Public policy in education and ethics discourse are approaching a climate in which there are no standards of morality and no expectation of – much less recognition of – any ultimate Truth and no acknowledgement of right or wrong other than arbitrary enforcement of faddish laws.
“The Journal does not specifically support substantive moral views, ideologies, theories, dogmas or moral outlooks, over others. It supports sound rational argument. Moreover, it supports freedom of ethical expression.”
Earlier this month, I reported on the Journal of Medical Ethics’ “After Birth Abortion; Why should the baby live?” The quote above is from one of the editors of the Journal, Julian Savulescu, who apparently does not understand that his support of “rational argument” and “freedom of ethical expression” is a substantive moral view, dogma or moral outlook. Savulescu is a perfect example that my opening statement is true.
Among the many unintended consequences of this lack of standards is that there is now seems to be no place for teaching and learning. How do our teachers, much less our students, develop judgment about ethics in a world with only subjective standards? How do our teachers correct a horrible overstepping of what were once considered boundaries if there are no boundaries?
Where and when do we find the teaching moment, an opportunity to review basic ethics and learn once again why these ethics fit the event or question?
Savulescu, has his extended view of the new age dogma, here in East Texas we would refer to his form of thought as Rabid Dogma. Every farm boy above th age of 17 knows what caliber of treatment is used for his type of rabid dogma and how deep a hole to dig to keep the hogs from getting to it. DITO’s and keep up the good work.
Hey, baby Brother! That’s what we keep our men folk around for!