Friday, 24th April 2009
Value free or without value?
I was shocked by a discussion I recently had with a number of students from the Faculty of Education at our University. I do not remember how the discussion started and progressed. However, at one point I asked, “Are you telling me that your lecturers teach you not to tell students in class that abortion, just to mention one example, is wrong.”
The answer was a definitive yes. On seeing my surprise, not to say shock, the students tried to elucidate their arguments and enlighten my throw-back-to the-Dark-Ages-mind. “They tell us that we have to be value free when we are teaching. … Abortion is a value-laden subject. There are people who say it is right and people who say that it is wrong. Therefore, we do not take positions. We just say that some say one thing while others say the opposite.”
That argument did not penetrate my thick mind. Therefore, I struggled on in an effort to achieve enlightenment. “If your students tell you that they throw on the ground every little bit of paper they get their hands on, will you tell them that dirtying streets is wrong?”
They looked at me as if I am the greatest ebete around. “Yes we will tell them that it is wrong. Should not that be obvious?”
“Oh”, I gulped, “While you are instructed to tell your students that throwing a piece of paper on the ground is wrong you are also instructed not to tell them that throwing an unborn baby into an incinerator, after aborting it, is wrong.”
I know through experience that it is the privilege of University students to misunderstand or twist upside down what we teach them. It happened to me umpteen times. Therefore, I would like to assume that this is what those students were doing. On the other hand, all of them had no doubt that this is what they are being taught at University.
If this is the case, then I think that whoever teaches such stuff is failing our young people and is helping to perpetuate the grave crisis of values that is bringing havoc to our culture. There is nothing more value laden and politically charged than education. Even this apparently value-free approach is similarly value laden and politically charged.
What I find more objectionable is that this kind of undermining of our youths is being subsidies by the taxes I pay. Our taxed money could surely be better spent or directed especially in these times of economic crisis that we are all passing through.
Frenzied laws are failing our young people
I recently read an interesting article written by the Scottish Cardinal Keith O’Brien. The article can be retrieved from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6078172.ece
I will quote profusely from that article which states about laws and public policy what I just stated about education.
“In recent weeks much coverage has been given to the decision by the Scottish government to limit sales of alcohol to young people by increasing the selling price through restrictions on a variety of retail offers and by asking local authorities to consider raising the age for alcohol purchases. This policy mirrors the approach taken by this and previous administrations to drug use, vandalism, anti-social behaviour, obesity, even promiscuity, and might usefully be called the “command and control” model of public governance.
Advocates of such a model take the view that “bad behaviour”, whether it be public drunkenness, health-threatening over-eating or teenage promiscuity, are all immutable and unchangeable. The urge and desire to commit acts of this type cannot be curbed, far less removed, goes the argument, therefore public, social and health policy must all be orientated towards mitigating the effects.
It is an approach that is deeply flawed and utterly discredited. It is also, however, the logical destination for a policy that refuses to judge or differentiate between actions conducive to the public good and those who threaten it.
When our fellow citizens err and lapse, we seldom focus on them or ask why they behaved as they did. Rather we rush to impose legal restraints, forgetting that no external restrictions can ever match the effectiveness of self-restraint. When a toddler is shot with an airgun, we regulate the sale of such weapons; alcohol abuse by our young people is met with legislation to restrict sales, and sexual promiscuity with regulations aimed at ensuring contraception and abortion are widely available. We do not as a society take action to tackle the underlying motivation; instead we limit our action to blunting the impact of our excesses. We obsess over the symptoms and ignore the cause.”
An anathema instead of a cherry
Instead of concluding this piece by a cherry I will conclude by another quotation from Cardinal O’Brien which would be anathema to every so called liberal who believes in the dogma of value free education, public policy and politics.
“We must educate a new generation in morality and objective truth.”
The alternative is disaster.
RSS
Comments
I got your point just fine: "….abortion goes against nature itself." Good observation, but hardly an argument against abortion. I could list a thousand things humans do that 'go against nature', most of which you won't find so despicable. Conversely, there are many things that occur in nature which we deem incompatible with our moral standards.
