Who’s to Blame
One night, a few years ago, I was watching television with two of my younger brothers. As I flipped through the stations I could not help but notice that on every channel was an interview of our President, Bill Clinton. The discussion was about President Clinton’s involvement with another women. They questioned him if he had “oral sex” or “committed adultery” with Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern. Neither of my brothers commented at the time on what they saw or heard but I just started to imagine what could be running through their heads. “Well if the President can, why can’t I cheat and lie?”
This, just one of many, is an example of how a child’s morals may be misguided. A young child may be looking at the wrong person or people as role models. If the situation rose in which a kid has the chance to cheat on a test will he? Would that child realize what he is doing wrong when people like the president are committing acts that may give that child the wrong impression on what is the right thing to do? These are just some questions that may be brought up on the topic that schools are teaching children bad morals.
Many people say that schools are not to blame for children holding bad morals. Some may ask, “Is it the schools responsibility to teach children good morals or is it the parents job?” Some parents are “too easy” on their children. In today’s world most parents defend their children rather than punish them. For example, a child is caught doing drugs or alcohol, and instead of the kid receiving a punishment from the police, his parents hire a lawyer and find loop holes in the system to “get the kid out” without a punishment. This proves to kids that although they did something wrong they can get out of it so it’s no big deal, bad morals.
Another problem that rises is that in today’s schools teachers can not use any type of a faith or religion as a guideline for morals. Today’s laws prohibit teachers from teaching religion in public schools. Teachers are also told not to involve personal feelings in their teaching. It is very difficult for teachers to teach about morals without involving what they feel is the “correct way to act.” Some parents ask, “who are they to say what is right way for my child?
McNeel, S. (1994). College teaching and student moral development. In J. Rest, & D. Narvaez (Eds.), Moral development in the professions: Psychology and applied ethics (pp. 27-49). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Some very good ways to instill proper morals into children is to be a positive role model from the very beginning to them. Take the time out to show them what is considered right and what is considered wrong. Some methods of teaching children good and positive morals are being lost in this modern day and age, such as going to church, or sitting down together and sharing a meal. Why is this happening? Simple, parents of today are forced into having both parents work because it is no longer a one-paycheck life style. Mother's once were able to stay at home and tend to the family...
Parent's religion motivates parents to avidly implant morals in their children through maintaining open and continuous communication between themselves and their children. Parents in the past have been more interested in reading a book or finding on the Internet the "proper parenting methods" rather than just getting to know their kids by communicating with them and finding out the things that are on their kids minds. When the parents keep a connection with their children as binding as communication, they are less likely to find themselves not knowing what to do when their children begin to change their perspectives and desires. They develop a trust level between their children as well as gaining authority due to their children's respect towards them without them having to demand it (Stolzenberg 1995).
“Once a teacher has identified an opening in the curriculum for exploring a moral value, the next step is to plan an effective lesson or unit around that value. That means selecting good materials (Lickona, 1991, p. 170)”. I feel this book is exactly that, a riveting story that can expose students to great moral values.
By the 1950’s, Americans began to grow concerned about the morality of their children, especially since “the common school inculcates all Christian morals; it founds its morals on the basis of religion; it welcomes the religion of the Bible.”3 School boards across the region began to investigate ways to teach moral...
Consequentialism and deontology are two different theories concerning with morality. Consequentialism believes in the concept of the end justifies the means. On the other hand, deontology does not believe in the concept of the ends justifies the means. It believes that right actions are defined by duty. Deontology is the opposite of consequentialism when it comes to moral ethics, making it the better approach.
This is how I feel the issue of teaching morals and ethics to today's children should be dealt with in America. There must be a complete overhaul of the school system we have in place, or a remarkable change of heart of many people whom have been fighting for centuries over minor differences in religious teachings. Otherwise, there will be no other way to ensure that children in America are growing up with a sense of values, which will allow them to make a difference in tomorrow's world.
Today I will be interviewing Baumeister, Gilligan, and Piaget who are some of the most influential psychologists in the field of moral development. I will be interviewing these three so and I have three critical questions in the field of moral development that I would like each to answer. I will then conclude with a brief summary of the similarities and differences between the psychologists I have interviewed.
