Is there some point in intelligent reasoning wherein one questions the society which would place a human in the position to starve to death in respect for the social agreement of private property? Perhaps there are circumstances wherein stealing is the more ethical action.

Show me where socialism like this has worked on a national scale, and I'll take this idea seriously. Education doesn't determine what a person will do, it only affects the probabilities. People are constantly dreaming up new and wonderful ideas about how we can eliminate social problems. However, they only work when EVERYONE cooperates. This never happens. The most powerful a nation has ever been was the United States at the turn of the 20th century. The poor also had the largest opportunity to cross class boundaries. Under a near-pure capitalism. Then, Marxist ideals took sway, and now we're here. People thinking up grand ideas that only work if a highly specific set of prerequisites are met. Worse, they get implemented and cause more problems. I'd say that the cases across the globe of prosperous democratic nations giving in to lofty, short-sighted socialist ideals and failing should be more than enough evidence that this thinking doesn't work.

Let us go back to pitting dishonest men against each other, instead of creating a legal framework where a crafty individual can exploit everyone else.

There is no question that the major powers in the US government are the corporations. Since the corporations can determine the life styles of their employees to very fine detail it is somewhat of a fresh point of view to accuse them of Marxism and socialism but it has something of the ring of truth about it as they both have strong totalitarian aspects. In their propaganda efforts to discredit the scientifically accepted facts of global warming the corporate energy groups also resemble totalitarian governments and their dishonesty in financial matters as demonstrated by the many prosecutions of corporate activity also follows many of the government activities under Stalin in Russia It is refreshing to see that someone has pointed out their resemblance to totalitarian socialist governments.

I actually think teaching 'Ethical Reasoning' would increase crime.

Ethical Reasoning is not a system of rights and wrongs to be taught. Ethical reasoning is a set of mathematical and logic-based tools a person can use to investigate ideas, conditions, and concepts.
If you have children and tell them one thing while you do another, is this productive and/or desireable? Using Ethical Reasoning tools a person can to some extent predict the consequences related to that line of reasoning. Factors might include respect a parent maintains by their children, financial complications related to their childrens habits, developed personality traits that are in direct conflict with social norms, a parents split in time between work and home life, physical financial factors, ...

I do NOT propose teaching a basic set of social morals! That is NOT what I intend at all! Give each person the reasoning tools to make productive decisions for themselves. Rather than what happens now where individuals give up their right to think and blindly support people professing to be experts and leaders because of the individuals poor self esteem and lack of tools to make critical judgements for themselves.

How often do you hear "I just feel it's the right thing to do!"? Clueless evaluation of a problem.

A person can seek and provide assistance without stealing. Yet still have strong convictions to never steal, lye, cheat, and/or kill. The social system simply needs to provide avenues for productive assistance. Having extremely strong social convictions is not necessarily counter to individual survival.
I was visiting Guaquil in Equador. While touring I saw an elderly person in the basement stairwell of a church working on something. I asked the tour guide what she was doing. "She is poor and is making something for the market." I asked the tour guide to take $10 and in the most humble way possible, give it to the woman. He tried unsuccessfully. Her response, "I don't need to beg, I work for a living."

I read an article in a magazine about Euretria. A reporter had gone there to assess the conditions following a civil war. To get a baseline regarding crime, he sat at a common bistro on the street, took all but a few dollars from his wallet, and put the wallet several tables over and behind him. He sat for several hours and no one would sit at the table, and no one touched the wallet. Finally a small homeless boy walked from the street and took the wallet. The reporter was relieved he no longer had to wait. But the boy simply walked over to his table and gave the wallet to the reporter. The boy had been watching the wallet for the entire time from down the street and became concerned the reporter might forget he had placed the wallet behind himself. The reporter awed by the lack of criminal intent went to the local police station. He called out to the empty front area, two police quickly ran out to meet him with obvious concern on their faces and in their voices. The reporter calmed them and asked why the police seemed so disturbed when he came in. The reporter was the only person to come into the police station for several months. The reporter asked why there was so little crime. The police then described their legal system. When something happens, everyone who may have anything to do with the crime, no matter who they might be, are arrested and put in jail. One by one they interview everyone and as they verify each person as not having anything to do with the crime, they are released to go home. The families and friends outside support everyone who is in jail. Those without family and friends must depend upon the others who are in jail with them. A company several years earlier was found to be the victim of embezzlement. It took over a year before the four people involved were singled out and the other released. Everyone understands the consequences upon themselves, their families, their friends, and coworkers for being involved in any criminal activity.

I have experienced another similar situation in the Phillipines. Corruption is not a necessary part of being human. Lying, cheating, and stealing may be instinctual, but it is not necessarily dominant.

The story above is very interesting, but what does it have to do with teaching ethical reasoning? I'm willing to bet that the Equadorians did not take any classes on ethical reasoning.

