When we do something that others say is wrong, do we blame
ourselves and repent? That depends on whether we agree it was wrong. In other
words, the issue becomes one of what is a fact or true. Was what we did really
wrong, or just some busybody's opinion?
Honoring truth is a value. People
are taught values, and how and what they are taught is especially impactful on
children. Both children and adults are prone to fuzzy thinking in general, but
this becomes especially problematic when it comes to thinking about the pursuit
of honorable behavior. In a New York Times piece by Justin McBrayer, a college
philosophy professor, explains how fuzzy thinking about morals is leading
children to think there are no moral facts, just moral opinions which they are
free to accept or reject without blame. He is noticing that this moral
ambiguity seems to be increasing among college students. He also observed that
the issue was captured in a sign in his kid's secondary school, which posted
the edict that defined fact and opinion as follows:
Fact: Something that is true about a subject and can be tested or
proven.
Opinion: What someone thinks, feels, or believes.
When McBrayer Googled definitions
on the web, he found them all to be similar to the sign in the school. The
implications of such definitions are quite damaging for honorable behavior. It
breeds a situational ethics mentality that says that opinions are not based on
fact or truth, and thus opinions are fungible. Such definitions mean that there
are no moral truths, because none of them can be proved to be true. Moral
claims are believed to be mere opinions. For example, murder is therefore not
immoral, just illegal, because a majority of people had an opinion it was wrong
and passed a law outlawing it. No one person's opinions are any more valid than
anybody else's. These definitions lead to a moral ambiguity that is
systematically encouraged by Common Core standards which include the
deceptively innocuous requirement that children learn to "distinguish fact,
opinion, and reasoned judgment in a text." Links to the flawed definitions
occur in lesson plans and quizzes.
The reality is that we think
opinions are wrong if we do not hold them. Often, our attachment to our own opinions
is welded by self-interest and emotions rather than by reason and evidence. What
reason and evidence we employ is used as argument for existing opinion rather
than for evaluation of alternative opinions. But if one uses reason and
evidence to examine a range of opinions, the opinion we finally accept as true
is more likely to be true. We construct an excuse for ourselves from thinking
hard to seek absolute truth if we accept the claim that no moral truths are
absolutely truer than others. How convenient. Now we don't have to take blame
for what otherwise would be moral failures. This could have been the rationale
for the statements of Jesus, "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall
make you free," and the paraphrase of several statements that are
equivalent to "Seek ye the truth and you shall find it."
The pedagogical challenge is for
schools to place more emphasis on evidence-based thinking. Too many teachers
impose their own opinions as authoritative and true without compelling
supporting evidence. This conveys the message that it is o.k. for students to
do likewise with their own opinions. Science courses have special value because
they require students to consider and value evidence for conclusions about the
nature of the physical world. That is the mindset students should use for
conclusions outside the realm of science.
The problem is not just limited
to uneducated kids. McBrayer sees moral relativism all the time with colleagues
in academia. Just what is the problem with these definitions and mind set? For
one, truth does not have to have proof in order to be true. Some things can be
true, even though proof is not yet available. For example, the theory of
evolution has overwhelming supporting evidence, but many people have the
opinion it is not true because it cannot be definitively proved. McBrayer
points out that some things that have been "proved" turn out later to
be wrong. Proof is a feature of our mental life, and if proof is required for
facts, then facts become person relative. You can have your truth, I can have
mine. How then do we refute the counter-argument that says "You are
entitled to your opinion, but not to your own facts."
The second flaw in the
definitions is that students are being taught that claims are either facts or
opinions: they can't be both. Common Core quizzes for example require students
to sort claims into one or the other category. There are demonstrable facts
that certain people steadfastly refuse to believe, as well as beliefs about
certain "truths" that are manifestly not based on evidence or fact. The
main point, however, is the reality that a fact can be true and believed at the
same time.
Unfortunately in school
curricula, students are taught that value claims are opinions, neither true nor
based on fact. In an online fact vs. opinion student worksheet, McBrayer found
that children were expected to classify the following behaviors as mere
opinions:
- Copying homework
assignments is wrong.
- Cursing in school is
inappropriate.
- All men are created equal.
- It is wrong for people
under age 21 to drink alcohol.
- Vegetarians are healthier
than people who eat meat.
- Drug dealers belong in
prison.
Our culture may be producing a whole
generation that thinks there are no moral facts and thus no world view about
honor can be true. Thus, no one can be blamed for violating moral values. We
are left with the unavoidable problem, however, that adult life presents us
with moral dilemmas wherein we must acknowledge certain moral values as facts.
How, for example, can we be outraged when rioters destroy the property of
innocents if this is not viewed as a moral fault, as dishonorable behavior? Or
with McBrayer's example, how can we be outraged at the murder of cartoonists,
if such murder is morally neutral? Indeed, we can rationalize it as o.k.,
because the cartoonist was extremely offensive. To protect people from crimes
against humanity, we must acknowledge the reality that certain moral truths are
indeed facts. As a society, we are challenged to think through the evidence
that supports each of many competing moral claims to determine which claims are
true. We abdicate that responsibility by believing that nothing is true that
has not been proved. Unfortunately, it is easier to abdicate moral commitments
than to live an honorable life.
Even when we acknowledge that
certain things are right and others wrong, we seem to be living in a devolving
culture where blame is something you place on others or on uncontrollable
outside forces. How long will it be until blame is no longer politically
correct, where we can't hold anybody responsible for anything? Maybe that time
is coming soon, as witnessed by the numerous recent scandals and failures in
government agencies where nobody is held accountable.
There is much more to be said
about honesty, and I am working on a book about truth and falsity. In the
meanwhile, I recommend the book by Dan Ariely, "The (Honest) Truth
About Dishonesty."
For more about Dr. Klemm's
writings, see his web site at http://wrklemm.com and his blog on Improve
Learning and Memory at http://thankyoubrain.blogspot.com.
Source:
McBrayer, Justin P. (2015). Why our children don't think
there are moral facts. New York Times. March 1. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/02/why-our-children-dont-think-there-are-moral-facts/?_r=0.
Accessed June 25, 2015.
