POLL: Do we need to start teaching between right and wrong in schools again?

[FelixDeCat]

We took religion out of schools back in the 60s. We didnt substitute a similar program like mandatory ethics, where you can pass or fai. It would be necessary to get your diploma. A program that starts in 9th and ending in 12th.

While you cant guarantee results and a student can still wind up robbing a grave and use the skull to make a bong, shouldnt we at least expose them to something?

I think this could be quite useful. What about you?

 

[nonnormman]

Ethics, morals, and manners should all be taught at home.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

No, teaching isn't needed. Just beat the hell out of them every time they act up.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Originally posted by: nonnormman
Ethics, morals, and manners should all be taught at home.

They still can. And this would might do what bad parents wont do, teach the basics.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy
No, teaching isn't needed. Just beat the hell out of them every time they act up.

Lawsuits.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: nonnormman
Ethics, morals, and manners should all be taught at home.

I'd agree, but the problem is there's WAY too many parents who DON'T, and let their children run free and their attitude and manners really showcase this. We've got a shining example of this living next door. The kids are animals, especially the 5-year old terror.

 

[xanis]

I think it would be a good idea. Maybe help out some of the kids with piss-poor parenting.

 

[amol]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy
No, teaching isn't needed. Just beat the hell out of them every time they act up.

Lawsuits.

Beat the hell out of them every time they file one.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Originally posted by: HamburgerBoy
No, teaching isn't needed. Just beat the hell out of them every time they act up.

Lawsuits.

I forgot to mention the part where all whiny "My child is an angel!" are killed. Sorry.

 

[spaceman]

shut down the schools.
hand out laptops preloaded with edu software.
fire everyone.

 

[TWills2]

I'm for Public School abolishment, so I really don't care. (no i'm not explaining myself. if really must know, pm.pm.pm.)

 

[raz3000]

You really can't divorce ethics and morality from education. School administrators will enforce the basics--laws against fighting, cheating, stealing, cutting (truancy and the kind with scissors, except for school-related projects), etc.

 

[Kadarin]

Such a thing should NOT be religion-based, but rather, based on the Golden Rule.

 

[mchammer]

The only religion they used to have in schools were some prayers everyday, I don't see how that would have taught right and wrong. Really I think what is significant is that some parents are doing a worse job.

 

[TWills2]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Such a thing should NOT be religion-based, but rather, based on the Golden Rule.

Logical fallacy. The golden rule was a christian teaching and is therefore, religious.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: TWills2

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Such a thing should NOT be religion-based, but rather, based on the Golden Rule.

Logical fallacy. The golden rule was a christian teaching and is therefore, religious.

The concept of "treat others the way you would like to be treated in return" itself has nothing to do with religion. It is simple common sense.

 

[chambersc]

Originally posted by: TWills2
I'm for Public School abolishment, so I really don't care. (no i'm not explaining myself. if really must know, pm.pm.pm.)

rofl, precious.

 

[TWills2]

Originally posted by: chambersc

Originally posted by: TWills2
I'm for Public School abolishment, so I really don't care. (no i'm not explaining myself. if really must know, pm.pm.pm.)

rofl, precious.

I always wonder how many people don't see the typo

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: TWills2

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
Such a thing should NOT be religion-based, but rather, based on the Golden Rule.

Logical fallacy. The golden rule was a christian teaching and is therefore, religious.

The concept of "treat others the way you would like to be treated in return" itself has nothing to do with religion. It is simple common sense.

So christianity is common sense??? Where did the golden rule originate? Not 'common sense,' that much is certain. It was a teaching of Jesus. The reason the golden rule is so accepted these days imho is that it is the very rule out the bible that coincides with pluralistic/societal teaching. "don't touch me I don't touch you, I have my beliefs you have yours" etc.

 

[FelixDeCat]

It couldnt teach religion or it wouldnt make it in "public" schools. But the Golden Rule is still golden and should be taught.

Along with:


Littering, tagging, sexual assualt, theft and murder are BAD. Then tell them why its bad, and what could also happen to them if they get caught for any of these, or what effect it has on the other person or society. Now theyll know why that behavior is UNacceptable.

Sharing what you have with others, helping when you can, listening to other people, etc, are GOOD. Tell them why they are good. Now theyll know why that behavior is acceptable.

Pretty simple.

Now of course, you can mention precautions when trying to good things, as BAD people will try to take advantage, but why overall, its still good to help.

 

[Special K]

Of course some would argue that all morals are relative. Granted children should still be taught how to behave as courteous, law-abiding citizens, etc., but I think a distinction needs to be made between something being "lawfully right" and "morally right". If one does not believe in a God or some religion, wouldn't it be difficult to believe in absolute morals?

 

[FelixDeCat]

Originally posted by: Special K
Of course some would argue that all morals are relative. Granted children should still be taught how to behave as courteous, law-abiding citizens, etc., but I think a distinction needs to be made between something being "lawfully right" and "morally right". If one does not believe in a God or some religion, wouldn't it be difficult to believe in absolute morals?

12th grade for this.

You start off in 9th with basics.

10th you get reinforcement.

11th more complex issues.

12th choosing a path and its consequences.

 

[DainBramaged]

I believe that formal logic, ethics, and debate should be taught.

 

[mchammer]

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
I believe that formal logic, ethics, and debate should be taught.

That has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

[dogooder]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
The concept of "treat others the way you would like to be treated in return" itself has nothing to do with religion. It is simple common sense.

This is not true. Some people would like to be treated with sexually aggressiveness but of course that's not how they should treat others. There's a whole slew of other examples, sadists and so on. The right phrasing is to be tolerant, respectful, courteous to others--the golden rule applied to reasonable people.

Originally posted by: Special K
Of course some would argue that all morals are relative. Granted children should still be taught how to behave as courteous, law-abiding citizens, etc., but I think a distinction needs to be made between something being "lawfully right" and "morally right". If one does not believe in a God or some religion, wouldn't it be difficult to believe in absolute morals?

Most of our morals come from biology and interactions with other people and the environment, and thus are universal. No god or religion is needed.

 

[aplefka]

As beneficial as it would be, it'd be hard to make sure there weren't some wackass teachers out there messing with kids. How about parents just do a better job inside the home?