Individuals should dare to apply their own powers of reason
and make their own moral judgements rather than defer to some external
authority.
Infancy is the inability to use one’s reason without the
guidance of others.
We must ultimately take on the responsibility for making
moral judgements. That duty is unavoidable. The enlightened individual is one
who recognises this.
"Educational" methods of Authoritarian systems
1. punishment
2. rewards
3. emotive imagery and manipulation
4. social pressure
5. repetition
6. control and censorship
7. isolation
8.uncertainty
9. Tribalism
Liberal counter to the above
1. Reveal and question underlying assumptions
2. Figure out the perhaps unforeseen consequences of a moral
decision
3. Spot and diagnose faulty reasoning
4. Weigh up evidence fairly
5. Make a point clearly and concisely
6. Take turns in a debate and listen attentively without
interrupting
7. argue without personalising a dispute
8. look at issues from others’ view/s
This fosters intellectual and emotional maturity.
They are more willing to accept their own mistakes as a
normal part of learning and they discuss problems as they arise. They do not
fight, they negotiate.
These citizens might be freedom-loving but the ease with
which their strings can be pulled would mean that their freedom is a limited
one.
Ideas most likely to survive in the open competition of this
market will be those that are true.
Milgram’s experiment: humans have a disastrously strong
in-built tendency to defer to authority. We are mostly moral sheep. How do we
avoid raising moral sheep. The above education is a defence against it.
Modern life demands that we trust the expertise of others. Moral
experts are not experts in a technical sense. Not to say that we shouldn’t seek moral
advice. This is akin to seeking multiple sources of “evidence” so crucial in
critical thinking.
Everyone has to play God and make moral actions based on
decisions. No one can shirk this. Even if we accept that the text is sacred, we
still have to decide to follow a particular interpretation of it.
Next time that you hear someone say “we need more authority
to get things right”…do ask them what exactly is it they are promoting.
What if they end up doing the wrong things? With critical
discourse, we can at least enter into a rational discussion with them. Mistakes
are inevitable but as long as we learn from them (and not repeat them), we are
all progressing towards greater human flourishing.
RELATIVISM saves educators from having to admit that any
religion might actually be mistaken on the issue of ULTIMATE TRUTH/s or (even
worse) that they might ALL JUST BE MISTAKEN.
RELATIVISM parades itself as "political
correctness"....and systems which preach ultimate truth/s escape the harsh
but necessary edge of critical thought.
AUTHORITARIANISM thus has a great bedfellow in RELATIVISM.
Critical thinking in liberal education is not
non-judgemental like relativism. It is precisely the opposite as it produces
individuals who think critically and make their own judgments (As opposed to no
judgement). By applying critical thinking, individuals will realise that
relativism is muddle-headed and does not advance human flourishing.
Science pumps in falsifiable and quantifiable evidence that
can be used to support a moral decision/action. Therefore it is useful in
questions of ethics.
Aristotle stated that proper education should get us into
the habit of reflecting and applying our intelligence in order to arrive at
right decisions and then act upon it.
The great religious traditions do not have a monopoly of
asking the big questions……philosophy exists! It has the advantage of not
pre-judging the issue.
Religious education seems to foster community because it
develops and reinforces in-grouping. The obvious danger is that it creates
wider chasms between communities.
No comments:
Post a Comment