to express their personal beliefs they would be disciplined.  This teacher is still behaving the same way.  If Ethics is about respect, then it belongs in the home.  How about we start showing respect to parents and stop belittling the important role they play.

      Reply

    • Tedd says:

      12:21pm | 05/11/10

      Mother, it is the role of society to educate children about the ways of the world, and that role falls to the wider community in some cases, including school, especially if the family and its narrower community is out of tune with the ways of the world.

    • Steely Dan says:

      12:39pm | 05/11/10

      @ Mother

      “I don’t agree with Ethics classes being taught in school, as I believe it is the job of a parent to educate through life, the morals and ethics that reflect the belief system of the family.”
      The NSW proposal is to have Ethics classes as an opt-in class in lieu of RE, or thumb-twiddling. 

      “We have taken away many parental rights and where has it left us?  Teachers are now teaching our children about Sex and Sexuality and whether you want to accept it or not, sexual activity and birth rates in the young are increasing.”
      Spectacularly wrong.  Births to women aged 15-19, 20-24, and 25-29 have been dropping for decades.  Birth rates are only increasing for mothers aged 30 and over.
      Source: Births, Australia, 2009 (ABS, 3301.0)

    • Andrew says:

      02:09pm | 05/11/10

      I feel like this is a troll, but I’ll bite anyway.  Evolution is not about ‘belief’, evolution is a scientific theory.  And by ‘theory’, I mean in the same sense that gravity is a ‘theory’.  That is, it cannot be 100% proven (ever), but the evidence supporting it is overwhelming.  All science is based on theories, because nothing can ever be proven to be 100% correct, it can only be inferred from observed evidence.  Religion, on the other hand, has no evidence for, an overwhelming amount of evidence against, and in fact is based on ‘belief’ in an absense of evidence.  So yes, teaching any form of religion is certainly imposing your ‘beliefs’ on others.  Teaching evolution is good science.

      Here’s a suggestion for you - take a good close look at your daughter.  You’ll notice that she shares features from both you and her father.  We call this ‘genetics’, another theory which is very closely tied to evolution.  Can’t be proven, of course, but the evidence is staring you in the face.  For the sake of your child’s intelligence, please don’t tell her evolution is wrong, because every single shred of evidence unearthed to date suggests that it is 100% correct.

    • Grant says:

      02:54pm | 05/11/10

      @ Steely Dan

      Nice work, commonly held belief amongst the moral crusaders, that society is in decay, when in fact things like crime is down in all western nations and birth rates are dropping.

      @ Mother

      “My daughter’s 7th Grade teacher used every opportunity to express his belief in Evolution.

      I take issue with this comment.  Expressing ‘belief’ in a proven theory like evolution is not a bad thing, I wouldn’t even use the world ‘belief’. 

      You don’t need to have belief in evolution, evolution is an established scientific model that is universally accepted by scientists through observable successive changes in a species over a period of time.

      It’s like saying I, “I have a belief that the world is round’ .... 

      No no, the world ‘is’ round there is not doubt that this is fact, like evolution.

    • Grant says:

      02:54pm | 05/11/10

      @ Steely Dan

      Nice work, commonly held belief amongst the moral crusaders, that society is in decay, when in fact things like crime is down in all western nations and birth rates are dropping.

      @ Mother

      “My daughter’s 7th Grade teacher used every opportunity to express his belief in Evolution.

      I take issue with this comment.  Expressing ‘belief’ in a proven theory like evolution is not a bad thing, I wouldn’t even use the world ‘belief’. 

      You don’t need to have belief in evolution, evolution is an established scientific model that is universally accepted by scientists through observable successive changes in a species over a period of time.

      It’s like saying I, “I have a belief that the world is round’ .... 

      No no, the world ‘is’ round there is not doubt that this is fact, like evolution.

    • Tim says:

      03:58pm | 05/11/10

      Steely Dan,
      you know full well that births to young mothers have gone down simply because the abortion rate has skyrocketed. Sexual activity among teenagers has increased significantly.

      And Grant,
      I personally believe in evolution but there is doubt about the processes that occur. It’s a theory not a law.

    • Tim says:

      04:02pm | 05/11/10

      oops,
      I should have said *abortion rate and contraception usage*

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      04:44pm | 05/11/10

      Evolution also happens to be a widely supported scientific theory which has withstood a lot of scrutiny and criticism.

      It is wrong for a teacher in school to teach children about widely accepted scientific theories? If he mentioned the theory that germs cause disease, or the theory of gravity or aerodynamics would that also be a problem ?

