Ethics Course Still Not Adding Up

“In our modern eagerness to be tolerant, we have come to tolerate things which no society can tolerate and remain healthy.” Brian Cleeve, 1938.

"Bend over, I'll show you ethical tolerance". The Commentator, 2009.

Michael Schleiffer is a professor of education at UQAM and offered his perspective in defense of Quebec's ethics and religious culture course he helped design. I found this syllabus for an ethics course in university for fun.

Let's explore parts of it here. I'm not an intellectual but I play one on a blog.

Whenever the government (with the aid of intellectual masters) acts as a “progressive” agent I always treat it with a healthy scepticism. After all, is this not a society and government that held “reasonable accommodations” hearings and still wages its own private and petty war against the English language? Never mind about the poor state of the French language and the difficulties with “integration” in our classes.

Here are some excerpts to his article. I must admit, it left me with more questions:

"A battle is raging around the world, between the vast majority of people who strive for moderation and universal values that transcend culture and religion, against fanatics and extremists of all sorts. Attacks on Quebec's new Ethics and Religious Cultures course are helping the cause of the extremists."

Really? I didn't realize having a differing opinion makes you an attacking extremist. My interpretation of this passage is the world is concretely divided between "open-minded free thinkers" and "close minded enslaved sloths".

However, is it possible, some "open minded" individuals are against not the course itself but the fact it A) trumps the parents authority (an all-too disturbing trend in Canada) and B) removes free choice from the equation?

Wasn't President Bush decried for his "us against them" depiction of global politics in 2001?

"This course, obligatory in all Quebec schools, introduces students to the major religions and is designed to help them to deal with ethical issues independently of specific religious instruction."

There it is. That word. Obligatory. Why must everything be "compulsory" and "obligatory". We're like a bunch of psychopaths. Incidentally, I once courted a girl who was Zoroastrian. It didn’t work out since my rigid Catholicism kept getting in the way. Gee, I wish I had the ethics course to make me “tolerant”!

"The quest for the largest consensus possible, searching for values that are fundamental, universal, and transcend division is in the spirit of Rev. Martin Luther King, who marched for civil rights in the 1960s accompanied by people from other religions as well as secularists and atheists like folk singer Joan Baez and Dr. Benjamin Spock."

And

"Scientist-philosopher Stuart Kauffman, another avowed atheist, has eloquently argued for "a new universal ethic of respect for all life that speaks to people across religious lines."

"The new course in Quebec reflects these ideas."

Hm. Interesting. I had to reread this several times and still I don't know what to make of this. Joan Baez?

For the record, he mentions atheism twice. Am I to believe atheists are more "tolerant" or "rational". That they're defenders of the philosophical tradition laid by the philosophes?

I don't know, but this piece is starting to get a "theistic" feel. What about Peter Singer and other bio-ethicists who certainly have rational views but remain ethically reprehensible to people? Are we trying to express ethics in scientific terms?

If Baez, what about Bob Dylan? Bruce Springsteen? Woodie Guthrie? John Lennon? Sounds like there's indeed a specific agenda in play here.

He goes on to assure us “relativism” will not pollute our students but then he says two conflicting things,”

"...As professors, we often have to confront the university student's view that "it's all a matter of opinion" or "it's all relative..."

Fair enough. Although, one can argue it is vulnerable to relativism. Can you really teach this course from a neutral bias? Seeing he already has professed his preference for certain individuals I can't see how.

But then:

"That student or child might be looking, mistakenly, for the one "right" or "correct" answer, a quest inappropriate in the context of a discussion about moral values, choices, or dilemmas."

I’m sure I’m missing something here. “Inappropriate”? Mistakenly”? Doesn’t this sound a lot like relativism in that there are “no absolutes”?

Yet, the course is based on the specific ideas and ideals of the aforementioned individuals? "Neutral bias" has been compromised.

"Neutral" is a term open for interpretation. Personally, I distrust it under certain circumstances. Like, in education for instance and politics. Weren't Sweden and Switzerland "neutral" during the Nazi's reign of insane terror (of course, it's mistaken to call them insane murderers) all the while profiting off the war?

"A few institutions (the private Jesuit Loyola High School for boys, several Orthodox Jewish schools, and the Mouvement Laïque) are encouraging parents to boycott the course or are asking to be exempted from it. This alliance includes some who oppose the course because they oppose any mention of religion in education and others who feel that their specific religion is being undermined."

Do they not have that right? Does this make them "extremist"?

Then he gets all rhetorically goofy:

"We want children to understand about honesty, respect, responsibility and co-operation, and to see the importance of personal virtues including consideration, generosity and kindness."

Is he insinuating religious classes (who by the way are more universal than given credit for) or parents are incapable of imparting these values? Heck, even Sesame Street covered all these bases.

Despite his passionate and articulate plea, I still remain uncertain about this course. He shouldn’t feel bad. Tolerance is a tricky thing. It’s called a FREE SOCIETY.