Response to Shelby, PFC and Parents

Is it possible to do philosophy in classrooms without broaching controversial topics (e.g. God)?

Probably not, but I don't think this is a bad thing. If you encourage children (or anyone, for that matter) to question things around them and think critically, then they are going to stumble upon some controversial topics such as God. As you said, something relatively benign such as "what does it mean to be alive" could get controversial fast. I think at the heart of every inquisitive question lies something controversial. Again, I don't think this is a negative thing. Children should be allowed to explore these issues; it doesn't mean the school is telling them what to believe. Children shouldn't be sheltered from these "controversial" topics; they are going to think about them anyway. I don't think we give children enough credit. Children are capable of thinking abstractly, and they will, whether people want them to or not, because humans are naturally curious.

Question: Encouraging discussion among children is one thing, but how much should school's teach children about morality?

Response to Shelby, "Philosophical Jargon"

Is philosophical jargon a help or a hindrance to philosophical discussion?


This is a good question, and I think you addressed it well. You are right that philosophical terms (such as your example "utilitarian") can leave people out of the discussion. This reminds me of a really great passage from the article "Stupidity Deconstructed" by Joanna Kadi:

"As far as I can tell, postmodern theoreticians say nothing new, but their inaccessible language makes it appear as though they do. For example, they're fascinated with the notion that multiple realities exist in society, and they've written and theorized extensively about this.
Puh-lease. Everybody in my neighborhood, including the mechanics who had to sniff carbon monoxide in tiny, enclosed garages all say long, grasped that idea with no problem. We lived it. We had our reality, the bosses had theirs, and we understood them both. Theorists like W.E.B. Du Bois wrote about double consciousness-whereby African Americans understand their reality and white people's-at the turn of this century. But I've never seen postmodernists attribute these ideas to the people of color and/or working-class people who've lived and understood them for centuries. Instead, postmodernists steal these ideas and dress them up in language so inaccessible only a tiny, elite group can discuss them."

This is a really interesting point. Without knowing the language used in philosophy, one may still understand the concepts. Many people know what a utilitarian is, without actually knowing that term. When people use these terms and don't explain what they mean, they are excluding people from the conversation who might understand this concept really well and have some great insight into it. When teaching philosophy to children, I think before you introduce philosophical terminology to them, you should introduce the concepts and make sure they have a good understanding of them. For example, get the children thinking about utilitarianism without using that word. Ask them, "Should one innocent person go to jail if it means the rest of the society feels safe?" or a similar example. The children will explore the idea of choosing the action that harms fewest people, and whether that is fair or not. Once the children understand this concept, you can tell them that it is called utilitarianism. If you do it in reverse, by introducing a foreign word and then going on to explain what it is, children may be scared off by the word and not grasp the concept as well.

Question: How can philosophy for adults be made more accessible using language?

Response to Mike, "Special Education in the Public School System"

So, I ask you, given the specific, albeit fragile, parameters of Individual Education Plans, are they really beneficial to the students that have them?

Yes, they are. When you have a disability, chances are you cannot function in school normally without special accommodations. I think it is insulting to refer to this as a "get out of jail free card", and to suggest that special education kids use it to their advantage. How do you know this is what's happening? It is possible that the child's disability is "invisible" to you. What looks like a child being "lazy" and opting out of schoolwork may actually be very necessary for the child. I think you made a lot of harmful assumptions based on your limited experience with special needs children. You refer to these children as "running the show" when they ask for accommodations that they are entitled to. You're implying here that it is easy to live with a disability. With this logic, wheelchair users are "running the show" if there is a ramp to get inside the building for them. There is a reason these accommodations are available for people with disabilities: they need them. Not because they are fun, cool, or get them out of work.
You also suggest that we "baby" students with disabilities. As Professor Johnson has said, paternalism is not necessarily harmful; it if often necessary. It is appropriate to give disabled children accommodations that are suited to their needs and will help them achieve academic goals. I don't doubt that students sometimes get misdiagnosed, and maybe IEPs are not always designed the best way possible. But generally, they give students benefits that they are entitled to, not a "free ride".

Philosophy in Elementary School

When I was in elementary school, we had a "philosophy class" (it wasn't it's own separate class but there was some time designated to philosophy in the classroom). This philosophy time mostly consisted of discussions of ethics. The teacher would often give us a scenario involving an ethical dillema, and ask us what we would do in that situation. These discussions got us thinking about fairly complex things. Not only did it get us thinking about how we would act in an ethical dilemma, but it got us thinking about why we would act a certain way. I think these discussions were a positive experience for me personally. When you are young, you are still learning "right" from "wrong", but it is rare that you get an opportunity to reflect on and even challenge why certain things are considered right and certain things are considered wrong. Allowing children to explore these ethical questions could actually stengthen their understanding of right and wrong. For example, if you tell a child not to hit people, they may not obey you because they don't understand why hitting is wrong. If you allow the child to explore what they believe is right and wrong, and why, they may develop a deeper understanding of morality.
Question: Should children be taught logic and reasoning?

The Value of Work

What makes certain types of work more valuable than others? We have talked in class about "hard work", but I honestly think most people work pretty hard. Some jobs may be more intellectually demanding, while others are more physically demanding, but that doesn't mean they are not "hard work". Also, how do we determine how much to pay a worker? Women do two-thirds of the world's work, but because much of this includes raising children and running a household, they only receive 10% of the world's income. This is because we do not value women's work. Why should some workers get paid a lot, and some get paid barely anything, or nothing? Like I said before, I think everybody works hard, so that's not it. We don't pay people based on how valuable their job is, because we give the most money to athletes and movie stars instead of firefighters and teachers. So, why do we pay some workers more than others?

Response to Bryan, "American Dream"

Q: In your view, Is the ‘American-Dream’ truly an illusion?

Yes, it is. You said in your post that hard work usually leads to success. I disagree with this. I think that most people who are successful have worked hard, but many people work really hard and do not become successful. This is because everyone in this society is born into a class (middle class, working class, etc) and class mobility is not easy. It is much easier for people born into wealth to achieve success (this is not to say that they still don't work hard). It is very hard for someone born into a lower class to make their way to the top of the hierarchy. It is possible with a lot of hard work, but it's more work than someone born into wealth has to put in to get to the same place. It's extremely hard to get out of poverty in this society. Even if somebody worked as hard as he or she could, they still have very limited resources to help them achieve success (money for college, connections, parents who can help them achieve their goals).

Question: How can we make class mobility easier?

Student-Worker Analogy

Something I have brought up in class before is how, in my experience, educators have often compared being a student to being a worker. When I was younger I was told that school was my job and my report card was my paycheck. I think that teachers probably said this as a way to motivate students to work towards a reward, but I think this student-worker analogy is flawed. Students really are not like workers. Workers are contributing something to society, whereas students usually are not. Students are learning things that other people already know, so although students do "work", they are usually not discovering anything new in their studies. I have heard college students say things like "Why should I pay to go to college and do a lot of work when I would be getting paid to do work at a job?" The answer is because as a student, you are studying things that other people already know. As a worker, you are either serving society in some way or creating new important things. When students are treated like workers, they develop a sense of entitlement. After all, workers are entitled to pay and benefits. So students come to feel like they deserve rewards just for being students.

Question: How should students be treated, if not like workers?