      “sexual activity and birth rates in the young are increasing” while at the same time the average age of parents is also increasing. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics there is a “tendency for women to have their babies at older ages.”  Both trends cannot exist simultaneously, I would suggest that the ABS data be preferred.

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      03:49pm | 06/11/10

      Hey Tim
      *abortion rate and contraception usage* - so where are the surveys etc you’re providing to support this conjecture wink

    • acotrel says:

      08:59pm | 07/11/10

      Grant, when John Howard denied asylum seekers access to the courts through habeas corpus, do you believe he was in violation of this part of the Declaration of Human Rights? :
      ‘Article 7.
      •All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.’

    • Steely Dan says:

      10:32am | 08/11/10

      @ Tim

      “Sexual activity among teenagers has increased significantly.”
      Source?

      “I personally believe in evolution but there is doubt about the processes that occur.”
      There is always doubt.  That’s Philosophy of Science 101.  But the absence of an absolute proclamation of infallibility of any theory or law does not mean that evolution, or gravity, or plate tectonics is scientifically suspect. 

      “It’s a theory not a law.”
      Like the Germ Theory of Disease.  Is there doubt that there are germs that cause disease?  Should I not bother washing my hands ever again until somebody declares that Germ Theory has become Germ Law?
      You need to understand that ‘theory’ does not mean ‘guess’ in scientific jargon.  Law describes what we observe (objects falling to the ground; people getting certain diseases; species changing traits over time), Theory is the scientifically accepted explanation for the observations (gravity; germs; natural selection plus mutation).

      “I should have said *abortion rate and contraception usage*”
      Yes, you should have.  And sex education.

    • fennel says:

      11:50am | 05/11/10

      Ethics 101:
      Don’t be like Julia Gillard.

      Lesson over.

      Reply

    • The Badger says:

      12:31pm | 05/11/10

      Yes children you don’t want to be a politician and the Prime Minister of Australia because an aromatic plant will ridicule you.

    • Against the Man says:

      03:27pm | 05/11/10

      Prime Minister? I don’t remember her party getting the majority of votes? Childless,unmarried, backstabbing, suspicious corrupt BER dealings, unable to lead and demonstrate good political leadership. I think the plant may be onto something smile

    • acotrel says:

      04:12am | 06/11/10

      Fennel, my daughter is ‘like Julia Gillard’.  She is a well educated articulate, loving person.  She is never devious, and she’s a trained and competent solicitor.  She’s a valued member of society.  Can you say the same about your kids?

    • Against the Man says:

      04:54pm | 06/11/10

      I love my kids enough to never compare or associate them with anything as low as Gillard. Thanks for reminding me about my great kids, your daughter sounds fantastic I’m sure she is much more worthy of this society than Gillard.

    • Steely Dan says:

      10:36am | 08/11/10

      @ Against the Man

      “Childless,unmarried, backstabbing, suspicious corrupt BER dealings, unable to lead and demonstrate good political leadership.”
      Without getting into whether Julia Gillard is guilty of the last three accusations, what’s wrong with being one of the first two?  You’re not a well person, Against the Man.

    • Steely Dan says:

      11:54am | 05/11/10

      @ Ryan

      “Keep your brainwashing psychotic left wing green/commie ideals to YOURSELF”
      You heard it here first.  The study of morality is ‘psychotic left wing green/commie’ madness.  Never question!  Never think!  Obey!

      Reply

    • Ryan says:

      01:32pm | 05/11/10

      @Steely Dan: Since when is “ethics” morality? From what I see this “ethics” is nothing more than an excuse to allow teachers to spew forth their political belief system onto our vulnerable children.

    • Tedd says:

      03:24pm | 05/11/10

      Ryan, such generalisation; such grumpiness on the basis of that generalisation.  Have a good weekend, pal, and a better New Year.

    • Steely Dan says:

      04:30pm | 05/11/10

      @ Ryan

      “Since when is “ethics” morality?”
      It isn’t.  It’s the study of morality.

    • James1 says:

      04:37pm | 05/11/10

      I know something that isn’t moral.  Calling a greenie a communist under a post by a person who has actually lived under communism, and witnessed its evils first hand.  It isn’t ethical either, come to think of it.  I just hope you are not referring to the author above the line - otherwise you are in deeply immoral and unethical territory, Ryan.  But you know, feel free to spew forth your moral inadequacy all you like.  We have that freedom in non-communist countries…

    • Ryan says:

      10:17am | 06/11/10

      @James1: let me explain this to you so you can take a close look into it. The whole “green” agenda is a front being used by today’s communists to force their ideals onto us. 99% of greenies when faced with it are a whole bunch less environmentally conscious than their fellow man, this is because it is clear that they do not stand for the environment. The reason they are called watermelons is because they are all green on the outside and all red on the inside. Mugabe used the same tactics in the 80s when it was very “fashionable” to be democratic, all democratic on the outside, all communist on the inside. Even the queen was taken for a mug by that guy, given an honorary knighthood.

