The
following list of titles and accompanying dates refers to past
postings on the blog, Gravitas: A Voice for Civics Education, that
have been deleted. After each title and date, the entries below
include the first paragraph of each respective posting. If you
care to receive a copy of a particular posting, send your request via
email to gravitascivics@gmail.com . One posting per request.
121 AN
IMPORTANT DISTINCTION FROM UTILITARIANISM
(November
4, 2011)
While
absent from many of our classrooms for many years, formal values
education (as opposed to unintentional values education) should be
part of the curriculum of public schools. Assuming you agree, to
which grand theory should such an effort ascribe? I believe that a
grand theory is called for because teachers in such an effort need to
know what's all right to talk about and what's not. If that be the
case, then I firmly believe that affected educators should be serious
about such a choice and invest due diligence in making their
decision. Even with such approaches that turn out to be
unintentional efforts, as is the case in most classrooms today,
educators should be aware of what they are about. For example,
civics and social education that utilize the natural rights
perspective as a grand theory – a perspective that limits the
formulation of values, as well as other life defining decisions, to
the individual – do subtly promote a value position. That position
is valuing that any public entity, including public schools, should
not dictate a value orientation to students; it is simply not a
public issue. The practical consequence of such a position, as I
have argued in this blog, is to create a vacuum which is filled by
the mass media with its materialistic and salacious proclivities and
the youth culture that has evolved in many of our schools, especially
in large urban facilities. I have concluded that such a state of
affairs has enabled the development of levels of narcissism,
nihilism, and incivility that the nation has experienced in ever
growing levels over the last fifty or so years. Much space in this
blog has been dedicated to substantiating the conclusion that those
levels have become definite social and political problems plaguing
the nation.
122 A
SECOND LOOK AT ARISTOTLE
(November
7, 2011)
A
review of my last couple of postings will convey to you my
understanding of utilitarianism. I, while seeing it as a secular
view of morality (a legally necessary requirement for pedagogic uses
in public schools), judge it to be wanting in terms of providing us
with a construct on which to build a moral theory suitable for values
education. My chief complaint is that its foundation relies on
individual desires; that is, what is moral equates to what is desired
by the most people in a given society. This approach calls for
relevant policy makers engaging in complicated calculations to
determine what constitutes moral choices among public policy
options.
Also into the mix are concerns for individual rights which are
threatened by a radical utilitarianism. The writings of John Stuart
Mill assist us in dealing with this problem although not, in my
estimation, entirely.
123 OH,
IMMANUEL KANT
(November
11, 2011)
In
trying to develop a moral code which educators can use as a
foundation to build a values curriculum, I have combed western
philosophic tradition to seek ideas. To date, my postings have
reviewed the ideas of Aristotle and the utilitarians. The
utilitarians offer an essential element. That is, they argue for a
secular approach to moral thinking. Constitutional constraints
dictate that any approach in our public schools to develop a values
curriculum needs to be secular due to the “establishment” clause
of the First Amendment. In terms of Aristotle, I argued that
the ancient philosopher gives us a communal approach to morals that
relegates the starting point of utilitarianism as being detrimental.
He does that by providing a communal basis for morality, which
undermines the utilitarian starting point, individual desires. This
blog has expressed in previous postings my concerns with an
individualistic approach to curricular content and that extends to
values education. I judge utilitarian thought as being excessively
individualistic.
124 THREE
IDEAS OF PRAGMATIC MORALS
(November
14, 2011)
To
date, this blog, over the last several postings, has reviewed the
works of western philosophers to find useful ideas in an attempt to
develop a moral code. That code will then be utilized in designing
the basis for a values education curriculum theory – at least
that's its purpose. The need for such a theory is justified by a
lack of moral direction among our youth and the overwhelming failure
of public schools to address this shortfall. My justification for
this latter claim is made based on my years as an educator, the
evidence of the lack of civility among the young I have reported in
previous postings, and the work of James Hunter in his book, The
Death of Character: Moral Education in an Age without Good and Evil.
As for relevant, philosophic ideas, this blog has cited Aristotle
(morality based on the communal concern for the polity), utilitarians
such as John Stuart Mill (morality based on consequential results and
individual desires), Immanuel Kant (morality based on the centrality
of the rational individual and the universalizing consequences of
behavior), and David Hume (admonishment to not derive “oughts”
from “its”). Interested readers are encouraged to review the
postings of this blog since October 17, 2011, to see how these
contributions were incorporated.
125 WISHY-WASHY
(November
18, 2011)
In
the last posting, I wrote a short review of pragmatism's view of
morality. I summarized those beliefs around three ideas: the future
orientation of pragmatic thinking, the inexorable connection between
means and ends, and the tie between what is moral and the interests
of associations. Within this construct there are related biases such
as the qualified reliance on history and an avoidance of an a
priori set of values.
You are invited to click on the last posting to see how I developed
these ideas.
126 A
MORAL FUNCTION FOR HISTORY
(November
21, 2011)
I
have argued that the effort to determine what is moral behavior can
benefit from the study of history. I made this claim as part of my
attempt at developing a moral code suitable as a basis for a social
education curriculum, especially in civics. I observed that our
civics and social studies instruction has shied away from moral
questions or any effort at instructing students as to what is moral
or immoral – a situation that has prevailed in our public schools
the last fifty or so years. I have claimed that such a neglect has
been unfortunate in that it has deprived our youngsters needed
instruction in this area of concern. In pursuit of this moral code,
I have cited the works of several western philosophers.