One of the most persistently asked and perpetually unanswered questions in psychology is the question of morality. What is it, how does it develop, and where does it come from? A basic definition of morality is “beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior” (Merriam-Webster). Based on the definition, the question then becomes even more complicated; How do people decide what is right and what is wrong? Research has examined this from many different angles, and two distinct schools of thought have emerged. One centers on the Lockian idea of children as blank slates who must be taught the difference between right and wrong and what it means to be moral, while the other espouses a more Chomskian perspective of a preset system of basic rules and guidelines that needs only to be activated. So what does this mean for humans and humanity? Are we born tabula rasa or are we born with an innate sense of good and evil? For those researching this topic, the question then becomes how to most effectively theorize, experiment and interpret human morality.
Morality is defined as “neither mysterious nor irrational but furnishes the necessary guidelines for how we can promote human welfare and prevent suffering” (Fisher 134). Moral relativism suggests that when it comes to questions about morality, there is no absolute right and wrong. Relativists argue that there can be situations in which certain behavior that would generally be considered “wrong” can also be considered “right”. The most prominent argument for moral relativism was posed by a foremost American anthropologist, Ruth Benedict, who claimed that absolute morality does not exist because cultures and individuals disagree on moral issues and because of these differences, morality cannot be objective (Benedict). For example, in the United
One of my recent classes was on “Ethics and Social Policy in Human Services”. The second half of this course was focused on ethical decision-making in human services, using case studies to identify the ethical principles and implications revealed in each. In one specific case study presented for discussion, Ann is a licensed social worker at a non-profit human service agency whose primary duties include counselling individuals and small groups. Ann has a client, Jasmine, who attends therapeutic group sessions twice weekly with Ann because her two year old daughter had been placed in foster care due to maltreatment and “failure to thrive”. These sessions are court ordered by the local child protective service agency in order to regain custody of children. Jasmine confided to her case worker (not Ann) that she is positive for the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV positive), and someone informed Mary, the executive director of the agency. Mary becomes angry and asks Ann to speak privately with Jasmine to persuade her to tell the other clients in her therapy group that she is HIV positive. Jasmine is also a Type II diabetic, and uses a glucometer in the bathroom at the agency during breaks. Mary feels Jasmine is putting the staff and clients at risk by pricking her finger to test her glucose level. Mary, who is not a trained counselor or social worker, also thinks it would be therapeutic for Jasmine and the other clients if Jasmine shared her HIV status (Herlihy & Corey, 2006).
Harm reduction has become an important concept in substance use treatment and policy in the last few decades, as the United States has increasingly been adopting these policies in a number of different areas (Van Wormer & Davis, 2013). As these policies continue to grow in prevalence, it is important that such practices can be justified through research evidence and ethical principles. While there is debate in the field as to whether or not harm reduction is truly neutral of value judgments (Miller, 2005), chemical addiction professionals must be involved in the ongoing discussion of harm reduction and its relationship to ethics. As this paper will illustrate, there is a large amount of disagreement concerning how direct service professionals, researchers, and policy-makers should understand the values of harm reduction, there are differences in opinion about the role of ethics in harm reduction, there are ethical concerns related to each concept and its implementation, and more needs to be done to unify the voices involved in the discussion of ethics in harm reduction.
What is morality? What is being moral? Is it just being able to make the decision from right and wrong making the right decisions from good and bad? There are many great philopshers who had their own ideas on morality. Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, Aristotle and Virginia Held all had different ideas and or approaches to resolving ethical problems. Though each of them differs from each other they each have their own positive and negative attributes.
Ethics can be defined broadly as a set of moral principles or values. Each of us has such a set of values, although we may or may not have clearly expressed them. It is common for people to differ in their moral principles and values and the relative importance they attach to them. These differences reflect life experiences, successes and failures, as well as the influences of parents, teachers, and friends.
Is morality relative? Ruth Benedict and James Rachels have opposing views on this conroversial question. Benedict, "a foremost American anthropologist who taught at Columbia University" (Pojman 370) believes that morality is relative to one's culture and that one's behavior which is deemed moral or immoral is dependent upon cultural norms. Her argument is as such: