runner: "Whose ethics do you suggest?"

That seems like a genuine question runner, so I have a go at answering it.

Underlying it is an assumption that ethics are arbitrary things, meaning that anyone can write down a set of rules and call them their ethics. Certainly that does happen. The Bible, the Koran, our system of law, and Hitler's justification for the Holocaust are all examples of it. If you look at ethics purely in that light it does become a question of whose you adopt, or perhaps of whether you invent your own.

However there is another way of deriving ethics - or at least some of them. There are some things most of we humans can universally agree on. Take the rule of thumb "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you". I think (although I have never checked), this rule is accepted as a good one by just about people in all cultures. Collect a few of these universal rules of thumb, combine them with mathematical rigour and you can start building up a moral code.

This is (I hope) the sort of ethics being talked about here. It has lots of holes - it doesn't about what sort of sex priests can engage in, how we should handle global warming or a whole host of other issues. But can it can tell us simple things like stealing is wrong and rape should be punished.

Although simple, moral codes derived in this have one huge advantage over those from the Bible, Koran, Confucius and any other "arbitrary" source: we can agree on them. Yes they are incomplete, perhaps in your view hopelessly so. But because they are incomplete we don't end up in fights over cows being sacred, serving fish on Fridays or whether you should play football on Good Friday. If we are going to force ethics down the throats of kids in a multicultural society like ours, these are probably the only ones we could all actually stomach.

More interesting comments.

While I'm still quite taken with the idea of a basic introductory philosophy subject that could incorporate elements of comparative religion, critical reasoning, ethics etc, the scope of such a subject would necessarily be somewhat broader than could be delivered in an hour a week during Scripture/RE time. Also, such a course should also be available to children of religious parents - and I doubt that there's room in the curriculum for such a subject without the abolition of something else to make way for it. Of course, we could do away with Scripture altogether and reduce sport/PE - but I can't see that happening anytime in the foreseeable future.

A trial of a one-hour ethics unit for non-religious students to coincide with Scripture/RE therefore still seems to me to be a good idea, and I'll be following its implementation with interest.

As for stevenlmeyer's assertion about cricket and ethics - on the basis of some of the stuff he posts here the ethics that he derived from playground cricket leave a fair bit to be desired, I'm afraid.

runner: << Whose ethics do you suggest? >>

Certainly not yours on the basis of your comments at OLO, which are possibly the poorest manifestations of Christian ethics that I encounter regularly. Fortunately, fundamentalist Christians don't have a monopoly on ethics and morals, as you might know if you had been exposed to a basic philosophy subject of the kind that some people have suggested here.

They've moved away from studying humanities and arts subjects and trended towards instrumental choices like business, IT and any number of mickey mouse and narrowly-based vocational streams.'

When I was at university, it was the humanities and arts subjects that were considered the 'Micky Mouse' subjects.

I think stevenlmeyer is right. Look at the goings on about teaching history, and apply that to ethics.

Left wing or right wing ethics?

I think Cricket SHOULD be taught. So many life lessons are to be learned in cricket.

The game where a younger player pits his physical superiority
against the older player's guile and experience.
Where a 50 year old can dismiss a 20 year old and vice versa.
Where you can be given out wrongly, and are taught to cop it on the chin and walk off.
Where you are even encouraged to 'walk' when the umpire errs in your favour.
Where mental toughness often trumps superior skill.
The game of endurance, concentration, tactics and teamwork.
Where you can shine even when others around you fail,
and where you sometimes fail when all around you shine.
Where you can bowl slow or fast, hit the ball hard or 'tickle' it and nudge it around.
Where pressure is built slowly and methodically, and broken by the fearless.
Where fortune favours the brave!
Where the line between courage and stupidity, and bravery and recklessness is thin.
Where the player who knows his game and plays within his limitations often prevails.
Where patience and perseverance is rewarded.
Where you can make a lucky 50 when playing badly and an unlucky 20 when playing brilliantly.
Where you can toil away for hours for one wicket, or have 5 handed to you on a platter
Where the elements change over 5 days, with the condition of the ball, the pitch, the weather, or
the toss of a coin bringing luck or adversity.
Where you're only as good as your last innings.

H,
Most of your argument had nothing to do with ethics. If my memory is correct he isn't a big fan of sport.
I doubt that was what Steven was talking bout anyway.

Runner, what ethical guidelines do you think were used before the supposed arrival on earth by the Creator's son, who apparently is the only one able to give us sinners any ethical values?

If mankind was running around being extremely unethical and amoral all over the earth before we were apparently 'enlightened' by the new Christian religions, then I doubt the human race would have survived!

But then again, many people like you completely ignore any other source of ethical or moral human values that do not believe in exactly the same things as you do!

I too like "cricket" or competitive sport played by a group of people according to a set of rules and ethics agreed to by the majority in advance.

Not all sport is practiced "ethically" of course though and I recall one "mate" in p.s., a lefty, who made an art form of attempting to intercept short balls and hook them at both high degree and speed in the direction of any wicky who had the "temerity" to stand too close.

Cross seam cut backs from outside off aimed for the ribs and throats of opposition schools on volatile WA turf pitches with a new ball was also considered good sport by some. I could go on but alas I digress ..

In this regard, as opposed to divisive some do and some don't religious studies, cricket/a practical competitive activity practiced "ethically" is too me a good thing.

But my memories of primary and high school are that we already did copious amounts of p.e. and sport.

Is not what we are discussing here the potential redressing of an arguable deficiency in the curriculum and the elimination of a divisive practice?

My view, as some are aware, is that indoctrinating children with religion of any description is wrong period and the practice in schools should be banned by the various states.

So, CJ, when you say:

" ... A trial of a one-hour ethics unit for non-religious students to coincide with Scripture/RE therefore still seems to me to be a good idea, ... "

I can only partially agree I suppose it is better than nothing. If we are to have an overall harmonious society then there should be a base line which is acceptable to the majority, as learnt by shared and applied practice.

I am personally not opposed to a "Law and Ethics" unit which includes a glancing appraisal of the world's religions comparatively, provided it is not performed by religious practitioners, and is treated with the same qualified professional degree of analysis and critique pre-delivery that any other subject on the curriculum is.