1
“Ethics is not a county in England”
A presentation to the Dialogue Australasia Conference
“Ethics & Spirituality – Towards a New Learning Dynamic”
Canberra April 18th 2002
Ki Ora.
Greetings, Ladies and Gentlemen, from Aotearoa, New Zealand.
I am Deborah Stevens and it is my privilege to represent New Zealand on the interim board of Dialogue Australasia.
An important aspect of preparing for this conference has been media coverage.
In the course of distributing information I was assertively informed by a journalist from one of New Zealand’s two national television channels that “Ethics does not make news.”
My response is that this conference is concerned with the need for ethical teaching in our schools and wider community, and that a lack of ethics certainly does make news.
On the day before I left to attend this conference, the leading news items in all our media included a baby being kidnapped at gunpoint from its parents, both high profile members of our justice system, and the apparently motiveless murder of a woman out for a morning walk. Then there was the acknowledgement by our Prime Minister that she should not have signed her name to an oil painting that she did not in fact paint, but of course she had “done it in the name of charity!” To quote the opposition spokesperson on Arts and Culture, Belinda Vernon, “Miss Clark’s actions speak volumes about her ethics and values.”
Last Friday I was interviewed on National Radio with respect to this conference and to the teaching of Ethics and Spirituality in schools. The producers and host of the programme were very interested in the topic and approached the NZ Ministry of Education to request that a spokesperson participate in the discussion.
Despite having several days in which to find someone, the Ministry responded to our National Radio on the Friday morning that “they could not find anyone.”
This response is, of course, open to interpretation, but it is nevertheless interesting that the Ministry did not want to, or could not, participate in a discussion on the teaching of Ethics in our state schools.
As a result of this interview, an independent financial advisor made contact with me. No, not because he thought that I was on the brink of a new and lucrative career in public speaking and he thought that I might need some financial advice, but rather because as a “trouble shooter” this gentleman is employed to investigate financial discrepancies within large corporations and he wished to share an observation. This gentleman has recently been involved in investigations into misappropriation of funds within various Government departments, including the Justice and Health Departments and the NZ Qualifications Authority. This gentleman’s feelings are that in our secular society business managers have moved away from ethical practice. If it is not against the letter of the law, then it does not matter whether an action is ethical or not.
But, before the New Zealander’s in the audience start to squirm and those of you with holidays booked for NZ reach to cancel them because of the rather bleak picture of NZ society that my introduction has painted, let me assure you that there is hope.
A representative from the NZ Government’s Ministry of Science, Research and Technology also contacted me last week. As a direct outcome of the Royal Commission on Genetic Engineering, the Ministry of Science, Research and Technology has been charged with developing the New Zealand Government’s Strategy on Bio-Technology and once formulated every Government department must adopt this strategy. As they prepare the strategy, the Ministry is undertaking a consultation process. What the ministry representative stated was becoming apparent and was “of concern” was “the strong indication that, particularly in State schools, ethics and values education is clearly lacking.”
(He then went on to issue an invitation to both Dr Peter Vardy and myself to participate in the consultation process, which we are to do next week.)
Clearly we are all participating in this conference because we are concerned for and interested in, the teaching of ethics and spirituality in our schools. To that extent the comments which follow may be “preaching to the converted”. This is, however, not my intention. At the close of this conference we will all return to our ‘normal’ lives and positions. We will be asked about the conference and many of us will be asked to justify our stand for the importance of this education. One of my objectives, then, is to offer argument for the inclusion of ethics, philosophy and spiritual education in our schools, while also looking at the implications of this.
So, let’s return to the comment that there is a lack of ethics and values education particularly in the state curriculum. Many state schools would refute this – and they would do so quite strenuously.
I suggest that all Australian and New Zealand schools talk of values education and valuing the development of the individual. However, many are unclear exactly what this means.
In refuting the claim that ethics and values education is clearly lacking, many schools would point to their programmes on bullying or discrimination, respect for property and the environment. While these are valid and extremely important issues, a values education programme that is restricted to such issues is inadequate. It is the minority of our schools that devote time to ethical reflection – to helping young people think deeply and well about the issues that they will face as adolescents and as adults when they leave school. All schools acknowledge that these issues matter but most are far less clear on how they should be addressed in the curriculum and even where they should be addressed.
I contend that there is a lack of ethical thinking and of ethical consideration within our community and within our schools and that this is at a time when we are facing significant challenges to the question of what it is to be fully human.
