[ailideex]

> If you don't discuss the morality in class, students are likely to be strongly influenced by that morality - good or bad.

Discussing morality in school is not the same as dictating morality in school. If the governments position is these are the morals that the school system must instill in children then I have a problem with it - if not - great - have at it.

> And obviously, courses on economics or political science can't even begin to be taught without assuming certain moral or philosophical positions.

I don't see how any course in economics or political science requires the pupils to adopt any specific morals.

[abdullahkhalids]

> If the governments position is these are the morals that the school system must instill in children

This is what I am trying to argue, that this is not realistically possible. You can have a situation where you will find 0 policy or legal government documents or statements that say that this moral position is to be taught, yet the curriculum, assessments and resources will unintentionally strongly suggest a narrow set of moral positions to the students, and most students will end up adopting something from that set.

Going back to my example of the biology course. Are you taking the position that the teacher not discuss ethics related to genetic engineering at all? That is already a moral position: students will learn that worrying about morals when you study technology is not required.

If morals are to be discussed, then the teachers are usually not experts in the field. Hence, they usually use resources suggested by the state. The state will suggest a small set of resources, and try as much as you can, those resources will only discuss only a few moral positions on genetic engineering. Ultimately, students will be taught these and they will adopt one of them.

The generic mistake you are making in your argument is forgetting that the null policy is also a policy.

[ailideex]

> Are you taking the position that the teacher not discuss ethics related to genetic engineering at all?

I guess that I have not been clear enough - so maybe this will help. I have no objection to morals or ethics being discussed in school. I have a problem with the state trying to instil a specific set of morals into children.

> That is already a moral position

That the state should not dictate what morals children should hold is indeed a moral position. I never once suggested otherwise.

> The state will suggest a small set of resources, and try as much as you can, those resources will only discuss only a few moral positions on genetic engineering.

There is a big difference between studying specific works on ethics and trying to instil a specific set of morals into children. I think it is very valuable to have exposure to many different points of view on morality. I think it would be good to expose children to the concepts of moral absolutism, moral objectivism, morality of different peoples and different times.

> Ultimately, students will be taught these and they will adopt one of them.

If someone gets taught different points of view on morality - it is up to them to adopt or not adopt it.

> The generic mistake you are making in your argument is forgetting that the null policy is also a policy.

I'm perfectly aware that a policy of not dictate morals to children in schools would be a policy - not sure why you thought otherwise. I'm not arguing for the absence of government policy or the absence of morals.