"Let's go back to nature. Do creatures, other than human beings, destroy their own unborn offsprings? A DEFINITE AND RESOUNDING NO IS THE ANSWER."
Animals do not perform abortion for the same reasons they don't perform brain surgery and heart transplants. Most animals will actually abandon or kill (an sometimes eat) the offspring they know will not survive to become healthy adults because of illness or deformation. In any case, it's futile trying to derive morality from nature, given that nature is amoral.
"Devalue language and you devalue the human being."...That was precisely my point. Language is being devalued if we make something wrong sound right or 'acceptable'. No doctor will ask a pregnant woman: "Do you want me to kill your baby?" but "Will you consider a termination?" or "Shall we remove the contents of the womb (or the 'products of conception')?" does not convey the full reality - and therefore sounds acceptable. I recently came across a quotation that struck me: "Language forces us to perceive the world as man presents it to us." (Julia Penelope) Whether a killing is classified murder or manslaughter or suicide or euthanasia etc will matter from a legal point of view (and rightly so), but the end result is that the person is dead.
Can anyone remain unmoved at this atrocity???
So how can atheists, agnostics and followers of 'nothingness' justify abortion? By which philosophy or logic can this abomination be justified?
Let me re-phrase your question. If a human life is ended, does it really make a difference whether we call it murder, or manslaughter, or accidental killing, or killing in self defence, or killing in war, or martyrdom, or suicide, or assisted suicide, or passive euthanasia or active euthanasia? Of course it does. The wealth of language is necessary to reflect the subtleties of human thought and the complexity of the human experience. Devalue language and you devalue the human being.
How do you interpret the discrimination against teachers who are not heterosexual by local church organisations ? That discriminative act is morally correct on what grounds exactly? Is it truly the case of "an action conducive to the public good' ? If so, do explain how please.
NB Why should tax payers' money fund an institution that persists in discriminatory practices ?
The Narrow Way
13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
So Like i said many has gone astray, and many has made for themselves many Idols, and many believe in the philosophies of men rather than to the word of God which leads to eternal life.
Perilous Times and Perilous Men
2 Timothy 3:1-6
1 But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: 2For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers,disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 unloving, unforgiving,slanderers,without self-control,brutal,despisers of good, 4 traitors,headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! 6 For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts.
You believe or you don't that does not mean that Jesus Christ is not your Lord saviour, and your creator,I do not believe in court Judges either but if i would have to have a court case I would still have to go and stand before him, the same is going to happen to you on Judgment day! whether you like or you don't you are going to stand before Jesus Christ!.
This is NOT a religion like they made it to be, God is not a religion, God the Son & the Holy Spirit the Trinity are one God and are a SPIRIT not a religion, SO this is all about SPIRITUALITY,religion destroyed lives and most of all innocent souls, religion drove people like you astray from God their Creator.
OK,I know that not all embrace my believes, which that separates me from Roman Catholicism too Praise the Lord, so you would know My God is not of Gold, Silver, stone, statue that I will run around the Maltese roads with it to blaspheme it, a statue, that has no eyes,ears,or a mouth, but A TRUE LIVING GOD A SPIRIT ;)
“Apatheid and racial discrimination was legal in severl countries. does that make them morally good? Discrinimation on the basis of gender is legal in many countries. Does it make it morally good?" You should be asking that question to the Vatican.
What is the position of Shiva or Mohammed followers (or any other non Christian group) about the issue of 'terminating' a potential human being?
Humans are endowed with a rational mind which ought to determine how and when the sexual act could be performed. However modern day culture with its slackening of morals and over indulgence in alcohol and other substances which stimulate the libido are increasingly divesting us of our self control and leading us into a vicious circle which is probably why we have ended up with the permissive society of today.
Whether this vicious circle could be reversed is questionable unless drastic measures are taken, but it is doubtful, since it is not in the interest of certain individuals who happen to be fattening their pockets to sit and take it. Resistance would be great. In the name of progress, many enterprising individuals have had their ideas sanctioned without the authorities taking into consideration the long term negative effect which such an endeavour could have on our youngsters. Do we have to grin and bear it??? Heqq xi trid taghmel????