We can all acknowledge the rapid development in scientific technologies – particularly reproductive and medical technologies –, which have occurred over recent years. As a Physics teacher, I visualise this development on an exponential graph. When I began university in 1977 the Professor who introduced my first Zoology lecture, began by telling us what developments had occurred in our lifetime. – things such as the ball point pen and the bank card. In those days we programmed computers (which took up the area of a small office) by punching out cards with a bent hairclip. Kiwifruit were called Chinese Gooseberries; they only came with green flesh and they were very hairy!
Since that time, we have seen the birth of the World’s first “test tube” baby. Now thousands of children are delivered each year as the result of IVF programmes. Many thousands of embryos are deep frozen. Stem cells have been isolated. We can now grow human ears on the back of mice. We can now transfer pig cells to diabetics, there are cows containing human genetic material nonchalantly gnawing on pasture. Millions of dollars are being spent in Germany on research into nano-transplantation. Scientists have cloned mice, sheep and cattle and according to the New Scientist web site, Professor Antonori is claiming that a woman is now pregnant with the first cloned human embryo.
The pace of development and the application of new scientific technologies is not about to slow and there are ethical, social and legal ramifications.
In New Zealand, they talk of “Catching the Knowledge Wave” – yet here there is a knowledge gap. Few of us are truly aware of the pace of change, let alone equipped to rationally reason which practices should be embraced and which should be controlled. And if we are finding it difficult to cope with the pace of change, how much more difficult will it be for our young folk who are to inherit our society?
Educating our young folk to reason the ethical issues that they face is essential. Ethics should be included in the school curriculum.
BUT,
What are the implications of saying our curriculum must include ethics?
Clearly there must be acceptability to parents, teachers, politicians and decision-makers.
What do we mean by ethics?
What should we include in an ethics curriculum?
How do you teach ethics effectively?
What difference does having ethics in the curriculum make to the success of the students who come through that school?
That is, how do we know if we are successful?
Over the course of this afternoon, John Waters and I will address these questions.
Permit me to begin via my personal experience.
As you entered for this afternoon’s session you will have noticed the images playing on the screen. The student images are of Chilton Saint James School where I teach. Chilton Saint James is an Independent Anglican school for girls from preschool to Year 13. Chilton is situated in Lower Hutt, approximately 20 minutes out of Wellington, NZ’s capital city. Religious Studies, in the form of the five strands, is a compulsory part of the Chilton curriculum.
For a number years the Head of our Social Sciences Department, an ordained minister, taught every religious studies class from year 7 to Year 13. This was a tall order, especially when it came to report writing time! Her dedication to the task and her theological and philosophical knowledge were without question. However, the students were gaining a sense of the routine about RE and this was inhibiting their desire to be attentive and inspired. Aware of this she discussed with our Principal a radical revamp of the Religious Studies curriculum and presentation within the school. Not only were there to be changes to the material delivered to the students, but some new blood was to be brought into the teaching ranks in RE.
As teachers we all believe that our role is not simply to pass on academic knowledge, but is to help develop the whole person. We are all aware of the opportunities within the classroom to teach the value of integrity, of authenticity and the importance of being your word. There is always the opportunity to teach the values of co-operation, patience and tolerance. There are frequently opportunities within our disciplines to ponder the philosophical. In Physics, for example, there are things such as the speed of light and the enormity of an infinitely expanding universe; the Theory of Relativity, or Newton’s Law of Energy Conservation. (I confess that I begin each new year of Physics by playing a track from Monty Python’s “The Meaning of Life”.) However, with increasing pressure on curriculum content and the majority of subjects being outcome driven, there is an ever-limited amount of time to pause and reflect on such things. Afterall, it is unlikely that there is going to be a question inviting ‘your thoughts on the significance of Earth in an infinite universe’ in the state exam at the end of the year!
So, when I was approached to establish an Ethics course at the Year 12 level.
I was hugely enthusiastic.
I was also flattered and NAIVE. After all, how difficult could teaching ethics be?
As I sat down to prepare the outline for the course, the first question I impacted with was WHAT DO WE MEAN BY ETHICS? How do you define the term “ethics"?
My immediate mental picture was of lesson one day one when having welcomed them to “Ethics” a studious member of the class raises their hand
“Yes, Susan? - What exactly is ethics?”
“OH! OH!”
“Yes Lucy … No Lucy, ETHICS IS NOT A COUNTY IN ENGLAND!”
