NY Times - Why Our Children Don't Think There Are Moral Facts

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by texas_ex2000, Mar 3, 2015.

  1. texas_ex2000

    texas_ex2000 2,500+ Posts

  2. Larry T Spider

    Larry T Spider 100+ Posts

    The author is an idiot. He tries to take a simple second grade lesson where children are just learning the basic definitions of fact and opinion and say it's wrong because it doesn't cover all of the nuances of the subject at a high level. They are 7 years old and learning vocabulary needed to delve deeper into the subject what they have a better grasp of the world. Also be careful what you wish for if you want schools teaching moral beliefs as facts....you may not agree with the "facts" they teach.
     
  3. texas_ex2000

    texas_ex2000 2,500+ Posts

    Larry,

    I don't know if I'd call him an idiot, but I do agree that he's maybe making more of something harmless.

    I thought is was a fun little article for adults to think about the true value of opinions vs facts because there are a lot of adults who seem to aruge with 5th grade logic.

    Also, moral relativisim starts somewhere right?
     
  4. NJlonghorn

    NJlonghorn 2,500+ Posts

    I don't think morality assertions (such as "Killing another human being only for fun is morally wrong") are facts. They are opinions, albeit opinions that are held by the vast majority of people in every successful civilization in history.

    Some argue that if there are no moral facts, then there is no way to hold society together. I disagree. If a large majority of the members in a society agree that a particular morality opinion is valid -- and especially if that opinion is important to holding the society together -- then the society has ever right to construct rules that all must follow. Indeed, making rules like this, and enforcing them, is one of the key purposes of a society.
     
  5. Larry T Spider

    Larry T Spider 100+ Posts

    I would argue that moral relativism in our youth is caused by their parent's generation. Their teachers and the media are largely a part of that generation and slightly older so I am fine with lumping them in with that generation. That generation has seen many moral facts become moral opinions over the course of their lifetime. They have also seen moral facts change into moral facts on the complete opposite side of the equation. Interracial marriage went from moral fact wrong to moral fact fine and dandy from when they were kids to adults. When so many things that we were taught as wrong or right as a kid completely flip flopped, I think people are a lot more comfortable saying "I do/don't believe in that" vs "that is right/wrong". Their kids then grew up with that.

    It think it also has to do with having much more diversity of opinion in the US than anytime before. Things that were largely agreed upon in the past are up for debate. This forces adults/teachers to not take a hard stance on anything because you immediately have told half of your students that they are wrong about something most people see as a belief, not a fact. To half, its great teaching. To the other half, its indoctrination.
     
  6. Driver 8

    Driver 8 Amor Fati

    I agree with this, and I suppose we are getting into semantics and definitions of words somewhat, but -- what is a fact? Morality and ethics are founded on generally agreed-upon principles of a social group, not necessarily things that are demonstrably true.
     
  7. Larry T Spider

    Larry T Spider 100+ Posts

    One thing that I forgot to add is that we are very morally relativistic about social issues that don't have a victim with a name (some would argue that society is the victim of certain things). If there is a true victim, there is no relativism. You get your *** locked up.
     
  8. NJlonghorn

    NJlonghorn 2,500+ Posts

    You seem to be suggesting that "relativism" means no punishment. I didn't think this was an accurate assumption, so I looked it up in the most authoritative resource in the world. It turns out that there are different categories of moral relativism:

    Moral relativism may be any of several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures. Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.​

    Link. Under these definitions, what you are describing is "normative moral relativism". Taken to its extreme, this philosophy would seem to prohibit enforcement of criminal laws. I don't believe in this.

    I guess I'm a "meta-ethical moral relativist". Nothing is objectively right or wrong, but that doesn't mean nothing is right or wrong, nor does it mean we can't punish people for doing wrong. The tricky part is constructing a set of laws that delineate what is right and what is wrong.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. texas_ex2000

    texas_ex2000 2,500+ Posts

    Is "you love your wife," a fact or an opinion?
     
  10. Larry T Spider

    Larry T Spider 100+ Posts

    It's a fact but facts change. Just look at the divorce rate :smokin:
     
  11. accuratehorn

    accuratehorn 10,000+ Posts

    Apparently the op-ed writer wants elementary children taught a graduate level philosophy of religion class. Not likely to happen.
     

Share This Page