 |
| Exploring Character |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Membership
|
Letter to a Professor of CharacterSeptember 10, 2002 Dear --------: An interesting characteristic of eyesight is that there is no easily discernable boundary where it ends. Tests have been devised that bring the boundaries of vision to consciousness, but without ingenuity and effort the edges of vision are out of sight and out of mind. Such is also the case with unexamined premises. They assume an aura of validity simply because of their comfortable familiarity. That assumption is risky. Planning for one≠s very best future demands the ingenuity to avoid unexamined premises or the will to test them. Take, for instance, Sean Covey's analogy of gravity: Throw a book up in the air and it comes down. That is a natural law or a principle.In point of fact, scientists don≠t know what gravity is. True, gravity has been well described, but it has never been defined. Its effects are well enough understood to mathematically predict them. Theoretical models of gravity have been proposed. But what gravity actually is we really don≠t know. Gravity isn≠t a natural law or a principle; it is an empirically described effect. It is so much a part of our lives that we just assume that we know what it is. Not to let a good analogy go to waste, just as gravity hasn≠t been defined but its effects observed, moral principles haven≠t been defined, they have only been observed. Observation isn≠t enough. To describe anecdotal observations of morality in operation and then claim them to be universal because of simple repetition is to jump to a conclusion that doesn≠t stand up under scrutiny. That some moral principles are popular √ even ubiquitous √ doesn≠t make them core values. It doesn≠t prove their validity. And, more to the point, it doesn≠t explain why people should embrace them. Simply because an idea is popular doesn≠t make it universal, useful, or true. It only makes it popular. The world and its history are full of popular bad ideas. Refusing women equal rights is still a popular idea among hundreds of millions of people today. Separate but equal was a popular idea in large portions of our own country within living memory. It may be popular to believe that Elvis is still alive and that UFOs regularly visit Earth. Neither belief is universal and neither is necessarily true. Consider this example. "Majority rules" is frequently taught as a fundamental virtue of democracy. Actually, when majority rules, society risks the tyranny of the majority. Democracy≠s great virtue is that it allows for the possibility it just might be wrong. It provides for continuous re-evaluation. And it demands a civility that allows any one person the opportunity to convince others that there may be a better way of doing things. Simply saying something is true doesn≠t make it so. Quoting someone else saying something is true doesn≠t make it so. Even if many theologians and moral philosophers have long held that "there is a natural moral law inscribed on the fleshy tablets of the human heart", that observation is nothing more than poetic. No useful truth comes from the assertion. Take heart. Even if the specified premises are unsubstantiated, it turns out that the many good representations that make up the substance of Educating for Character don≠t need to depend on this particular foundation. A vehicle upon which to convey the principles of character education to others doesn≠t need a foundation in natural law but, rather, a consistent, repeatable foundation derived from the basis of each student≠s personal experience. Educating for Character takes the reasonable tack taken by formal Philosophy as it attempts to lay a groundwork based on capital-T Truths. Consider a person swimming in a storm-tossed sea. To try to save the swimmer, philosophers attempt to build a solid framework that reaches all the way from the surface of the roiling water to the solid ground at the bottom of the ocean. It≠s overkill and, as Godel≠s Theorem suggests, it may not be possible. Fortunately, all a storm-tossed swimmer really needs is to manufacture, from the tools at hand, a sturdy boat that floats √ a boat that can be lashed together with other boats. Civilization can be created. Our task is to make it obvious, easy, and compelling. To parody contemporary, irreverent television, "We don≠t need no stinking natural laws!" to manufacture a sensible framework for personal decision-making. We only need our senses, the ability to reason, and a little guidance from our own experience. Done right, it avoids that specter of subjectivism [We≠ll address this later.] The attractiveness of this approach is that it transfers easily across social boundaries, religious boundaries, economic boundaries, and cultural boundaries.
Regards |
|
||
|
