[Starman]

Why isn't learning to think logically and ethics given more prominence in our educational system? After all, how a person thinks determines character and character affects society either positively or negatively. Considering the conduct of our citizens and how much grief they inflict on themselves and others due to inability to think properly, isn't it time for this to be remedied?

[NeedKarma]

I agree with this but...
1) this is what our educational system already tries to do
2) not everyone is geared the same way, some people rely more on instinct and emotion and will never "get" the logical approach
3) variety and spontaneity make life interesting; I don't want to be living with a Spock-type all my life :)

[CaptainForest]

Just to add to NeedKarma's post….

Re: ethics.

Not everyone has the same view on ethics. What is ethical to one person may not be ethical to another.

Example. My parent is on life support. The doctor says there is no chance they will wake up. So I, doing the ethical thing, take her off life support. I view that as ethical. However, you walk in and say that it is not ethical.

See the Terri Schiavo case which is where I actually based this example on.

[valinors_sorrow]

I was educated in what was, at the time, considered to be one the top ten public school systems in the United States (all modesty still intact, hopefully! ). I was instructed by really talented teachers who taught how to think more than factual information, and who instilled a kind of passion for learning that serves me to this day.

I didn't fully appreciate all this until I arrived at university, only to see what a difference my lower education made in my freshman year. Sadly my explanation for this difference has to do with money (it was also one of the top ten wealthiest communities too) and that is definitely not only not ethical but not in our collective best interests either.

It is probably viewed as too "big brother" for some segments of the political landscape of the US today, but I would vehemently disagree - in fact, it is just the opposite of that. "I can think, therefore I am free" is really how it goes.

For those who have a burning desire, nothing will hold them back, but I agree with you Starman that a heaping helping of logical thinking woud go a LONG way in boosting our collective intellect in this culture. That, and when this culture starts paying the big bucks and the respect to the smart ones, we might see a change.. . Meanwhile we'll have to settle for "Num3ers" on TV, I guess. Shrugs. :rolleyes:

[Starman]

I was educated in what was, at the time, considered to be one the top ten public school systems in the United States (all modesty still intact, hopefully! ). I was instructed by really talented teachers who taught how to think more than factual information, and who instilled a kind of passion for learning that serves me to this day.

I didn't fully appreciate all this until I arrived at university, only to see what a difference my lower education made in my freshman year. Sadly my explanation for this difference has to do with money (it was also one of the top ten wealthiest communities too) and that is definitely not only not ethical but not in our collective best interests either.

It is probably viewed as too "big brother" for some segments of the political landscape of the US today, but I would vehemently disagree - in fact, it is just the opposite of that. "I can think, therefore I am free" is really how it goes.

For those who have a burning desire, nothing will hold them back, but I agree with you Starman that a heaping helping of logical thinking woud go a LONG way in boosting our collective intellect in this culture. That, and when this culture starts paying the big bucks and the respect to the smart ones, we might see a change.. . Meanwhile we'll have to settle for "Num3ers" on TV, I guess. Shrugs. :rolleyes:

I guess it's nice and comfy in the cave so why seek the light!
I think that Plato had the right idea. The government is responsible for the type of citizen it creates via its educational system and should strive to produce the best citizens it can. Turning out citizens unable to reason is in my opinion like the state cutting its own throat and later saying ouch! When these same citizens behave in the only manner they know how. There definitely is a cause and effect here which is being ignored and I guess will continue to be ignored for the same illogical reasons you mentioned as the cause. In short, the system can't remedy itself because the ones in charge themselves victims of the faulty educational system. Ironic isn't it?

I agree with this but...
1) this is what our educational system already tries to do:)

True perhaps to a certain degree, but are you satisfied with the results?
In your opinion, do kids today know how to think properly? If so, why so much juvenile crime in which illogical reasons are given as motives? Have you ever asked why people vote for candidates? Do you notice all the illogical reasons they give you? Do you think that if people had been thought to reason properly they would offer those reasons? Better yet, if people knew how to reason properly, would they be as inclined to resort to settling conflicts via violence both on a personal and on national levels. Because remember, nations are simply a conglomerate of people making decisions based on the way they think.

2) not everyone is geared the same way, some people rely more on instinct and emotion and will never "get" the logical approach.

If indeed true, would that justify depriving those who are able to get the logical approach of a proper education?

3) variety and spontaneity make life interesting; I don't want to be living with a Spock-type all my life :)

Being able to reason logically doesn't turn a person into a Spock or make the us incapable of emotions. Neither does it stifle spontaneity. What it does is prevent our spontaneity from being foolish and getting us into trouble with the law, or with other human beings in many diverse ways.

Just to add to NeedKarma's post….

Re: ethics.

Not everyone has the same view on ethics. What is ethical to one person may not be ethical to another.

Example. My parent is on life support. The doctor says there is no chance they will wake up. So I, doing the ethical thing, take her off life support. I view that as ethical. However, you walk in and say that it is not ethical.

See the Terri Schiavo case which is where I actually based this example on.

A human being's inelienable rights and our duty to respect those rights don't cease due to his being unconscious. The right to life and the right to decide, or self determination, as well as the duty not to inflict unnecessary pain or harm are involved in the case you mention. So I would not just walk in and mindlessly say it isn't ethical. I would have to weigh all the factors involved and according to the ethical principles decide on how to categorize the conduct. There are always some very relevant factors involved which serve as guidelines. For example, if the person in the comatose state has previously stated that under such circumstances she would not want to live and was sane or was not under extreme psychological duress or under drug-induced impediments when she expressed herself,then it would be ethical for the person who has the authority to disconnect her. However, if she had made known her wishes to live under such circumstances, then it would be unethical for us to disconnect her. If the person in the comatose state has never said one thing or the other in reference to such a situation, then it is a decision that has to be made by those who are in charge and the decision can't be condemned on the previous basis. But even here there are pitfalls. If we decide to disconnect her without first getting a second or third opinion, then it would be unethical since the situation demands that we make absolutely certain that the patient's situation is as hopeless as is described. Also, if we delegate the decision to a non-family member when the patient wanted us to make it would be unethical if we had promised the patient that we would be the ones making the decision. Or if we make the decision without consulting family members which were supposed to assist in making the decision but whom we choose to ignore.

Not all extension of life is just and not all termination of it is unjust. In fact, termination might be merciful while extension might be cruel. So many factors have to be weighed. The problem arises when those involved in the decision-making don't have a clues as to what is ethical or not. Then great injustices can be done in the name of love, exhaustion, refusal to bear a burden or other essentially unethical motives



BTW
The study of ethics doesn't tell us what to do under every situation since many situations require that we give one duty priority over another. It just gives us guidelines with which we need to be familiar in order to make rational decisions. Every child should be made familiar with these guidelines in order for them to think clearly and make decisions which they will later not regret.


The sophists, philosophers who predated Socrates, were fond of saying that morality was subjective and culturally determined. But this view was rejected by other philosophers as well as by modern society. That's why the United Nations has laws based on internationally accepted ethical guidelines which are recognized as binding on all nations. Variation of ethical concepts is acceptable as long as those variations remain within the parameters of what is considered civilized. That's why the Nazi leaders were tried as war criminals.