In New South Wales, Australia, classes on secular ethics have been offered to some students as an alternative to religious studies since 2010. A programme called ‘Primary Ethics’ is now taught to around 20,000 students in more than 300 schools. It introduces discussion of moral issues in a systematic way and provides an educational experience for students who were previously not provided with a taught alternative.
Should schools, particularly government schools, teach ethics? Or does doing so violate an important principle of government neutrality on matters moral and spiritual?
What is secular ethics?
It is only very recently that it has been thought appropriate to teach ethics in government schools. One plausible explanation for this is that traditionally ethics was conceived of as a set of sacred rules and admonitions. Out of a desire for religious neutrality, government schools shied away from teaching ethics.
The idea, however, that ethics must be religious, is wrong. For thousands of years philosophers have developed the field of secular ethics. Secular ethics doesn’t depend on the idea that God doesn’t exist, but instead is focused on providing reasons for ethical positions that are not religiously dependent (but may still be compatible with religious views).
Secular ethics is unavoidable. For instance, even if we believe in God’s existence, religious texts are typically incomplete, and sometimes contradictory, on moral questions. To take a biblical example, should a childless widow marry her deceased husband’s brother? Leviticus (xx, 21) says ‘no’, while Deuteronomy (xxv, 5) says ‘yes’. Arbitrating between the two requires something more than religious authority. Furthermore, most religious texts were written at a time when many of today’s most challenging moral questions were inconceivable. Co-opting and applying passages from these texts is increasingly awkward (e.g. ‘What would Jesus think about financial incentives for organ donation, or the use of human enhancement technologies?’). Secular ethics can fill the void.
In a society composed of those from a multitude of religious (and non-religious) backgrounds, secular ethics also provides us with reasons that are open for all. In living together, it is these reasons that are likely to persuade those who don’t share our beliefs about the divine, or the implications.
Secular ethics, then, is necessary. But can it be taught?
Can we teach ethics?
One problem with teaching ethics in schools is that there are many competing theories about what is right and wrong. For instance, one might think that our intentions matter morally (Kantianism), or that only consequences do (consequentialism). Some regard inequality as intrinsically problematic, whilst others do not. Unlike other subjects taught in schools, ethics seems to be one in which people can’t agree on even seemingly foundational issues.
In his book Essays on Religion and Education, the Oxford philosopher R.M. Hare argued that ethics can be taught in schools, because it involves learning a language with a determinate method, “such that, if you understand what a moral question is, you must know which arguments are legitimate, in the same way in which, in mathematics, if you know what mathematics is, you know that certain arguments in that field are legitimate and certain arguments not.”
As Hare argues, teaching morality is not about inculcating substantive positions. The purpose isn’t necessarily to answer questions, but to raise them, and at the same time to provide students with a method (rules, or boundaries) in accordance with which the questions must be discussed. “As in mathematics, having taught them the language,” Hare said, “we can leave them to do the sums.”
So, whilst there may never be consensus on the ‘right answer’ in ethics, this is not an insuperable hurdle. Ultimately all secular-ethicists are engaged in the same task: reasoning and reflecting on our intuitions, principles and values. This is what teaching ethics in schools should involve. Secular ethics is about challenging students to provide reasons for their views, and to counter the reasons of others without invoking flawed arguments or fallacies.
Why should we teach ethics?
After we leave school, few of us will ever need to solve another quadratic equation, or remember the minutiae of cell biology. But we will all be faced with moral decisions. We face these decisions every day. Most of the time we don’t think about it, but ethics is everywhere; in the products we buy, the careers we choose, and the way we interact with others. The first reason to teach ethics is to help us reflect on the moral dimensions of the decisions we make.
The second reason to teach ethics is that moral decisions are difficult, and will often be amongst the most important decisions of our life. In making them we will be almost entirely dependent upon our own capacities. We cannot escape the ultimate responsibility for making them, and even when we can seek the counsel of those we trust, we may receive competing advice.
Finally, there is a public interest in teaching ethics. The ability to reason morally is a fundamental requirement of good citizenship, and an aspect of ‘civics education’ broadly understood. It is important that citizens know how laws are made, and how decisions can be challenged. But a robust democracy requires more: it requires citizens with the capacity to reflect on how their country ought to be. Issues as diverse as taxation and inequality, the limits to free speech, and the claims of future generations, all have a moral dimension. Citizens need to be able to spot flaws in arguments and weigh competing considerations if they are to exercise ‘self government’ in the fullest sense.
Currently, only a very small number of students around the world are given the opportunity to learn about secular ethics. In providing such an opportunity, New South Wales’ Primary Ethics programme has been a step forward. With any luck, other jurisdictions will consider trialling the teaching of secular ethics too.
————–
PS – Thanks to Professor Julian Savulescu for providing feedback on this piece.
Thanks for the post.
“Secular ethics is unavoidable. For instance, even if we believe in God’s existence, religious texts are typically incomplete, and sometimes contradictory, on moral questions. To take a biblical example, should a childless widow marry her deceased husband’s brother? Leviticus (xx, 21) says ‘no’, while Deuteronomy (xxv, 5) says ‘yes’. Arbitrating between the two requires something more than religious authority.”
I think religious people could plausibly deny this argument. Though the religious texts do not provide the answer to every possible moral choice, religious people believe the texts, in combination with prayer and perhaps other forms of religious reflection, provide a framework or guide for ethical deliberation. This is not secular ethics, because it follows from explicitly religious premises and methods.
Your second point, that we need secular ethics to engage with the non-religious or those of other faiths, is stronger, but needs further support. The strongest objections people have to teaching ethics is usually that they believe ethics are fundamentally religious. A powerful argument is needed to rebut such claims.
It would sound quite extraordinary to hold that ethical values, such as the thin goodness and badness, can only be perceived, conceptualized by, and reasoned from only as part of one’s religious background. Furthermore, it is desirable that people be able to perceive, conceptualize and reason about ethical values independently of any religious background, for the reason that the significance of ethics should not be held hostage of the (im)probability of their being a God.
Thanks for the nice post. Based on all the evidence available, I would disagree with the second point that ethics can be taught. There is no successful program / intervention etc one can point to that teaches ethics. Stating that it can be taught is, in my belief, an unfounded assumption. Furthermore, moral philosophers, as Schwitzgebel as repeatedly shown, are not more moral (sometimes even less) in their behaviour than people from other professions. Learning the method of arguing only helps to increase the sophistication of own’s moral arguments, but most likely doesn’t affect underlying moral intuitions and beliefs. At least this is what the empirical evidence suggests.
Comments are closed.