I just got done sitting through the first of many lectures for the Spring 2006 semester – this one was for my Education Law & Ethics class, aka – EL401.
The sum-up of the class has to do with the ethics of educators… of course, someone asked for a definition of ethics: the class definition came out sounding something like this…
“Ethics are like values. But they’re different for everyone, depending on what you value. It’s like what you would do & what you wouldn’t do, almost like a moral code. Ethics are personal, because they reflect each persons viewpoints…”
The best part was our ethical exercise:
If the school I work at was struggling for money, would I, as the main administrator, accept a large sum of money from a local business to run the necessary programs to help the school succeed? Then, if it was a bar, would I still accept the money? A strip club? An organization with ties to political parties?
The consensus of the class was that these future educators will do anything for money, & would have no problem accepting money from any organization… even the political party donors could be navigated around by simply giving “equal time” or the “opposing view” to other political organizations.
The only group that the class felt it would be unethical to take money from? The church – because “you can’t mix church and state,” (love than argument,) & also because “churches push their own agendas on people.” Interesting stuff. I thought of the radical fideists & Brintus’ struggles with mislabeling…
If it came right down to the bottom line, it would be interesting to hear how they defend any ethics at all. If ethics are an individual matter, why are your ethics any better than Hitler’s?
They sound pretty naive if they don’t think that strip clubs, gambling casinos, and other organizations of that sort don’t have their own agendas to push. I’m sure the gambling industry has plenty of lobbyists.
I had fun in my small group pursuing a similar line of “situational/personal ethics” examination. The “church agenda” seems to be the most offensive, however. We didn’t get to the WHY behind that offensiveness… businesses with an agenda, however sordid, are preferable to the perceived bigotry and judgmentalism found in the church…
The church and state are separated?
It’s kind of scary to think of how successfully people have been brainwashed.
It still astounds me how far from truth our country has traveled. I know Jesus warned us this would happen (“they hated me, they’ll hate you too”) but its disturbing nonetheless.
man, i wish i was in your class. when i took 401, the most interesting discussion we had was what to do if a teacher across the hall suffers from narcilepsy.
the one thing that sounds similar to your class and mine is the fact that my outlook on the future of our country was irreparably damaged as i realized the idiots i was surrounded by were going to be teaching the next generation of americans. except for libby, he was in that class (by in class i mean on the roster)
The separation of church and state argument is one that is particularly exciting to engage in. Ask someone who claims to believe in a separation of church and state what they think about gay marriages and watch them all of a sudden be okay with the church and the state being one–because the entire argument behind that the opposition of gay marriages is a “church” argument… The “sanctity of marriage”? Now that’s a church term if I ever heard one. This is not to take sides, but more to point out a flaw in the argument behind the separation of church and state, just one example where people contradict themselves on the issue…