‘When Great Tao vanished, we got “Goodness and Morality”’

Modules in ethics have become astonishingly popular at the University of the Western Cape. This could reflect students’ concern about morality, but the saying by Lafargue in Tao te ching in the title suggests that moral discourse flourishes when moral behaviour is languishing. This article reflects...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Douglas G. Lawrie
Format: Article
Language:Afrikaans
Published: AOSIS 2020-06-01
Series:HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies
Subjects:
Online Access:https://hts.org.za/index.php/hts/article/view/5823
id doaj-80b3bdc0ad6946768e824855b73a0613
record_format Article
spelling doaj-80b3bdc0ad6946768e824855b73a06132020-11-25T03:36:22ZafrAOSISHTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 0259-94222072-80502020-06-01761e1e810.4102/hts.v76i1.58234715‘When Great Tao vanished, we got “Goodness and Morality”’Douglas G. Lawrie0Department of Religion and Theology, Faculty of Arts, University of the Western Cape, Cape TownModules in ethics have become astonishingly popular at the University of the Western Cape. This could reflect students’ concern about morality, but the saying by Lafargue in Tao te ching in the title suggests that moral discourse flourishes when moral behaviour is languishing. This article reflects on some 15 years of teaching ethical theory to third-year students. Three trends are identified: (1) Students’ responses to the theories are unpredictable and surprising. Nietzsche and Kant are very popular, although some modern ‘contextual’ theories draw less support. (2) Students who can be extremely moralistic in class are sometimes amoral in their practices and offhand pronouncements. (3) Students are hampered by their poor conceptual skills and rely excessively on memorising. The last two trends raise questions about our teaching of ethics and the ethics of our teaching. Although many students embrace character-based theories, to some ‘a good character’ apparently means ‘what makes me feel good about myself’ and to others ‘what makes me look good to my group’. Thus, they effectively embrace either individual relativism or group relativism, which is understandable when theories are presented without the backing of at least a rudimentary philosophical anthropology. Questions of indoctrination become acute in the teaching of ethics. Are we, in the name of moral formation, teaching students to parrot current dogmas presented without arguments? If so, our practice may be both morally dubious and counterproductive. The best students rebel against such manipulation. The article calls for more reflection on how and to what ends we teach ethics.https://hts.org.za/index.php/hts/article/view/5823teaching ethicsindoctrinationmoral discoursephilosophical anthropologytao te ching
collection DOAJ
language Afrikaans
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Douglas G. Lawrie
spellingShingle Douglas G. Lawrie
‘When Great Tao vanished, we got “Goodness and Morality”’
HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies
teaching ethics
indoctrination
moral discourse
philosophical anthropology
tao te ching
author_facet Douglas G. Lawrie
author_sort Douglas G. Lawrie
title ‘When Great Tao vanished, we got “Goodness and Morality”’
title_short ‘When Great Tao vanished, we got “Goodness and Morality”’
title_full ‘When Great Tao vanished, we got “Goodness and Morality”’
title_fullStr ‘When Great Tao vanished, we got “Goodness and Morality”’
title_full_unstemmed ‘When Great Tao vanished, we got “Goodness and Morality”’
title_sort ‘when great tao vanished, we got “goodness and morality”’
publisher AOSIS
series HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies
issn 0259-9422
2072-8050
publishDate 2020-06-01
description Modules in ethics have become astonishingly popular at the University of the Western Cape. This could reflect students’ concern about morality, but the saying by Lafargue in Tao te ching in the title suggests that moral discourse flourishes when moral behaviour is languishing. This article reflects on some 15 years of teaching ethical theory to third-year students. Three trends are identified: (1) Students’ responses to the theories are unpredictable and surprising. Nietzsche and Kant are very popular, although some modern ‘contextual’ theories draw less support. (2) Students who can be extremely moralistic in class are sometimes amoral in their practices and offhand pronouncements. (3) Students are hampered by their poor conceptual skills and rely excessively on memorising. The last two trends raise questions about our teaching of ethics and the ethics of our teaching. Although many students embrace character-based theories, to some ‘a good character’ apparently means ‘what makes me feel good about myself’ and to others ‘what makes me look good to my group’. Thus, they effectively embrace either individual relativism or group relativism, which is understandable when theories are presented without the backing of at least a rudimentary philosophical anthropology. Questions of indoctrination become acute in the teaching of ethics. Are we, in the name of moral formation, teaching students to parrot current dogmas presented without arguments? If so, our practice may be both morally dubious and counterproductive. The best students rebel against such manipulation. The article calls for more reflection on how and to what ends we teach ethics.
topic teaching ethics
indoctrination
moral discourse
philosophical anthropology
tao te ching
url https://hts.org.za/index.php/hts/article/view/5823
work_keys_str_mv AT douglasglawrie whengreattaovanishedwegotgoodnessandmorality
_version_ 1724550285009879040