Add a Comment
Email This
Statistics
RE: Schools don't teach moral relativism.
Oftentimes it is considered a sign of intellectual maturity in children, when they consider other things than rules and consequences to evaluate the merit of an action. This is not to say that one can't legitimately say that stealing is wrong regardless of the outcome, but the critical thought that is associated with questioning rules is what the teacher was probably trying to encourage.
Sorry, but unfortunately that is not the case, the story emphasized the fact that the child (teen ager actually) was stealing food because he was hungry, and rather than work for it, prefered to steal. I was able to read the short story (procured from a teacher acquaintance who also disagrees with the curriculum), and the associated discovery questions, as well as the teachers guide. The questions are 'intended to foster discussion of unfair and unjust rules in society' and 'the only correct answer to the the question of whether or not the theft was right or wrong is that it is a justifiable action, much like any other action that defies the rules.'
Stealing is *never* justifiable--nor is killing, lying, cheating, or any other action that defies the rules. There are other actions one can take that do not involve stealing. Taking something of value from a shopkeeper deprives that shopkeeper of not only the item, but also of any potential income.
Critical thinking is one thing, but trying to coerce a small child into thinking that any action that goes against the rules is 'justifiable'--that's moral relativism in a nutshell. Your action may be ok, depending on the circumstances? Better that the boy in the story ask the shopkeeper if he could sweep the floor, or unload a truck, or some other action in exchange for either food or wages. THAT is being upright and responsible. That, however, isn't the correct answer.
RSS
RE: Schools don't teach moral relativism.
"The appalling fact is that the teacher actually told my son his thinking was backward when he stood his ground and said stealing of any kind is wrong."
Oftentimes it is considered a sign of intellectual maturity in children, when they consider other things than rules and consequences to evaluate the merit of an action. This is not to say that one can't legitimately say that stealing is wrong regardless of the outcome, but the critical thought that is associated with questioning rules is what the teacher was probably trying to encourage. There are non-theistic ethical systems that attempt to justify the existence of such unbreakable rules, but they tend to run into some interesting problems. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology ) The teacher wasn't necessarily looking to promote a relativist standpoint, but offer another perspective on things.
I personally think that the child was right to steal, it doesn't offer me much comfort that the person who let the child starve to death is said to be doing something wrong. Granted if there were some form of reward for the child’s behavior in some far off future seeing the child’s actions as wrong is more justifiable. However, I don't see much reason to believe that such a system of rewards has made itself known enough for it to justify such a position.
View Full Discussion