We’re in danger of entering a new Dark Age – Telegraph

As I was saying to Beth only the other day after reading Roche*:

Distracted by celebrity, softened up by the education system, we have also succumbed to what you could call intellectual relativism. We have reached a state of affairs whereby people believe that the validity of their views is determined by the strength with which they hold them, not by any reference to empiricism. And so we hear phrases such as “Well that is your truth – it’s not mine”, or, increasingly, the word which is doing untold damage to the concept of objectivity: “whatever”. When confronted with evidence which undermines the current fashion or your own prejudices, simply lift your hand and say “whatever”, and you can avoid all the discomforts of the value of truth, or objectivity, or of being plain wrong.

via We’re in danger of entering a new Dark Age – Telegraph.

This is a great article by Liam Fox and a reason for optimism: we may yet pick ourselves up and change.

* It’s amazing she puts up with it ;)

Rational Self-Interest — Ayn Rand Lexicon

In exploring Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, I found this:

When one speaks of man’s right to exist for his own sake, for his own rational self-interest, most people assume automatically that this means his right to sacrifice others. Such an assumption is a confession of their own belief that to injure, enslave, rob or murder others is in man’s self-interest—which he must selflessly renounce. The idea that man’s self-interest can be served only by a non-sacrificial relationship with others has never occurred to those humanitarian apostles of unselfishness, who proclaim their desire to achieve the brotherhood of men. And it will not occur to them, or to anyone, so long as the concept “rational” is omitted from the context of “values,” “desires,” “self-interest” and ethics.

via Self-Interest — Ayn Rand Lexicon. Perhaps this might be restated as: a thinking individual’s interests are best served by positive, mutual cooperation with others.

Right, wrong and education

Consider these news stories:

Pupils will no longer have to be taught the difference between “right and wrong” under draft plans put forward by England’s exams regulator.

via BBC NEWS | Education | ‘Right and wrong’ lessons to end.

Parents should avoid telling their children what is “right and wrong” when discussing sex education, according to a new government leaflet.

via Parents advised to stay away from ‘right or wrong’ in sex advice – Telegraph.

In the context of this moral relativism  and David Cameron’s determination to fix our broken society, Roche’s 1969 book “Education in America” is a fascinating insight into how education has come to fail to prepare individuals to choose freely within a fixed moral framework, to think and act for themselves. He explains, for example, that:

Traditionally, education has not been concerned so exclusively with the mere manipulation of the individual. The teacher found himself within a framework of values, within a situation faced in common by all men. To teach, therefore, did not mean to manipulate the young into some “socially acceptable” pattern. Instead, teaching meant sharing with the student the mystery of being human. Today’s scientistic approach promises to do away with the human condition entirely, putting its own goals and means in place of the individual human being and his feelings, aspirations, and qualifications. C.S. Lewis has predicted that such a change in our educational and social philosophy is a move toward “the abolition of man.”

Throughout history, many have understood that a good society requires both liberty and boundaries. Individuals need to be sufficiently educated to make responsible choices, but this is not our trajectory today: we deny standards of behaviour, of morality, of good and evil, and so deny the possibility of education in any meaningful sense.

A patron saint of the intellectual climate of twentieth century America was J. Allen Smith [...]. Smith, in a moment of reflection, apparently had misgivings about the course of events: “The trouble with us reformers is that we made reform a crusade against standards. Well, we smashed them all, and now neither we nor anyone else have anything left.” 

The experience of thousands of years of human history on which we stand is that this will not promote society’s healthy progress. It’s time to nurture responsibility, discipline and intellect: it’s time for change.

Gordon Brown dealt fresh blow as Bishop of London criticises ‘false financial hopes’

The Church of England sustains its stand for morality:

They were joined by the bishops of Winchester and Carlisle, who claimed ministers had squandered their opportunity to transform society and run out of steam, sacrificing principled politics and long-term solutions for policies designed to win votes.

Right now, I am part way through James Bartholomew’s “The Welfare State We’re In”. It is a devastating critique of the state’s failure to centrally-plan cradle to grave education and care: for example, the author claims that the avoidable deaths in the NHS amount to a daily train wreck. We can do better but we must be bold if we are to restore humanity to social provision.

See also: http://www.stevebaker.info/2008/12/recommended-reading-freedom-for-public-services/

read more | digg story