The dictionary defines “Ethics” as “relating to morals; treating of moral questions; rules of conduct”
“Morals” are defined as “concerned with the distinction between right and wrong” Reading around, it became apparent that the terms ‘Ethics’ and ‘Morality’ have come to be treated as almost identical in meaning (although as you may have read as you entered, they have different derivations.)
Now, some people think that morality is “out of date”.
To quote Singer, hey regard morality as a system of “nasty puritanical prohibitions” principally designed to prevent people from having fun.
And for a class of teenagers, fun linked with morals equals sex.
Mention “Morals/Morality” to a class of teenagers they leap instantly into SEX – they listen from thoughts of “Oh, you are going to tell us that sex before marriage is wrong”. They think promiscuity, pornography, homosexuality and so on.
So the first thing to say about ethics is that it is not a set of prohibitions particularly concerned with sex.
For other people, Ethics is an ideal – a system of short simple rules such as “Do not steal” “Do not lie” “Do not kill”. Of course, life is complex, not simple. In unusual situations simple rules conflict. To use the classic example, it may normally be wrong to lie, but if you were living in Nazi Germany and the Gestapo came to your door looking for Jews, it would surely be right to deny the existence of the Jewish family hiding in your attic.
So it is not surprising that those who hold the view that ethics is a system of short simple rules should also believe that ethics is irrelevant and not suited to life’s complexities.
For yet others, ethics is only intelligible in the context of religion because the very meaning of “good” is nothing other than “what God approves”. A with the very narrow way from which ‘religion’ is listened to in our secular society, it is easy to see how, for these folk, ethics can be easily dismissed.
I was to come up against these views, but remember, while I was heavily involved in the Pastoral Care and worship side of the school, I was coming into the teaching of ethics from my pure science background and Physics laboratory. So in my naivety and enthusiasm, I came at the teaching of ethics from an issues base.
My classes arrived; we set ground rules about participation, confidentiality and polite consideration of opinions that differed from our own and we discussed issues – abortion, surrogacy, euthanasia, animal rights, business and financial ethics. The student’s appeared to be enjoying the classes and engaging with the issues. However, when I enquired of students why they held a particular opinion the student’s responses were superficial and emotional. They were “gut reaction” – or to use Dr Felicity McCutcheon’s analogy, “they came from the belly”.
While the students were thinking for themselves, they were not necessarily “thinking well”.
Peter Singer says “Disagreement is good, because it is the way to a more defensible position”, yet on most occasions my students were not able to soundly defend their opinion.
I began to get a sense of those television advertisements for kitchen knives, - “BUT WAIT THERE’S MORE”! There had to be more than just emotion.
My students needed to be able to analyse presuppositions and assumptions and to really understand alternative perspectives to their own – not necessarily to agree with them, but to be able to acknowledge where differing beliefs stem from.
R.M.Hare in his book Moral Thinking, distinguishes two levels of moral reasoning – the everyday intuitive level and the more reflective critical level.
While I was identifying the distinction, I didn’t have the knowledge to assist my students with the critical, reflective level.
Meta-ethics involves defining and coming to an agreement about the key concepts involved in moral discussion. It requires standing back from the actual debate.
For example, consider the question:
Is it ever morally permissible to kill an innocent person?
Certain steps must be taken before we can answer this question from an ethical as opposed to a simply emotional perspective.
Firstly, what is meant by “Person”? Is a chimpanzee or a dolphin or your family pet a person? Is a two day old foetus a person? Is an anencephalic infant a person? Do “persons” command a special moral position – for example, should we respect the sanctity of their lives?
What is meant by “Innocent”? As Peter Singer points out, “many would say that it is not wrong to kill enemy soldiers in war, partly because soldiers are not innocent. Some would say that capital punishment is not wrong, because criminals are not innocent.”
Are there, then, degrees of Innocence?
What is meant by morally permissible? Some modern philosophers have claimed that words such as GOOD and BAD mean “I approve (or do not approve) of this kind of behaviour – that is, they are totally subjective judgements.
So, the meaning of ethical terms needs to be discussed.
It is also important that the origins of morality and your definition of morality are discussed. If by moral you mean “done in accordance with the word of God” then this must be made clear to someone who defines moral as “Whatever society agrees is moral”
As I prepared and experimented with the Ethics course that I was delivering at Chilton Saint James, I knew that I had some pages in the Book of Knowledge – there were a few chapters under a section entitled “What I Know I Know”.
Yet naturally, I understood that there were things that I didn’t know – there were pages in the book of knowledge that I hadn’t mastered yet which could be found in the section entitled “What I Know I Don’t Know”.