'State schools are creating amoral children'

[BurgenSnurgen]

...because state schools are under so much pressure to improve results that there's no time to teach them right from wrong.

So says Chairman of the Independent Schools Association

Bit speechless really. It's giving me the absolute RAGE.

Mind you, it is an interesting question - given that life is imperfect, you sometimes have to make choices between things all of which make you feel morally uncomfortable. Are you, by choosing the least unpalatable, making the moral choice, or the least immoral choice, or trying to leave morality out of it for the sake of a clear conscience? Hopefully, you will never in life be confronted with choices all of which are utterly repugnant to you (eg under threat of your own or someone else's life).

I suppose it depends on the extra curricular activity. I'm not convinced that competitive sport, for example, does much for the moral compass-despite it's many other benefits. And I speak as the parent of competitive sportspeople.

I do think that a lot of the things that schools do/have done to encourage civilized and, of want of a better word, moral, behaviour are the sort of things that some parents get very angry about, and post threads about their child being "forced to be an unpaid TA" or "having to spend some of their lunch time being cleaners" (I particularly remember that one, because so many people agreed that children should not be expected to clean and wipe down their own lunch tables). So maybe schools are doing them less because parents don't like it? The "looking after number One" attitude? There's a poster not a million miles from here who has said that it is a moral obligation to put one's own children first, for example. Does that attitude not filter down to the children concerned?

"Anyway where's happy gardening-she argues in a way that makes me want to agree with her" [smug smiley]
Still musing (she hastily adds) are we confusing morality with other things like self confidence, experience of life? If we have limited experiences and lack confidence does that mean we're amoral?
If we say amoral is not knowing right or wrong do we need lots of life experiences, the good the bad the ugly, have our confidence boosted, be pushed/encouraged to win a netball match, paint a picture, etc to be able to identify the difference between right and wrong? If this is the case then parents can't do it alone and shouldn't be expected to, as the saying goes it takes a village to raise a child.

I'm not sure about the moral obligation but it's a natural inclination to put ones child first.

You are talking about yourself, rabbitstew. I for one never entertained the idea that the world itself had fine morals.

Ah, I see, Bonsoir. When you posted, "I'm not sure why it is offensive to suggest that you might have a finer moral compass after you have experienced the world more. We live and learn - in morality as in all else," you meant, "I don't think the world has finer morals, but if that's what you think it isn't offensive." Silly me for misunderstanding you.

Another question. If the world were a moral place, would communism have worked? Is there really such a thing as "morality" if the meaning of "morality" is different to everyone? Where does morality end and real life begin?

Ooh, I mean "Other questions..." I have no idea what the answers are. There are probably as many answers as there are people on mumsnet.

"I'm not sure about the moral obligation but it's a natural inclination to put ones child first."

Absolutely. Havering a moral compass means sometimes going against natural inclination.

Maybe being exposed to a wider range of experiences and values from which you are free to pick and choose can make you less moral in the eyes of the society in which you live. There's nothing to say you will make the "right" choices, or what the "right" choices are if there really is a whole cornucopia of choices open to you.

It depends if you think morality is an intrinsic human characteristic - in which case the immoral and amoral humans are an aberration or are deliberately rejecting an aspect of morality. If you think morality is extrinsic, then humankind is amoral at base.

'Is there really such a thing as "morality" if the meaning of "morality" is different to everyone? '

Well there are morals which are constructed. See above for a minor disagreement over whether it is more moral to look after ones own family first. Some must surely be universal though?

Some are universal, I personally think putting your own children first is also universal. Are some culture dependent? I'm having a blank moment and can't think of any?

Are any morals universal and intrinsic? Surely morality is what humanity superimposes onto instinct and which distinguishes people from other animals?

Oh gosh yes, I would say much moral behaviour is culturally inclined. But there are also some universal ones

Well philosophers aren't decided Martorana, as i expect your daughter will soon be telling you. Some believe in intrinsic morality. But if there are no universal or intrinsic values then we are, as a species, amoral aren't we?

I'm not sure instict and morality are one and the same. It human instinct to duck when something comes towards your head (like a branch) as you know horses don't duck but panic when something crawls across the ground towards them, an natural instict.
If you look at prospect refuge theory (my particular area of interest bit niche but never mind) it's thought to be a human instinct to want somewhere to hide and a long view or prospect. This is why many feel happy looking beautiful hilly scenery.
But that's different from morality. I personally think putting our children first is an instinct, that we would struggle to over come even if we do, when the chips are down like horses revert back, not ripping complaining people off by leaving them hanging on an expensive number is about morality.

Er, my rhetorically interrogative post was actually a polite British way of stating what I think-I am fully aware that philosophers disagree-what with me being a well educated adult who's read loads of books, an' all!

But if you prefer dogmatism- morals are a cultural construct imposed on essentially amoral beings. Their main purpose is to mitigate the effect of animalistic instinct. This is what distinguishes humans from other animals.

I also think that extra curriculars do support moral development. Not in themselves but because any activity which involves interacting and negotiating with other people provides an opportunity to experience, refine and practise your ideas about morality. The wider the scope of your activities and the kind if people with whom you interact, the greater the opportunity.

Schools are well placed for this because teachers will automatically encourage this kind of reflection. Parents can too, but as suggested, most of us are too emotionally invested in our own children.

'But if you prefer dogmatism- morals are a cultural construct imposed on essentially amoral beings. '

Sorry you were too subtle for me.

Too subtle for me too!

So you don't believe in any kind of concept of natural law, then, Martorana?

I wonder whether the Chairman of the ISA was thinking of universal morality when he pondered whether this was possibly lacking in state educated children, or the culturally constructed bit? It's a bit frightening to think he is suggesting that state educated children are having part of their humanity removed from them, as surely it must be if it is otherwise an intrinsic part of being human, as per Slipshodsibyl's point.

Can you be human if you have no intrinsic morality?

Psychopaths (a group I struggle with) are sometimes thought to have no intrinsic morality as they lack empathy.

No, I don't believe people have intrinsic morality,

What's subtle about that?

Not something I've spent hours thinking about but I suppose I thought morality is both intrinsic and extrinsic.