| > 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. |