BOAZ wrote, 'I often wonder what goes on in the mind of a person with no Godly reference point, when they are confronted by a very attractive opportunity to 'make money' 'enjoy a hot but illicit sexual liason' 'get back at someone' etc.. do we ask ourselves "Is this right" ..or "can I get away with this"....?'

This is a truly interesting question.

Equally interesting to me, what goes on in the mind of a person who DOES have a Godly reference point?

Not all Christians are ethical. Ray Williams, former head of HIH Insurance had a private chapel built at his home in Gwandalan. He is now serving three years in jail.

Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and George Soros are very rich men and apparently do not believe in God, http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Believer's%20Corner/meet_a_few_atheists.htm

While Gates has been criticised over some of Microsoft's business practices, he has not been criticised over his determination to donate the bulk of his wealth to making the world a better place, http://www.gatesfoundation.org/default.htm

It simply isn't the case that believers are ethical and non-believers are not.

Many if not most contributors to this site deride any contribution of philosophical study (and specifically ethics) to society. (Why?)

Thomas Nagel, in his classic 1974 paper, "What is it like to be a bat?" explored the difficulty of getting "inside" a totally different mind from one's own, http://members.aol.com/NeoNoetics/Nagel_Bat.html

Is there a way that I could "get inside" BOAZ's head and he could "get inside" mine?

BOAZ and I are far less different from one another than bats from humans. Although my parents were atheists, they brought me up in the Anglican tradition. Whether one believes or not, religion has an important place in most societies and it is helpful to have an understanding of it. (I won first prize in my scripture class in year 4.) I think I have a limited sense of what BOAZ feels.

But how can I share with him what I feel?

"I often wonder what goes on in the mind of a person with no Godly reference point, when they are confronted by a very attractive opportunity to 'make money' 'enjoy a hot but illicit sexual liason' 'get back at someone' etc.. do we ask ourselves "Is this right" ..or "can I get away with this"....?

Weeell Boaz_David, I usually avoid discuusions with people who 'know' in favour of those who don't 'know'. But you have sucked me in with this one.

The impudent inference in this statement is that people who believe that a virgin who was fertilised by a god and gave birth to a god who was killed and after three days rose from the dead, are more moral than those that don't.

I don't know how ethical you are but your belief system is unlikely to have any influence on it.

I don't believe in this myth and that is more likely to have a positive influence on my ethics.

How arrogant of you to presume that you are more ethical than me.

Pericles - Going back to your Friday post in which you responded to my questions - I don't think we are very far from each other on this subject.

I agree that a university course will not quickly change the deeply ingrained psychological behaviours of university students. I took philosophy subjects with people who openly said "I know what the professor wants on the exam, but that is not the way it works in the real world. It's dog eat dog out there and you have to do, what you have to do." No amount of argument could change their minds. Other students, though, were profoundly influenced by the rational discussion of what was right and wrong.

The biggest impact for me, though, was that it made me think about things I had not thought about before. I was about 17 and a half when I first went to University. Not much in my personality was "deeply ingrained psychological behaviour." Most of my decisions about right and wrong were taken without a great deal of thought. When I did start to think in a different way about ethical issues, it changed the way I made some decisions.

I think there are probably many students who would benefit from just thinking about ethics and ethical behaviour, simply because they have not thought about it much before. I also think it would be useful for University students to spend their time thinking about those kinds of complex issues, as opposed to thinking about vocational subjects. My argument is not that it is a cure for all society's ills. It is that rigorously teaching "about ethics" is a slightly better way to run a University

EricC

Excellent point. The study of ethics does give us the opportunity to re-examine the way we think about the world and our place within it. It also provides us with the skills to express our thoughts and values.

I have noticed that people who lack the ability to articulate effectively often resort to violence or verbal abuse (case in point this forum) - reducing violence alone is a worthy goal.

The best time for teaching ethics is in our formative years (up to the age of seven), however that doesn't mean ethics should then be abandoned, like other life skills they need to be a basic part of our education. Clearly your studies at age 17 had great impact, but I suspect you were open to new ideas, not everyone is so flexible.

I am puzzled by Pericles' POV on this - on other topics he is very erudite, that is why I thought he was playing devil's advocate. Will cast a more sceptical eye over his posts in future.

Thank you Eric - please keep the articles coming, clearly greater awareness is required, given the generally negative response by posters to OLO.

Eric, I think you may have crystallized the problem I have with your article.

>>I took philosophy subjects with people who openly said "I know what the professor wants on the exam, but that is not the way it works in the real world. It's dog eat dog out there and you have to do, what you have to do." <<

These people would be very likely to “pass” an ethics examination, agreed? After all, they are smart enough to know "what the professor wants".

The thrust of your article is that potential employers will be reassured by this.

“Make the students who are taking an ethics subject read the works of the great thinkers in the field and then do exams, do assignments and write papers that require a lot of thought and effort to get a passing grade. Let all employers know, and all Australia know, that by getting a university degree the student has taken at least one tough course in ethics”

The caveat I have tried to put on this position is to point out that the owner of this particular elephant stamp cannot be considered by a future employer to be more ethical than an individual who doesn't. In that sense – and in that sense only – the BCA has a point that the time may be better spent on more practical topics.

None of this in any way suggests that learning about ethics is a “bad thing”. If it changes lives in the way you describe it changed yours, then of course it has benefits. Any discipline that helps one think more clearly is never wasted.

>>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<<

The missing element here is how much reliance a company could put on this 'deep and critical' thought producing a more ethical individual. And I think we are at least agreed on the position that it doesn't, and cannot.

Sorry Pericles. I guess I didn't explain myself clearly enough. I didn't mean to say that because some people were unchanged by their ethics course experience, that nobody got any value out of these subjects or that nobody became more ethical. I strongly believe that people did and will become more ethical by thinking deeply about ethics. Not everybody to be sure, but a significant enough majority to make the time and effort worthwhile.

I certainly don't think that everybody who takes a University course comes away with a full and complete understanding of the subject that they just passed. I taught post graduate students who passed High school algebra but were mystified by the most basic algebraic concepts. I taught students who passed University chemistry who were not quite sure what an element was. I doubt if any University subject (including the ones I assume the BCA prefers) perfectly educates every student and never misses one.

Secondly, being able to, and being encouraged to, think deeply about a range of topics has value in itself, regardless of whether it makes you more ethical. I'd rather employ a student who had sat down and thought hard about the pros and cons of stem cell research, euthanasia or genetically modified crops than a student who had memorised a little more of the Federal tax code.