“Advocates of such a model take the view that “bad behaviour”, whether it be public drunkenness, health-threatening over-eating or teenage promiscuity, are all immutable and unchangeable. The urge and desire to commit acts of this type cannot be curbed, far less removed….” (excerpt from the article by Cardinal Keith O’Brien)
I would like to start with the premise that the urge for drunkenness and over-eating is not immutable, for if it were it would have to be common to everyone, constantly the same, and from time immemorial, which is certainly not the case. The urge for sex however, is immutable for it is nature’s way to ensure the populating of the world (human/animal).
But we have to make a distinction between the urge to commit and the actual committing.
The actual committing of sex can be curbed as we all know otherwise we would all be sex maniacs.
Continued…
You are perfectly entitled to enslave yourself under the command of jesus christ but you certainly have no right to impose his authority on the rest of us. How would you feel if someone told you that you are under the authority of shiva or mohammed?
Not all maltese embrace your beliefs and most of those who do definitely do not share your fervent religious mind.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/8383/atheist.html
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html
And yes, abortion is murder, and calling it anything else will not change what it is. I shall quote Shakespeare (Romeo and Juliet):
'What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet'
Or, in this case, murder, by any other name, is still murder...
What I mean to say when I refer to 'concience being personalised' is that conscience, is treated just as a commodity and is only taken out of the closet when it suits the individual. It either lies dormant or immune to certain issues, or somewhat becomes compromised by rational thought. (ie fejn jaqbilli tmissni il kuxjenza imma fejn ma jaqbillix le)
Today's culture presents anything religious (of any faith) including morals, (which used to be the social mortar that binds humans together), as an obstacle to the achievement of freedom, liberty, self expression and above all instant gratification. I constantly wrestle with the dichotomies found within morality and freedom. However I believe that the right to freedom at the expense of sound moral judgement, borders on libertinism. I also believe that there are always others who are better/worse off in any judgement, but when moral issues are violeted, at some point all parties suffer, because I believe humans are inherently good, and culture alters us.
What if ....WE were chosen as candidates for 'termination'?
Dear Mr. Camilleri,
Thank you so much for your comment, and I appreciate the conciliatory tone :-))
Jessica
That is exactly happened when we have removed the authority of Jesus Christ !!!
We have put the authority based on man and not on Christ, for examples Dr. X. says that is wrong to do abortion Dr.Y says it is not, at the end of the day what authority has Dr.X or Dr.Y respectively upon human kind? None if you ask me, BUT Jesus Christ has the authority above all human kind, but we are shy to say that Jesus said so!, it is not COOL anymore or it is not Trendy any longer to make Jesus Christ the authority above All, while as a matter of FACT if it wasn't for Him we are not here at all.
JOHN 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
I am prepared to concede the point that I was "a trifle too hard", perhaps more than a trifle, on Fr Borg. The reason may be, ironically, that I too consider him a compassionate person and an intellectual and I felt disappointed by his use of emotive references to "incinerators". But since you read no reference to "murder" in the blog (I am even prepared to agree that I could have presumed more than there actually was), at least we can agree - you, me and Fr Borg - that the use of inflammatory terms like "murder" (my word) should have no place in an enlightened discussion on abortion.
@ Mrs. Debattista - kindly enlighten us what traits in whose character please? do not slur the whole lot that are blogging, and to those whom you are not in agreement with, at least they will get the option to reply or ignore
Mr. Camilleri, I have once again gone over the article that Fr. Joe presented for discussion trying to find the word “murder” but nowhere does it show up.
I referred you to some quotes from a previous blog “Hug her instead of Excommunicating her” precisely because through that article Fr. Joe comes over as a very compassionate man.
I do not now Fr. Joe personally as I do not know any other contributor on these blogs but I am sure you agree that through the comments one can easily deduce certain traits in the character of whoever is writing. In your comment you could have presumed more than there actually was and in my opinion you were a trifle too hard.
