Proposition One: teaching university students about ethics will have a positive impact on the community.

Proposition Two: if parents brought their children up properly, they would have a firm grounding in ethics before attending university.

The evidence for Proposition One does not exist. It is purely theoretical.

The evidence for Proposition Two is that parents who bring their children up badly tend to disadvantage them ethically.

Dr. Fraser Mustard, President of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, asserts that "the evidence is overwhelming ... These problems are set before the kids hit the educational system. The wiring of the neurons of the cortex - that is, the cerebral cortex - occurs within the first three years. If you receive bad nurturing in that period you're not as well equipped".

Claus' article suggests that we embrace Proposition One, despite the fact that it is impossible to validate in any meaningful manner. Just believe, we are told, that lectures and workshops will make the world a better place.

The incorporation of ethical studies within - for example - Business Studies at UTS (thank you Scout for the reference)is summarised by its promoters as follows:

"Although it is too early at this point in time to demonstrate the benefits of taking an integrated approach to the teaching of business ethics with business law at UTS, the success of this enhanced subject cannot be doubted. Its success is evident in the high level of student engagement in discussion of the moral issues associated with commercial activity and the clear willingness of the students to probe into the more difficult dilemmas that arise for corporate leaders"

Doesn't this "evident success" seem a little, shall we be charitable, less than completely evident?

"Although it is too early to tell whether Cooma Under thirteen reserves will make an impact on the AFL, the success of their inclusion in the league cannot be doubted. Its success is evident in the high level of activity on the field, and the clear willingness of the students to ruck and rove with the champions"

Activity as evidence? Not a good look.

As MikeM has already taken pains to point out, I'm a little slow, so I only just worked out that "ericc" is in real life the author of this piece – hi Eric.

Let me see if I can summarise my position a little more coherently for you.

Ethics are essentially behavioural traits, not intellectual. And while I accept that most emotional/behavioural instincts are learned (and by definition can therefore be unlearned), I cannot see that tertiary education is the way to achieve this. This is akin to attempting group psychotherapy in a classroom environment.

Surely, by the time a student reaches university, unlearning these behaviours would require a process closer to cognitive-behavioural therapy than the lecture hall or the tutorial.

You ask whether I believe that it is possible to “learn” ethics after the age of twelve?

Of course it is, we never stop learning.

You ask whether I believe that it is possible to learn more about ethics than that learned at mother's knee?

Of course it is. But does "learning about" lead to doing, in a behavioural sense? Not necessarily.

You ask whether I believe that teaching “about ethics” at University is useless?

Not in the sense that any exercise that causes a student to use their brain is a good thing, no, it isn't useless. My contention is however that it will not make any one of those students “more ethical” than they were when they came into the class. More aware, more knowledgeable, perhaps. But not more ethical.

You ask whether I agree with the BCA on their approach, more trade/business/accounting/finance vs “thinking subjects” etc.?

No, I think uni students should be encouraged to use their brains at every opportunity. But I question the implication that because they can now “think for themselves about complex issues”, they will automatically become more ethical.

You can lead a horse to water....

I'm not sure that this helps, except to highlight that you believe that university can beneficially influence deeply ingrained psychological behaviours, and I don't.

My problem with ethics taught is that the ethicists become a slave to a mode of thinking, dependant on just another bunch of "fashionable rules of thought" rather than natural human choice.

What happens to people who are affected by ethical decisions which they find deeply offensive in reasoning?

Also its a waste of time money and uni time. What ever the ethical stance is on iran or usa and nukes for example, what will happen will happen regardless. If it does, one can only hope it is quick and efficient and that our preffered side wins.

Judy, er, Pericles (thanks, BOAZ) presents a proposition:

* teaching university students about ethics will have a positive impact on the community *

... then mistakenly debates with himself, thinking it the subject of the thread. Since it has nothing to do with the proposition that Eric Claus put in his original article ("If an ethics subject were rigorous, the BCA and Australia would be getting graduates who knew how to think deeply and critically about complex issues") we can only assume that Judy is not interested in debating issues other than those that he invents himself.

Judy, do us a favour.

Go to your room, dear boy. Shut the door. Turn out the light. Lie down. Now mis-debate with yourself.

That would be more polite than doing it in public. It would also save Forum bandwidth and allow the rest of us to get on with constructive discussion...

Meredith,

Your linked post on live sheep export vs possibility of achieving a less ambitious but more realistic goal is an excellent example of thinking deeply about critical issues.

There is no possibility of converting the whole Australian population into vegetarians. The live sheep trade is particularly cruel. By focusing on that, rather than meat-eating in general, can we achieve something? Could we, as an army general might say, successfully climb the foothills before attempting to conquer the mountain?

Your last post criticising 'just another bunch of "fashionable rules of thought" rather than natural human choice' is not criticising what was originally proposed. Claus's intent is to encourage critical thinking, not mindless application of rules of thumb.

To give a specific example: Muslim societies, like Jewish ones, have specific rules about ethical slaughter. There are Australian Halal slaughterhouses, so why can't sheep be slaughtered here?

Practical reason: Cool stores where meat can be safely stored are scarce in many Muslim countries. In Iraq, after the Coalition of the Willing has been so helpful, electricity supply is so dodgy that even those that exist are not much use.

Engineers introduced to the ethical complications might come up with neat technical solutions.

Mike,

Better yet, dump the Middle East all together for our sales of slaughtered carcass, Malaysia will buy them frozen. We never sold to Israel anyway, they are capable of growing grass and inventing fridges all for themselves.

Sorry if it bothers you im slightly off topic on what was originally proposed, but it is a free country and one can drift in conversation. (Pericles as well is free to)

Ethics at uni produces in general a bunch of bulling drones and time wasters… I’m sorry I just don’t agree it’s doing good over bad… there isn’t enough lack of left/pc self interest in the Uni’s these days for much free thinking at all.

Did you see the debate between Andrew Bolt and the RMIT?

It’s a big d/load if you are on dial up, if your interested I’ll go get it for you… the main point I took away from it, was RMIT claimed have both “left and right”(for want of a better word) “education” on offer and Bolt proved they didn’t

Good grief MikeM, you really do clutch at straws.

If the objective of teaching ethics is not to have a positive impact on the community, what is the point? That this particular piece addresses business training is merely one angle of many.

Still, I suppose it did enable you to get in a schoolboy pun on masturbation - my, how you must have laughed!

It is good to know that you play the same sneering games on other forums as well. I particularly liked the response from SmilingPolitely earlier today...

"MikeM: You know... I half-expected you to actually engage in a debate or address the points raised. Alas not. Please allow me to surreptitiously act superior [posts a lot of links, scratches chin and nods wisely in imitation of intellectuals, poses question to others instead of actually making or responding to a point or issue raised]"

Captures you perfectly.

It must take a lot of effort to be so sad.