You said that you do not propose teaching a set of morals. Well, just exactly what are you proposing to teach? I know what you said in the original posting, but how exactly do you teach someone to be intelligent? Also, intelligent reasoning doesn't necessarily lead to ethical conclusions. If the Equadorians don't break the law because the law enforcement is so oppressive, then are the really being ethical or are they just protecting their butts? Assume for a moment that O. J. Simpson really killed his wife. Didn't he do a good job of "intelligently posing solutions and predicting the consequences"? He posed an effective solution for elliminating his troublesome wife and correctly predicted the consequence that he would not get convicted. Should we give him an A in you "Ethical Reasoning" class?

Dwane Anderson:
Ethical Reasoning is a composite of Critical Reasoning tools and Ethical Evaluation, both of which are taught in college. They are a tool set that can be learned, liked tying ones shoes.

As for OJ Simpson. Does he have the love of his children? Why does he live in Florida? Because of the asset protection laws. Why didn't he stay close to his friends and family in California? What happened to his wealth? Is he always under critical public scrutiny? Whom is he dating now? What is his emotional condition? Does he often seem to make irrational statements? Maybe he is innocent! I was not on the jury. If he is guilty, divorce would probably been a whole lot easier and more productive.

Maybe OJ wasn't the best example. You mentioned persons with money getting away with murder in your original post and OJ came to mind. My point was, many people do unethical things without suffering consequences. In some cases, they benefit tremendously. Thus, critical reasoning doesn't necessarily lead to ethical conclusions.

Now, I see you include Ethical Evaluation as part of your class. I never took an Ethics class in college, though I did take a Critical Reasoning class. I did well in the class, but as you probably already noticed, I like critical reasoning and I've always taken pride in it. I got the impression that most of the other students in the class didn't get much out of it. The class filled a graduation requirement, so most of the students were just there because they had to be. If Ethical Reasoning was required, I suspect it would not be popular.

I suppose I should be more supportive of your idea. I do think that critical reasoning is important and valuable. Maybe I'm just too... well, critical! I think the thing that bothers me about your idea is that requiring people to take an ethics class is like requiring them to go to Sunday school. People aren't going to want ethics rammed down their throats.

I also still have doubts that teaching people ethics and reasoning will actually cause them to behave ethically. Maybe it would, but I suspect most people will still do what they want to do regardless of ethics.

I took a college class in "professional ethics" which focused on ethical reasoning. Maybe others found it useful, but I didn't. Most fundamentally, I found that the reasoning system was based on too many premises that I disagreed with...it basically required that you accept Kantian ethics.

That's one reason I don't think that this would be useful. Another reason is that most "unethical" behavior is not due to poor reasoning, but poor intention and attitudes. If a person simply doesn't give a damn about others, then no amount of reasoning will cause him to act as though he does. Likewise, if a person doesn't understand the effect that his behaviors have on others, reasoning won't make a difference. I think that most smart people have a adequate ability to consider the pros and cons of a situation, given that they have good intentions and are informed about the situation. (Stupid people wouldn't apply formal reasoning tools)

My courses in Ethics and Critical Reasoning provided me with many relationships for deducing probable consequences given a set of conditions (premises and a logical argument). This was reinforced later at Honeywell DSES through the use of Six Sigma analysis for process refinement. Honeywell actively uses critical reasoning for re-evaluating their administrative processes to save millions of dollars every year by minimizing recurring wasted efforts.

I agree that the mentally damaged would be unable to use a these tools, but in large part, junior and senior high school students are intellectually capable. As are businesspersons, politicians, CEOs, policepersons, ....

Many people openly accept that Colorado is in Denver. Politicians use this logic all the time; citing some unrelated condition to lobby for increased military spending.

How can you have ethical reasoning when the business schools teach the benefits of operating like Machiavelli - (do unto others before they do unto you) ? I believe an ethics based society might happen some day, but not before mankind has evolved for another 500 years or so. (assuming we're still around)

Belmont: Current economic practices of large businesses is not competitive. They cooperate and therefore yield great profit margins. Look at the oil industries, they are not competitive. They cooperate and yield much greater profits than they did when they were in competition.

This type of business practice is illegal, because it is so effective.

Ethical Reasoning can be best illustrated in literature & film, IMO, where the nuances can be captured & explored. This is why I'm sad we lost the "classics" as a common base & steadily gone towards a gangsta culture. Perhaps the art forms followed the societal changes, but more violence and less civility seems to me to be steps in the wrong direction.

Anyway, when a professor or university selects their books, stories, and films for their courses... they are teaching ethics and ethical reasoning, in an indirect but powerful way.

I find it interesting that everyone wants to be treated ethically, but many people are opposed to learning how to make an ethical decision, and are opposed to having their children learn how to make an ethical decision.

junk, I think you've proposed a false dichotomy. It's not 'starve or steal,' it's 'stave or work'.

As for teaching ethical reasoning, I'm not against it, but in my psych classes in college, I thought we had alot of 'moral dilemmas' where false dichotomies were proposed, too.