If you call abortion "murder", what do you call the doctors who carry out abortion, the nurses who take part in the procedure, the lawmakers who legalise it, the judges who pass sentences favouring a woman's right to choose, the ethicists who approve of it, the social workers who counsel it, the US Supreme Court Judges who sat on the famous Wade case...etc? This is not vehemence. It is cold logic.
Sorry about a couple of errors - due mainly to the small script of this commentary. :-)
@ Mr Jeffrey Tabone: Last para. should read thus: 'I repeat that the law is an ass and not all that is legal is right. That having been said, a person decides him/herself what is morally correct and what is not, ACCORDING TO THAT PERSON'S NEEDS AND FANCIES AT THAT GIVEN MOMENT. ('LI HU TAJJEB HU DAK LI HU TAJJEB GHALIJA!).
Sorry about that.
And I agree with you, but careful: that living thing has MORE RIGHTS than I, as I am at present, would have. And this is because that 'living thing' with no 'brain' is in a vulnerable state and thus, we, human beings who are able to assess and to act, and living in a 21st century civilised society, should put it as our onus to protect and defend that 'living thing'. How can I, Franco Farrugia, who militate so much in favour of animals and their well-being, stop short of militating towards ANY human being in a state of vulnerability? When a person is vulnerable, we have all the more DUTY to stand by that being and defend it.
Otherwise, we might as well agree with Hitler in Nazi Germany when he opined towards the destruction of handicapped people? We might as well ... well, let's put it this way, close down Cottolengo! Get the meaning?
I do not impose. This is merely how I feel.
Also, thanks to our sordid hypocritical society we live in (due to religious backgrounds), women are traumatised at the idea of having a child out of wedlock (hence, in my opinion, the origin of many instances of abortion).
Opinion and opinion: there is an informed opinion and there is an uninformed opinion. Surely you don't equate my layman's point of view with that of a professional doctor in medical matters? Or an experienced teacher's opinion on matters of education with that of one who has never been to school!
I repeat that the law is an ass and not all that is legal is right. That having been said, a person decides him/herself what is morally correct and what is not. With the passage of time, conscience is dying out because there is far too much 'noise' around us. And by 'noise', I mean a plethora of things!
Thank you.
I think that before firing statements the likes of the above, at Fr. Joe, you should have a look at a previous blog “ Hug her instead of Excommunicating her” March 18, 2009 which might help you tone down your vehemence against him.
Unfortunately I am in a hurry this morning but I leave you with quotes lifted from the above mentioned Blog: “Archbishop Fisichella said the church can still be firm with its moral principles and at the same time reach out and show mercy toward others.”
“I have only one comment to add: thank God for people such as Archbishop Fisichella!” (quote Fr. Joe.)
being unconscious is quite different from not having the biological ability to be conscious. The church and other institutions have no problem declaring a person dead when the brain is dead. I will leave it up to up to decide whether a living thing that has not yet developed a brain should have the same rights that we enjoy.
I am not so much excited by the fact that a mother should have an abortion and I am not also excited by the fact that millions of cattle are killed in order to feed our incredibly wasteful apetite. If pro-life proclaimed the right for life for every single living organism on earth, I would be very happy to join in.
Consequently she, who has promised to love and cherish him (and does) needs to put her career on hold. What does she do, does she kill him cos he's in the way of her climbing up the ladder? Does she 'terminate', divorce him, or perhaps freeze him for 3 years and thaw him when she's has more time? We have forgotten that one of the most rewarding careers is motherhood. Actions have consequences.
Also ...why don't we just legalize all the laws of other countries, including chopping off hands, or stoning infedels!
Irrespective of whether it is 26 or 12 weeks or 1 day for that matter..if the proccess started ..there is life!
Unless a foetus manages to commence itself and its 'being' at 12/26 weeks: ie it starts to exist WITHOUT the said previous 12 weeks (or whatever time lapse is needed for the argument that it has no consciousness before that)..until then the argument in favour of terminating a pregnancy cannot be put forward, as it does not make sense.
No one tells a happy mother-to-be that she is carrying 'nothing' for the first 12/26 weeks of her pregnancy? What about the father-to-be does he have to wait 12/26 weeks before he can share his joy?
