Subject: Re: [HAB:] Getting ethical (re: Sue, "Educational system")
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2004 22:01:39 +0100



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gary E. Davis" <coherings-AT-yahoo.com>


> Sue > An ethical sensibiity doesn't come naturally. It
> goes against people's natural instincts.
> 
> G: Well, I can agree that life is full of evidence
> that ethicality, if you will, is *apparently*
> counterintuitive or too difficult. It's easy to be
> cynical. But at least 3 kinds of consideration may be
> very worthwhile, re: an ethical naturalism.
> 
> 1. Supposing your children are wanted in the first
> place, it's natural to want to be a good
> parent---however much we may question what being a
> "good parent" IS (what young mother is confident about
> that?), and given that---given a natural instinct to
> be a good parent and keeping that instinct near to
> heart---good parenting is likely to result, because
> the instinct leads to a continuing learning process
> among mothers (classically from the mothers of the
> mothers) that tends to result in decent parenting.

You're a bit off, on this one. I would say that "being a
good mother" (in the 60s and 70s in Canada) involved
different things than being a good mother today. Beyond
breastfeeding - if that applies at all - I don't think very
much of mothering is all that natural. The concerns of
mothers of that time in history were different than today.
Then, it was about being there for the kid (among other 
things). Today, it's about being out there working and 
making sure your kid goes to the best school.


> But, of course, there are innumerable complexities to
> this, including what modernity has done to the lineage
> of good parenting across generations. Yet, modernity
> has also installed spheres of education processes that
> traditional (premodern) families didn't have access
> to. 
> 
> Anyway, a lot can be said for the claim that
> aspiration to good parenting is natural. I would argue
> that "the motherhood constellation" (Daniel N. Stern,
> Basic Books, 1995) is the basis for "empathy and moral
> development" (Martin L. Hoffman, Cambridge, 2000)
> 

You should tell that to the British government if you get
a chance.  Most reently - a couple of weeks ago, the state
decided that underage girls who got pregnant would no
longer have to have their parents' permission to have an
abortion. Doctors would be able to give twelve year olds
abortions, not only without their parents' consent, but 
without their knowledge.  Whatever was natural about
mothering - and indeed fathering - is being undermined by 
the state.



> 2. Given decent parenting and regular access to
> ethical example (within family, extended family and
> neighborhood), children will prefer to be good rather
> than bad. This is a very simple way of putting a long
> story, but let that simple statement stand for a
> possibly endless inquiry into how ethical sensibility
> really forms. In fact, most children who are raised in
> decent families turn out to have a decent ethical
> sensibility. 
>

I can't agree with that. children have to learn first
about our society, and also learn how to think for
themselves - and how to think in an ethical manner
whether they actually continue with it or not. 

 
> So, I would argue that it's natural to become
> generally ethical in one's life, given decent
> parenting and access to ethical example. I like
> Philippa Foot's sense of "natural goodness" (Oxford,
> 2001).
> 

Parents are problably the worse to try and teach their
children about ethics.  All parents make mistakes while
parenting, and so the personal aspects of the child/
parent relationship could actually hinder personal
development of the child. In my view the child needs
to get away from such close relationships in order to
develop.

> 3. Then come issues of social gardening, if you will:
> What it is about neighborhoods, schools, etc. that
> supports and fosters our ethical nature. Relative to
> this, we can make sense of the failures, dysfunctions,
> distortions, and dominations that motivate social
> critique, justify the social work profession, and the
> like. 

The socialwork profession is like any other.  People
are in it for themselves, for others, for the money,etc.
What is it about the community that makes people
behave unethically?

> 
> -------------------------------
> 
> G> > So, what happens to human development that ruins
> or retards ethical sensibility?  
> 
> S> Or, what happens to the person, outside the
> abstract notion of "human development".  
> 
> G: Right: The notion of "human development" is a very
> general rubric for what is important in ordinarily
> lived (and termed) processes of family life,
> education, and local culture. 
> 

I see it more in terms of life cycle development - how
we change throughout our lives, and as we experience
social change, so, more in terms of being older, and 
perhaps in terms of facing retirement, decline and death, 
and not so much about childhood.  I am particularly
interested in sexuality, however, particularly among
the young, whose experience is just so different than
members of my own cohort - and of course among
adults, where the intersection of ethics, consent, and 
sex will probably never be resolved.

Sue McPherson



> -------------------------------
> 
> G>> But to those who are undecided between living
> ethically and living ruthlessly (e.g., teens
> formulating their preferences), there's lots to be
> said for living ethically. 
> 
> S> I don't know if adolescence is a bit early for
> someone to decide to live ethically. 
> 
> G: It is not too early. Indeed, concerns about good
> and bad, right and wrong are quite relevant for very
> young children, who are exploring what it means to be
> "me". "Little Sue (or little Gary) is someone
> who......."  And the parent says, in effect, in so
> many ways: "You don't do *that*; here's who you are."
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> S> I said it's [i.e., being ethical is?] a decision,
> but I think that, in part, it comes out of life
> experience and might also be seen as not really a
> choice. There may not be another way forward,for that
> person, at least not one recognised.
> 
> G: I can agree. Growing up is a mix of chance and
> choice, what feels right and what is learned to be
> right. Over countless scenes, general dispositions
> toward typical issues settle in. Also, we may learn to
> me more deliberate about what we do, relative to
> what's important or controversial, and this leads into
> later capacities for discernment in reflection about
> what "we" do or what "I" have done or may do. 
> 
> Thanks for your interesting comments about schooling
> in England. 
> 
> Gary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


     --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---