[Wondergirl]

Can morality be taught apart from religion, especially from the doctrine(s) of, say, Lutheranism or Catholicism or even just Christianity in general?

I'm thinking of the sex ed thread in which several posters claimed there can be no effective sex ed classes without moral teaching and others countered that morality doesn't belong in sex ed classes.

So. A second question follows -- can sex ed be effectively taught apart from morality?

[Fr_Chuck]

on what basis would the moral value be taught ?

If you have a society values, what are they based on.

In general moral values of all levels are based on some religious value, if not christian, of a moon god or fish god but of some religious bais

Sexual practice and sexual positions, and pregnancy prevention can be taught, but the values of not having sex until?? Marriage, until the boy asks, is all a moral value.

for example, what status stops a boy from forcing a girl to have sex? A law, but is that law based on a moral value ?

[shygrneyzs]

Yes, morality itself can be taught without the reference to Christianity, such as Catholicism or Lutheranism. But what kind of morality are you taking about? Even Satanists have a morality they abscribe to.

So you define the morality and you can find some philosophy somewhere that will uphold it - without a religious base. Then are you going to hold that morality to a standard? What would be your standard?

About the sexual education being taught with and without a morality clause.
I think sexual abstinence can be taught from a medical viewpoint without introducing religion. If you introduce a societal morality - whose society? The United States? Well, that does not work for obvious reasons. The U.S. is permissive, at the very least.

[Fr_Chuck]

yes, but satanism ( not sure of the exact word) is a religion, they moral code is still based on a religious value.

But abstinecne from a medical viewpoint ? What medical viewpoint, all they can do is show how not to get pregnant, which pills, condoms and others will take care of it. So what medcially can abstinence be taught as.

Now I want it taught, but outside of morality, why?

[shygrneyzs]

From a medical viewpoint - the risks of having a baby at an early age, just the facts of how fast a life can change in a relatively few minutes of sexual intercourse. Not to mention having the chances of contracting some STD or incurable disease like HIV/AIDS. One can present that without attaching their morals to it.

But I understand what you are saying, Fr. Chuck, without the moral component, the class is pretty much a five minute presentation (or less) on the don'ts. Problem is, whose morals are attached to that? And why should it be left up to the schools to teach anyway? Doesn't that come from family and religious instructions? I can't see schools as too successsful either. Look at all the information out there and free exams and condoms and birth control, etc. and so on, and still we have babies having babies by the thousands.

[Fr_Chuck]

Yes, but do kids think they will ever be the one, and if in the same class they are taught that none of that happens if they use the birth control that is being taught?

Of course sex ed, even without the moral values is better than none, or finding it out in the back of your dads Chevy.
I do believe in sex ed in school, and believe the morality should be taught at home.

[shygrneyzs]

True - my nephew never thought he would be a Daddy and yet he is. Arrogance and stupidity on his part. Disrespectful also, as he did not make sure that his girlfriend would be protected. If couples want to engage in intercourse then they ought to be prepared and protected. We can teach our children our moral values and the importance of staying abstinent but, as a parent, you know how fast that can fly out the window. But we try our best and pray for the rest.

[shygrneyzs]

You betcha, Wondergirl, I was so smart at 18 too. Lol. Too bad my brain did not match my ego at that time.

[Dark_crow]

There is Classical Greek morality. After Virtue is a highly regarded book on moral philosophy by Alasdair MacIntyre published in 1981.

[Dark_crow]

Can morality be taught apart from religion, especially from the doctrine(s) of, say, Lutheranism or Catholicism or even just Christianity in general?

I'm thinking of the sex ed thread in which several posters claimed there can be no effective sex ed classes without moral teaching and others countered that morality doesn't belong in sex ed classes.

So. a second question follows -- can sex ed be effectively taught apart from morality?

Sex ed cannot be effectively taught apart from morality because Sex is a moral decision. Temperance consists of not giving in too easily to the pleasures of physical sensation and is a moral virtue. Moral virtues dispose us to behave in the correct manner, it is necessary also to have the right intellectual virtues in order to reason properly about how to behave. The attempt to teach temperance outside the framework of moral virtues is like trying to teach someone to ride a bicycle without the bicycle.

The Internet Classics Archive | Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle

[Choux]

Children pretty much have the same moral/ethical standards as their parents model... honest parents who don't lie, parents who treat all others with kindness, etc.. . the kids are usually the same when they grow up. Children watch everything their parents do... remember? :)

The last book I read *in detail* was Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics... a must study for all adults. I could see where some small parts of the New Testament were borrowed and modified from this work. (Sorry my memory fails me on specifics) Aristotle speaks of virtues in his work and moderation in behavior... not to be extreme. For example, foolhardy is an extreme on one side of the virtue of courage on the other side is cowardice. The greatest virtue according to Aristotle is wisdom followed closely by justice.

A person who is building his/her own set of ethics/morality would do very well to start with Aristotle as an ethical base.

Since we live in different times from Aristotle and the writing of the Bible, we must have more updated morality... for example, vegetarianism... or women's issues. Women were pretty much in the same category as cattle in ancient times.

Subject on which volumes can be written! Very interesting. I'll just sign off here. :D

[s_cianci]

I don't see how it could, although I'm sure there are those who would claim that it could.