We cannot keep trying to find ways to destroy values for the sake of 'freedom' just because other countries have done so.
Good day to all:)
@ Robert Attard - So, is it ok to kill someone who is unconscious? You have avoided answering my question: when did I start being a human being?
Mela we teach our kids to recycle, to switch off the pc at night, not to bully others at school, and not to be racists, and not to buy fur coats, but we are scared to teach them that we should respect the unborn. We are not talking about a seal for poachers ta, but a future human being who is at the mercy of other human beings who just happen to come before.
A child who is thought to adopt the social ethical values mentioned above can still decide to become a racist, an animal hunter an alcoholic etc. when he/she is an adult as it will be his/her choice right or wrong, later in life, so why are we scared to put the ‘value laden’ issue that abortion is wrong, in the adults of tomorrow today?
What really baffles me is that we teach our children to have a sense of duty to respect the environment, be in favour of animal rights, to encourage gender and racial equality; all very important social moral values of course, (and I am purposely trying to stay away from religious morals), but somehow we see teaching our children the duty to respect human life as a 'value laden subject'! Of course it is value laden! And adults will forever disagree on whether it is right or wrong, but what we teach our kids is another story.
cont...
unfortunately sex education in malta is still stuck somewhere in the dark ages. Until that situation is rectified we will still see very young adults lacking the practical knowledge to safely express their sexuality. My view of sex education should encompass all views so as to ensure that everyone will safeguard his health and others whilst still respecting his moral views and values.
P.S the christian marriage preparation courses in some localities have been known to promote 'the pill' as a cancer inducing drug whilst happily acknowledging its use in HRT.
@Fr Borg
A jew is a living and independently viable human being. A fetus is not. Some people like me do not consider a bunch of cells as representing an individual with full rights. This is clearly not a black or white subject. nobody debates on whether sugar is sweet or soar because there is no doubt about the answer.
Abortion is an open debate and those who claim otherwise are arogantly ditching the other side of the argument.
By the way that you present your comments, you certainly do not give the impression that you are a young teenage girl who is experimenting with sex, which is what I had in mind as I was writing my comment. Very young teenagers who are sexually active are driven only by instinct and inclination and my point was that contraceptives give them a false security and an added incentive to persevere in their sexual activity when they should be concentrating on developing sound moral principles. Sustaining a marriage is hard enough in this day and age let alone entering marriage on a weak footing.
Can he consider the following cases:
An enterprising business woman, pursuing her career and moving up the ladder at her workplace finds the VAT law as a hindrance on the way. What Mr Tabone say that it is up to her to decide whether it is right or wrong to fiddle around VAT to go to the next rung of the ladder if she is at peace with herself. Would then all be well?
continued
So shouldn’t we try to focus on our young to show them the repercussions that could follow if they do not abstain from sex? That is where we should target our education - trying to create a conscience where we stress on the need for abstinence from sex and the negative effects that abortion can have on the perpetrators and their families. Making it easy by allowing the use of contraceptives is only aggravating matters. It has become so easy to keep changing sexual partners that it will inevitably become a habit. How can one expect a girl, who had been used to the titillating excitement enjoyed until the novelty wore off, not to move on to the next heartthrob constantly searching for new thrills? Will she ever be ready to have a solid married life committed to one partner? Hardly! The result? The inevitable breaking up of yet another marriage. And this is the society and reality that we are presently living with. Should we do something about it or not?
And we are not “talking about university students here,” but prospective teachers who would be educating our young - “kids still running around in the playground.”
“Should the mother be in charge of her body?” A rape victim who ends up pregnant might find carrying an unwanted embryo growing inside her so repugnant that it could be detrimental to her own physical/mental stability. In such case, Abortion could be a lesser evil. Young, sexually promiscuous, girls (sometimes even as young as twelve/thirteen) should not, however, be excused if they opt for abortion, for the sexual act was between consenting couples and therefore the consequences have to be suffered. It is regrettable, however, that the infant would have to be brought up by the girl’s mother since the prospective mother would not be in a position to bring the baby up herself - a negative consequence putting unwarranted stress and pressure on other persons and disrupting their lives.