    • Steely Dan says:

      10:38am | 08/11/10

      @ Ryan

      “let me explain this to you so you can take a close look into it. The whole “green” agenda is a front being used by today’s communists to force their ideals onto us.”
      Thanks Ryan.  Just wanted to establish that you were a conspiracy theorist.  (P.S. What’s your position on the role of Reptoids in faking the moon landing?)

    • Ryan says:

      06:20pm | 08/11/10

      @Steely Dan: the Rhodesians were apparently “conspiracy theorists” too according to the Australian government at the time and just look what it got them, it got them Mugabe, murders, racisim, starvation, no economy and a basket case of a country. Don’t think it can’t happen to you mate, just because half of Australians live in this delusional world of “it can never happen to us”, wait until you wake up one day and find that you have no rights and you are living under a communist government. It happens slowly, not overnight, the Carbon tax is yet another step in that direction. Try take your kid down to the local park to fly a kite, even the Chinese are allowed to fly kites, sometimes even in Tienanmen square, then tell me its not happening here!

    • Steely Dan says:

      09:00am | 09/11/10

      @ Ryan

      “the Rhodesians were apparently “conspiracy theorists” too according to the Australian government at the time and just look what it got them”
      So let’s assume that every leader in the world is out to execute us.  Watch out, I saw footage of Julia Gillard with a pen this morning!  How many people will she stab in the eye with that pen today?  7?  25?  Let’s just say 7 billion to be on the safe side.  Because as every good conspiracy theorist knows, the only things you need to show to prove someone is guilty is opportunity.  Motive’s not important.  And evidence?  Who needs that?  Julia Gillard could become a communistic dictator, therefore she is one.

      “Try take your kid down to the local park to fly a kite”
      I can’t.  Not with Julia Gillard running around stabbing kids in the eye with a biro.

    • stephen says:

      01:23pm | 05/11/10

      Bullshit.
      You learn right from wrong by doing things, and if you don’t get it right, you try again. If it’s still not right, you lower your standards, and accept that you are not Da Vinci, or Paul Newman, or Valentino. But the thing is - and this is the main thing - you tried.
      Your moral - ethical - code is then self-learnt. No harm done, really.
      But learning Ethics at school is a waste of bloody time.
      Children should be doing things. Not Art appreciation, or learning the abstractness of moral philosophy. Let them paint, or play the clarinet, or learn to write stories. They don’t have to be geniuses. The essence of youth
      is energy. Let’em conquer fermat’s theorem in another life.

      Reply

    • Steely Dan says:

      04:38pm | 05/11/10

      @ stephen

      “You learn right from wrong by doing things, and if you don’t get it right, you try again.”
      That doesn’t help you determine right from wrong.  That can only help you determine helpful from not helpful, according to whatever your aim is.

      “But learning Ethics at school is a waste of bloody time.  Children should be doing things.”
      You realise the proposal is for Ethics to be taught in lieu of RE and thumb-twiddling?

    • Austin 3:16 says:

      04:46pm | 05/11/10

      I’ve managed to work out that stealing is wrong without taking a single thing, I’ve worked out murder is wrong without killing anybody.

      Is domestic violence wrong Stephen? And how many people did you have to hit before you worked that out ?

    • stephen says:

      11:02pm | 05/11/10

      Well i guess Mr. Dan what i really think is one cannot learn Ethics, but try them, or live them, if you like. This means that action, and doing things and succeeding, and feeling worthy will teach the laws we need to know.
      The proposal to teach this subject is, i suspect, concomitant with Arts Educators to include Arts Appreciation, which would i suspect take the place of practical study.
      Now it is precisely this : that knowing about Art or knowing about right and wrong and noble behaviours will have no value if students have not experienced the Object, and it is this experience which offers one a context of feelings which relates to memory, and which can be recalled at will.
      When one says ...‘beauty (or in this instance, a fine ethic), is in the eye of the beholder, what is really meant is my perceptions of beauty are in my time and place, not yours. And my time and place is in my history, not yours.
      My history is a completion of acts (it’s really hard to remember thoughts you know, but easy to recall feelings) which have generated, for me at least, a physicality, or feeling, if you like, of right and wrong.
      To simply learn about morals or ethics is only really putting symbols (words) up on a white-board and memorizing.
      Good for maths ; bad for morals.