[Dark_crow]

Yeah Choux, I think a class on Nichomachean Ethics would go a lot further helping teen pregnancy than sex education.



s_cianci

People always have reasons for their opinion, when they fail to give them it is often because there is some doubt lingering.
Anyway

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

[ETWolverine]

In order to teach moral values aside from religion, the following points would have to be addressed.

1) Define "VALUES".
2) Define "MORALITY". (The two are actually different.)
3) Come to a consensus opinion on both of those definitions.
4) Determine a system to decide whether specific actions or activities fit within those definitions (or not).
5) Determine a system by which to reject the actions which do not fit the definitions, and append appropriate penalties for those actions.
6) Determine a system by which to teach that system to others.
7) Do all of these things without starting World War 3, causing a worldwide economic breakdown, and creating anarchy.

Based on the level of complexity of this task, it is my opinion that it is impossible to accomplish such a task.

Elliot

[Dark_crow]

In order to teach moral values aside from religion, the following points would have to be adressed.

1) Define "VALUES".
2) Define "MORALITY". (The two are actually different.)
3) Come to a consensus opinion on both of those definitions.
4) Determine a system to decide whether specific actions or activities fit within those definitions (or not).
5) Determine a system by which to reject the actions which do not fit the definitions, and append appropriate penalties for those actions.
6) Determine a system by which to teach that system to others.
7) Do all of these things without starting World War 3, causing a worldwide economic breakdown, and creating anarchy.

Based on the level of complexity of this task, it is my opinion that it is impossible to accomplish such a task.

Elliot

What of quality, character, justice, good, knowledge, principles, being, happiness…?

I see you have chosen the present time in history as though we would need to start with a clean slate. There presently exists such a system as you suggest we would need, the e.g. America.

[BABRAM]

There presently exists such a system as you suggest we would need, the e.g. America.

There is? Las Vegas didn't get that memo. :)



Bobby

[ETWolverine]

What of quality, character, justice, good, knowledge, principles, being, happiness…?

I see you have chosen the present time in history as though we would need to start with a clean slate. There presently exists such a system as you suggest we would need, the e.g. America.

First of all, since when is happiness a moral value? Or knowledge? They are certainly worth valuing, but they are not MORAL values. I could make the same argument for "quality" as well... nice to have but not a moral value.

Next, define "good" and "justice". I don't think they can be defined absent morality. MORALITY defines what is good and evil, and what is just and unjust. But we are talking about developing such a moral system from scratch, without religion to teach us what is moral. You can't use the term "good" to determine what is moral, because it is morality that defines what is good. Circular reference... it doesn't compute.

Character? Again, define it without using our moral system as a reference. What is "good character"? You need to already have a set of morals in place to make that determination. Same problem.

I didn't really start with the "present time" as my starting point. What I did was start from scratch, and assume that there is no moral system currently in place. I asumed that we would have to create such a system without any reference to our current moral systems, which all have their roots in religion. And I deliniated the problems of doing that in such as way as to get the majority of people to agree with our definitions and rules. This dilema can be set in any part of the world at any time in history, and the dilema's parameters would not change, nor the task of fixing it.

As for the moral system of the USA, do you really believe that such a system was developed absent of religion and religious values? I would strongly disagree with such a sentiment, and the writings of the Founding Fathers would seem to support my position. Even the non-religious Founders understood that they were trying to create a leagl/moral system that was steeped in the traditional values of the ages which were determined by religious values.

In any case, as I said before, I don't think that a system of morals can be created absent of religion, or absent of the moral system that exists and which is in turn based on religious values.

Elliot

[Dark_crow]

I would argue that the moral system that stems from Western Tradition has its roots in Greek Philosophy; as attested to by the arguments for or against Aristotle ranging from Thomas Aquinas to Kant to Hegel to Emerson and many others. Happiness is defined as being or seeking the chief 'Good' and has been the driving force behind virtue which some have called practical wisdom and others with a kind of philosophic wisdom. There are two kinds of Virtue… intellectual and moral, intellectual virtue in the main owes from teaching (for which reason it requires experience and time), while moral virtue comes about as a result of habit.

Alasdair Chalmers MacIntyre senior research fellow and member of the Board of Advisors at the Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture did a thought experiment along the lines you suggest; you might be surprised at the conclusion.

[BABRAM]

Dark_crow agrees: Yeah…now there's a place for REAL sex education, keep it out of the schools for teens.

In LV unless your child is in a private or magnum school, they're not likely to graduate with a solid education. This is a slogan the parents of children from the Las Vegas tourism bureau most recently came up with:


"What Happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas."




Bobby

[inthebox]

ET brings up an excellent point:

Morality is about right and wrong.

Sex is a physical act, but there is a right and wrong regarding sex.

For example.

Rapist - I was acting on my urges, therefore it was "good" from my reference point. Very freudian- no repression.
Obviously for the raped it is a horrible violation.

I have herpes or aids - I want to have sex - it makes me feel "good" - "it feels better without a condom."
To the unprotected partner this is obviously this is wrong.

I want to have sex with as many girls as possible spread my genes, so my oats, so to speak. One could argue that this is evolutionaryly appropriate.
But what about, stds, relationship, childcare.

I really cannot think of a scenario in which just teaching the physical act of sex without some reference to right or wrong - can be approriate.