Morality in the Classroom

People tend to be resistant to teaching morality in schools. People think it involves teaching controversial topics such as religion, sexuality, politics, abortion, etc. However, we do teach morality in schools, and I don't see how we could avoid it. With children, we teach "right" from "wrong" probably as much as we teach academic things. Children need to learn how to behave in socially acceptable ways in order to grow and be able to function in the world. Even with older students, we still teach them right from wrong. For example, colleges take plagiarism extremely seriously, because it is wrong to steal people's intellectual property. Some things, we accept as clearly right or wrong. Others, such as the controversial topics I mentioned above, are less clear, so we avoid talking about them. However, we apparently do teach morality to students.

Question: Where do we draw the line between morality that should be taught in schools and morality that is too controversial?

Response to Bryan, "Life-Long Learning"

Q: “What specific activities should be implemented to encourage “life-long learners?”

As you touched upon, reading for pleasure seems essential to learning. More generally though, engaging in any sort of self- directed learning (and I think this can involve mediums other than books, such asTV, internet, etc) is vital to life-long learning. I think the key is curiosity and passion for learning. When school is viewed as a means to an end (the "end" usually being a job), of course people are going to stop learning after they graduate. As you said, learning is something people think they have to suffer through. I think this can be traced back to our earlier discussions of motivation and grading. When you are constantly being judged and critiqued for how much you have learned, it may seem like a chore for some people. If learning truly is a life-long process, then students should not be graded on their work, as it is never complete. Schools also tend to suppress critical thinking (at least, in my experience) which can stifle the innate drive to learn. I think that, if there was no grading, teachers would send the message to students that there work is never complete. To be a life-long learner, you should always question things that others take for granted, stay open to alternative opinions and views, keep evolving your own views, talk to other people about what they have learned, and surround yourself by people and situations that challenge you. I don't know if schools can necessarily instill all of those things in their students, but I think a start would be getting rid of standardized testing, minimize the need for grades in general, encourage students to question what they are learning, and make connections across disciplines.

Question: Is critical thinking necessary for life-long learning?

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?