Dear Runner,
First of all, before I begin with my list of sources that might help
you, I want to give some general comment on college term papers and
the such. Your teachers are not expecting you to write the next
Pulizer/Noble Prize winning essay. All they want is to see that you
can form a clearly stated argument on a subject (usually tought in
class or related to what have been tought in class), using their
guidelines for an essay-structure, and grounding your theories with
others' theories (i.e. not making them up and searching for them in
the library, database, etc.).
I don't know what your guidelines are, but the usual structure of an
essay is to begin with an introduction (what is this essay about, what
is the question, how are you going to discuss it); followed by
argument I; then argument II; then a comparison between the two; and
then a conclusion (and here's a small tip: in most social sciences and
humanities, there is no "one" theory that is solely right and covers
the whole area. In other words, after comparing between the two
theories, you might suggest that some elements of I and some elements
of II could be combined).
Now for YOUR essay. The statement above claims in my opinion three
things:
(1) Morality is not inherited.
(2) Morality should be tought.
(3) The way to teach morality is "deliberate instructions".
The strength of each of the conclusions for your essay varies
according to the theme of the class. The heart of your essay, anyway,
can be divided into six parts - for and against (1), (2) and (3).
Here you might want to see some suggested material on the questions
raised on (1), (2) and (3):
(1) Is morality inherited? (and what is morality)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10559a.htm - Catholic Encyclopedia
(1911)
http://www.dis.org/daver/anarchism/kropotkin/anmoral.html Anarchist
Morality
by Peter Kropotkin (1897)
http://www.uwichill.edu.bb/bnccde/_e&ae/ph19b_divinecommand.htm -
Grounds of morality: divine commands (2000)
http://www.midwestoutreach.org/journals/legislating.html Legislating
Morality: Why Everyone is Doing it/Frank Turek (a non-scientific
Christian magazine)
Search terms in Scirus -
http://www.scirus.com/search_simple/?frm=simple&query_1=morality+inherited&wordtype_1=all&dsmem=on&dsweb=on&hits=10
(2) Teaching morality:
Henry, Patrick. Is Morality a Non-Aim of Education? Philosophy and
Literature 22.1, April 1998
Lyons, John D., Upon What Authority Might We Teach Morality?
Philosophy and Literature 22.1, April 1998
Hall, Michael L. What Are We Teaching About Morality by Not Teaching
Morality?, Philosophy and Literature 22.1, April 1998
Brann, Eva T. H. When Does Amorality Become Immorality ? Philosophy
and Literature 22.1, April 1998
Mearsheimer, John J. Mearsheimer's Response: "Teaching Morality At the
Margins" Philosophy and Literature 22.1, April 1998
google search - ://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=teaching+morality
scirus search - http://www.scirus.com/search_simple/?frm=simple&query_1=teaching+morality&wordtype_1=all&dsmem=on&dsweb=on&hits=10
(3) "deliberative instructions" - I found no referrence in that term,
but:
Teaching medical ethics: a review of the literature from North
American medical schools D W Musick, Med Health Care Philos, Feb 1999
Truth, Politics, Morality: Pragmatism and Deliberation , by Cheryl
Misak - www3.oup.co.uk/mind/hdb/Volume_110/ Issue_439/pdf/1100796.pdf
Naciye Aksoy, University of Cincinnati EDUCATORS’ BELIEFS ABOUT
ETHICAL DILEMMAS IN TEACHING: A RESEARCH STUDY AMONG ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
TEACHERS IN TURKEY http://employees.csbsju.edu/jmakepeace/Perspectives99/f18Aksoy.html
http://www.scirus.com/search_simple/?frm=simple&query_1=deliberative+instruction+ethics&wordtype_1=all&dsmem=on&dsweb=on&hits=10
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=deliberation+morality
You can also use your class' notes, or books in the library. Many
libraries also have database of academic articles such as JSTOR,
ProQuest, or Muse. You should ask your librarian for instructions, but
basically its like searching the net.
I hope that helped. Please contact me if you need anything else. |
Clarification of Answer by
politicalguru-ga
on
15 Jul 2002 08:25 PDT
Dear Runner,
Presenting an argument (for example, in debate) is sometimes very
similar to writing a paper on the subject, only better - it is more
important that you'll write scientifically, but you can use everyday
language when presenting orally.
Your argument, basically, is that not only that we don't receive (or
inherit) our morals with our mothers' milk, but that they should be
tought deliberatively. The opposite argument could be one of two. The
first is, that we are born with our morals. This is relatively easy to
rebuff. You can claim that morals are developed in a person's life,
with his experiences and lessons. That is one of the reasons why the
law regards minors' deviance in other terms from that of adults. The
other argument is, that people learn from their experiences, not from
something deliberately tought. Here you must argue that some hard
morals must be tought, because the life conditions under which one
would encounter them are matters of life and death. For example -
morals regarding hate crimes, lately a popular issue in public speach.
Should we wait until people commit a hate crime or become victims of
one that they'll understand its meaning and immorality? BTW - and
that's a second argument for you - some people won't learn even if
they become victims of a hate crime - their conclusions would be
different (for example: expressions of racism and revenge against the
agressor's side). Another good example are morals that have been
developed in the 20th century, with the development of the concepts of
human rights. These ethical standards, for example, the emancipation
of women, have been for centuries - before someone decided they are
important to be deliberately tought - neglected or mocked at.
For bibliography, I suggest you'll use the _Philosophy and Literature_
22.1, April 1998 issue. It's a special issue about teaching morals (is
it possible?, how to do it?), as mentioned above. It would also give
you some counter arguments that you might want to think about an
answer to. One of the commentators suggested that you'll start with a
dictionary defition. It's not a bad idea - you begin there to show why
what your oponent suggest would not lead to teaching morals.
Dictionary definitions, statistical data and other "impressive
looking" materials (graphical presentations) make a great point in
debates.
Good luck!
|