Continued…
I am using this blog as a sounding board while I try to unravel thoughts that entwine and disengage as I try to be objective about the ‘abortion’ issue.
No matter how I look at it, abortion is always ‘bad’ since it is the willful killing of an unborn child. Without going into whether we should “award a right to an undeveloped unicellular zygote” or not, in this case, we have to agree that it is a human being in the making and should not be tempered with.
But are there degrees of badness? Or rather, are there excusable cases?
Recently we have had the case of the sexually abused six year old girl who was carrying twins and who had to have an abortion because her constitution would not have enabled her to carry the birth through. That was a case which had found widespread support in favour of her having had an abortion.
Continued….
On the other hand I can also understand Fr Borg's concern since he promotes an absolutist culture that decrees what is good and what is bad.
I am not knoocking this latter culture.
It serves those members of a society who may be still grappling with Maslow's first steps.
The problem arises when this 'absolute' culture seeks to overwhelm a multi-tiered culture to become the one and only dominant culture.
There is a clear cut difference between what you call the start of a human existance and the start of a human life that should be awarded the rights of an individual. The human brain gives us the ability to function in a society and it also clearly differentiates us from all the other living things that we remorsesly kill. If we award rights to an undeveloped unicellular zygote then we should award those rights to much more developed organisms such as a cat or a dog. If we are going to defend some cells just because they contain human DNA, should we then not hold sacred the cells of an amputated arm or leg!!! My argument is simple, whether abortion is 'good' or 'bad' is debatable! that at least is a fact.
and then of course, are you ready to suspend the rights of the mother inorder to protect that of the unborn. Should the mother be incharge of her body!
We are talking on the fact that students should be aware that abortion is a subjectively moral subject. This is clearly shown by the fact that there is no clear consensus in the world on whether it is 'good' and bad'. This shows that society in general is open to the fact that such debatable issues should after all be debatable. our education system must incorporate this. It has the task of instilling the students with the ability to develop a moral system that is not based on an unquestionable dogma but on rational thought.
Also, I'll point out that it is subjective to those that are uninformed. When you look at all the science and facts behind it, you'll only notice that the "subjective" opinions of those that favour abortion coming from misunderstanding and twisting of the truth because it is a proven fact that it is at the moment of conception that a new human being comes into existance.
No we do not want “indoctrinated sheep” but neither do we want an amoral society. What sort of foundation are we laying for a future that can promise a betterment from the society as it has developed? For YES “the grave crisis of values is bringing havoc to our culture”. It is all around us if we could only remove our blinkers and see the whole picture: – alcohol abuse – drugs – thieving – sexual promiscuity – child mothers – abortion – broken marriages – pornography ….
Teachers have an important role in the formation of our young for they are the surrogate parents during the hours that our children are at school. They should realize that working parents, in particular, rely on them for instilling in their children a sound moral fibre.
Moral principles indicate obligation and responsibility and should be propounded in all schools. It is not a prerogative of Church schools but a right that parents demand of teachers who are entrusted with the responsibility of educating their young.
are you really suggesting that we should restrict the sales of contraceptives!!!!
Take the long history of the church and we can evenly plot a change in moral dictats.
During its history the church permitted the death sentence, torture and anti-semitism.
Religious morality as professed by Fr Borg is infact subjective.
"grave crisis of values that is bringing havoc to our culture. "
That should be rephrased as "grave crisis of values that is bringing havoc to MY (Fr Borg) culture. It is hurtfully arogant to state that everyone is supporting your claims!
The students were correct in saying that it is not their place to impose their morality on their students, their job should be to provide students with access to information and teach them to be critical thinkers, so that they can make an intelligent decision on their own- according to their own morality - not yours, or their teachers or anyone elses.
We are not trying to raise indoctrinated sheep here.
I would also hope that University students are not, as you assume, there to delight in twisting what is taught to them, but are intelligent enough to question what they are taught and to form educated and individual opinions.