In "the Heinz dilemma" there are only two alternatives--there is no 'set up payments for the medicine with the doctor', it's 'steal it or let your wife die'. In life, there are seldom only two courses.

hrench,

You are absolutely right, dichotomies are seldom an absolute in ethics. However, to identify extremes provides a mechanism for rating "that which can be identified".

The "Result Management" tool at mt211l.pbwiki.com is one such tool for evaluating the qualities and perceived steps in activating an environment to support a desired result.

Simply, dichotomies create parentheses around a perceived condition.

Junk, the "Result Management" tool you cited above is merely a tool to help project managers achieve their goals in an organised and efficient manner. It has nothing to do with dichotomies, false or otherwise. You seem to be defining dichotomy as two extremes used to define something, like saying EFGHIJ can be defined as "the letters from E to J". But this has nothing to do with the concept of a "false dichotomy". To properly respond to hrench's point, you could have said that the "starve or steal" dilemma was not intended as an example of a real-life ethical dilemma, but was rather a hypothetical dilemma intended to illustrate a theoretical point. Ditto for the Heinz dilemma. One of the problems with your advocacy of "Ethical Reasoning" is that your own reasoning skills seem so sketchy.

Surely by definition ethical reasoning implies there is only one right answer to an issue, because to have two different answers suggests the reasoning is flawed - especially if maths is coming into the equation. I apologise if I wrongly interpret it.

Isn't it better to get children to just talk about issues. I would like to see children talk in a group at school for an hour a day, every day, chaired by a teacher. Personally I think that would have a massive positive impact on the behaviour of young people.

If a classroom talked for an hour about bullies for example and were asked: why do some people bully? What do you think about bullies? How do victims of bullies feel? 20 minutes for each question. That is one example.

Several things will be achieved, first children are being encouraged to express their feelings and that is very important - a lot of problems in the world are by people who can only express themselves through anger. Everyone will be expected to speak - so shy children will be drawn in and dominant children will have to wait their turn. Everyone has a voice that counts, to get feelings into the open, to share with others.

In the context of the example I gave it will make bullies in that class look at themselves differently when one child after another expresses their opinion. It encourages empathy with others, to understand different points of view and to get underneath issues.

Thinking of others, understanding others, getting underneath the surface of issues, respecting other's opinions, empathising with others, thinking through issues, talking about the consequences of one's actions, putting problems in perspective by hearing what others say, sharing problems, talking about things that are familiar and new, talking about personal responsibilities and aspirations. This would in my opinion have the biggest impact in the behaviour of young people. Communication and understanding is the key peace.

Isn't this really about helping people to be nicer to each other?

I don't think teaching this as a theory is the way to make people better. People are blinded by the influences of their religion, parents and peers, by their experiences. Even a religion can lay out a clear foundation of how to treat others, but that can be completely ignored even by devout followers.

Most youth crime is by those who have been failed by the system. They have left school disenfranchised because school failed them, they feel they have failed and have learned to hate and resent the system Often they are from poor backgrounds and can see no future and no hope. Instead of going to college they are in gangs and getting in trouble with drugs and crime.

Ethical teaching is not going to do anything for these people.

To make the world a better place we need to find ways to make school a good experience for those who would fall through the system. We should take responsibility instead of blaming them. There is no excuse for gang warfare and drink and drug fuelled youth crime, but the cost of failing to draw them in is higher than just watching them turn to crime.

Without thinking too hard, what would would you do if a man's briefcase opened on the street and hundred's of $100 bills lay scattered? Would you help him pick them up or pocket a few for your beer... whatever your financial status!

I really don't suppose unethical people are involved in crime and ethical ones don't.

Yes I am sure most of us would steal 100 bucks if we needed too and they were just blowing around in the street from an open suitcase and we would find a moral justication. Killers mostly find a way to justify their actions and I'm not talking only about murderers, but those who support their government or an ally of their government killing innocents or those who live in luxury with computers and cars while others die of hunger. Where does ethical reasoning come in there?

We are all criminals in one way or another. The starting point is that we can all be better. I think the sort of ethical dillemas mentioned above are useful in encouraging empathy for problems others have to deal with and also as a warning sign against ever being in that situation.

Sadly the 'steal or die' dilemma is a very real one that faces many drug addicts, and too many must sell their own bodies or kill to get their next fix. Where has it all gone wrong? 10,000 Americans shooting each other dead each year.

Should we teach morals? Yes - from a very young age - You treat others with respect or you have no authority to expect or demand others to treat you with respect in return. Teachers should be expected to enforce respectful behaviour at school as they used to, because as much as it is the parents job, there are too many parents who don't give a damn.

Well said Professor! And children mimic their parents better than follow their orders. So the "Because I said so" addage does not work very well as against parents practicing their preachings. Quite often the criminals, drug addicts and other undesirable elements have one thing in common... broken homes!

In a lot of cultures, parents put up with a bad marriage for the sake of their children. But that is not to say that broken homes are the breeding ground for all future criminals...but it's a good starting point. Children need to see the commitment from their parents to truly understand values. Maybe then we will see some less shootings in schools to begin with.