Specifically, in my last posting I introduced a “history” angle
to my ongoing effort and it was prompted by the works of the
pragmatists, especially that of John Dewey. They, the pragmatists,
give a guarded call for the study of history as a “tool” in
addressing moral questions. I judged that despite their use of
history, the pragmatists' reliance on it was somewhat reluctant –
their claim being that the discipline suffered from a lack of
objectivity. In this posting, I will further the promotion of
history, beyond that of the pragmatists, for the purposes of
informing our moral decision-making.
127 SOCIETAL
WELFARE AS A TRUMP VALUE
(November
25, 2011)
I
suppose that if you have kids, you feel it is very important to
instill in them a sense of right and wrong, moral and immoral, good
and bad. Even if you were not to feel this way, you would end up
doing so either by the house rules you have imposed or, if not even
at that level, by your indifference to such concerns – the value of
indifference. Our communication of values is unavoidable, either
from a proactive effort or a passive posture. So it is with our
schools. In the last fifty or so years, we have mostly adopted a
passive approach. We have reaped the consequences of such a strategy
and those consequences have in many ways been experienced in the
highly nihilistic youth subculture we observe among too many of our
youths. Such a state is realized in the heightened levels of
bullying, drug consumption, criminal behavior, anti communal biases,
and general narcissism expressed in our popular media and arts. I
have, in previous postings, cited either empirical evidence or expert
opinion to support these claims. For this blog, it is time to begin
formulating a moral code that can be utilized by our educators in
order to form a values education curriculum to combat these trends.
Such a code has to be more than just any old listing of good and bad
values and behaviors. It must meet certain requirements. Yes, it
has to offer a definite, but overall sense of good and bad, right and
wrong behavior. Any list of values it purports must have a
hierarchical dimension (reality often pits desired values against
themselves and one must be able to determine what's more important in
a given situation). It must be secular and therefore have a
consequential view of morals – things are good or bad not because
some authority claims them to be so in absolute terms (be it
supernatural or not). Since my efforts are geared toward American
education, the code must be applicable to American classroom
instruction. The code must provide a rationale for what is
considered moral or immoral. I will also add that the code must
provide a transcendent force which gives young people a legitimate
reason or motivation to be good. Further, for purposes of
instructional effectiveness, the code should be amenable to stories;
i. e., be illustrated through narratives that help personalize its
messages of goodness and evil. I want to begin by presenting a set
of attributes of a code that strives to meet these requirements.
128 DIRECTIONAL
VALUES FOR A FEDERATED CONSTRUCT
(November
28, 2011)
This
blog is currently about developing a moral code suitable to provide a
foundation for a values curriculum in our public schools. Prior
postings, beginning with the one dated October 17, 2011, have laid a
foundation for presenting a code by reviewing relevant ideas from the
western philosophic tradition. In the last posting, I identified
this code's trump value: societal welfare. This value has a two
dimensional structure. The dimensions are societal survival and
societal advancement. The purpose of this posting is to continue in
the development of this proposed moral code by listing more
substantive elements to the code.
Last
night, quite by accident, my channel surfing hit upon a scene from a
1943 film set in England.
The part I saw was about an elderly general who was being eased out
of service because his ideas were of World War I vintage and
unsuitable for the realities of World War II. In short, he was
holding on to a notion that war was a gentleman's endeavor – an
ideal that was antiquated in World War I. His take was that, yes,
the other side were not gentlemen in the last war either, but who
won? The gentlemen did. The historical accuracy of such
descriptions might be in doubt, but the exchange this general has
with a friend is telling. When discussing the pending removal of the
old guy from service, the friend said something to the effect, you
are wrong about the challenge the Nazis are posing. It is different
than that of the Kaiser in 1914. They, the Nazis, are threatening
our very existence as a nation and society; all other values in
effect have to take second billing to the overall goal of defeating
this threat. While this scene references the extreme, the
existential threat to a society, it does make the point of the
proposed moral code: everything takes a subordinate position to the
ultimate concern of saving the society.
129 SOCIETAL
HEALTH AND PRACTICALITY
(December
2, 2011)
For
those of you who have been following this blog, you know that I have
been developing a moral code suitable to serve as a foundation for a
values curriculum. In turn, such a curriculum can be part of an
overall civics approach in that values education allows civics
instructors to delve into moral and ethical questions that would be
derived from such a code. If an instructional strategy can propose
so and so as good or evil, then it would be legitimate to organize
lessons that have students analyze what should be done in given
situations where relevant options are presented and debated. On a
personal level, having gone to parochial schools, I was exposed to
such a curriculum with the exception that that instruction was based
on a sectarian moral code. What I am proposing here is a secular
moral code for our public schools – secular due to many reasons,
not the least the legal/constitutional requirements under which our
public schools operate.
130 FEDERALLY
ACHIEVING GREATNESS
(December
5, 2011)
Continuing
with this blog's effort to present a moral code suitable as a base
for a values curriculum in our public schools, I want to take a look
at a study that Jim Collins' team of researchers conducted (Collins,
J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap …
and others don't. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.).
That study looked at an array of businesses that were deemed to have
been good initially but, due to some changes, became great. The
primary question the study set out to answer was what made these
commercial entities great.
ontinuing
with this blog's effort to present a moral code suitable as a base
for a values curriculum in our public schools, I want to take a look
at a study that Jim Collins' team of researchers conducted (Collins,
J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap …
and others don't. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.).
That study looked at an array of businesses that were deemed to have
been good initially but, due to some changes, became great. The
primary question the study set out to answer was what made these
commercial entities great.
ontinuing
with this blog's effort to present a moral code suitable as a base
for a values curriculum in our public schools, I want to take a look
at a study that Jim Collins' team of researchers conducted (Collins,
J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leap …
and others don't. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.).
That study looked at an array of businesses that were deemed to have
been good initially but, due to some changes, became great. The
primary question the study set out to answer was what made these
commercial entities great.