    • Steely Dan says:

      10:44am | 08/11/10

      @ stephen

      “This means that action, and doing things and succeeding, and feeling worthy will teach the laws we need to know.”
      Wow.  ‘If it feels good do it’.

      “The proposal to teach this subject is, i suspect, concomitant with Arts Educators to include Arts Appreciation, which would i suspect take the place of practical study.”
      And you suspect this why?

      “My history is a completion of acts… which have generated, for me at least, a physicality, or feeling, if you like, of right and wrong.”
      So if you feel that slavery is okay, it must be?

    • David says:

      02:54pm | 05/11/10

      People commenting on this article seem to be forgeting teaching is about giving skills. Ethics provides a perfect opportunity to gain critical thinking skills and provides an opportunity for students to create well balanced opinions. I do not understand how equipping students with skills for future education and involvement in society is a bad thing.  Ethics would be taught in schools to give students skills and encourage free thought, not to brainwash minds

      Reply

    • Matt says:

      03:08pm | 05/11/10

      So our kids should learn not to repeat the mistakes of the past by repeating the mistakes of the past?

      Sometimes it helps to think before we act.

      Reply

    • Gregory Lewis says:

      06:39pm | 05/11/10

      Just keep all priests and other assorted religious ratbags out of the entire process. Basing decisions on violent, misogynist, ancient texts written by desert wanders is never going to take society forward. We had a period in history where Church rule was absolute - it was called the Dark Ages.

      Reply

    • Atheistically Yours says:

      07:44am | 06/11/10

      I could have done with some ethics while I was being brainwashed at a Catholic Convent in Sydney - it took over 30 years to think for myself!

      Reply

    • Nobleone says:

      08:38am | 07/11/10

      Schools are not the place to teach ethics when school administrations would not survive in the private business wold. Ethics in schools are used when it suits by so called intelligent beings who hide behind “its for the school”  As someone who contracted with schools for 20 years the last 10 years in particular has seen a decline toward self preservation at all costs rather doing the ethical thing. Politicians & Educators alike should prictice what they preach

      Reply

    • Tedd says:

      06:27am | 08/11/10

      ” school administrations would not survive in the private business wold.”

      - that’s a pretty bald assertion.  Besides, they don’t have to, as childhood education is not (and should not be) a competitive business.

      Education is changing as kids are learning faster, so philosophy and its subunits of ethics and logic will become as important as the 3Rs.

    • Levi says:

      09:50am | 07/11/10

      let me guess. Your enabling minorities and people not of the Anglo-Saxon ilk to spew their anti-australian bile everywhere yet again, and now you’re trying to write it off as ethics. Keep this crap out of our schools. Kids don’t need to be brainwashed with pathetic idealism from day 1

      Reply

    • marley says:

      12:46pm | 07/11/10

      After some reflection, I’m not sure that school is necessarily the best place to teach ethics.  What I definitely think the schools should teach is scepticism.

      Reply

    • Tedd says:

      12:21pm | 08/11/10

      It would be good if they the kids learnt deductive reasoning, and how it differs from inductive reasoning, as well as ethics.

    • Exercise Balls says:

      08:08am | 11/11/10

      If you are open to having a guest blog poster please reply and let me know. I will provide you with unique content for your blog, thanks.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 17 May 12 02:59PM

RT @antsharwood: Meanwhile, a case from the glass half full files. Andrew Bolt has attacked me in a much nicer way than usual today http://t.co/mQqX6rOc

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 17 May 12 02:53PM

Meanwhile, a case from the glass half full files. Andrew Bolt has attacked me in a much nicer way than usual today http://t.co/mQqX6rOc

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 17 May 12 02:46PM

Trust you've all read Greens senator @larissawaters excellent yarn about the threats to the Reef on The Punch today http://t.co/i6aatFIO

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 17 May 12 02:26PM

.@GQMagazine profile of Justin Bieber. Really well written. WARNING: It's about Justin Bieber. http://t.co/NELebjMB

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Reports of Ron Paul’s death are greatly exaggerated

by Paul Toohey

20

Reports of Ron Paul’s death are greatly exaggerated

Reports of Ron Paul’s political demise have been greatly exaggerated and his tactical genius is…

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

by Anthony Sharwood

148

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not…

Our Budget blade didn’t cut aid, it’s being paid in spades

by Richard Marles

89

Our Budget blade didn’t cut aid, it’s being paid in spades

Ten million children vaccinated. 2.5 million people with access to safe drinking water. And 30 million…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Real women like men who drink beer

Real women like men who drink beer

British comedian John Cleese calls them “beer fairies”.  It’s a euphemism for… Read more

198 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed