Are you smarter than a second grader?
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Sierra_Leona
Probably not.
Dr. McBrayer was visiting his son’s second grade classroom.
The philosophy professor understood why his college students did not believe in moral facts but wondered where they learned it. So he did a bit of research. Second graders in his son’s school were being asked if the following list were either “facts” or “opinions.”
— Copying homework assignments is wrong.
— Cursing in school is inappropriate behavior.
— All men are created equal.
— It is worth sacrificing some personal liberties to protect our country from terrorism.
— It is wrong for people under the age of 21 to drink alcohol.
— Vegetarians are healthier than people who eat meat.
— Drug dealers belong in prison.
In each case above, the answer given was “opinion.”
With Dr. McBrayer, I was taken back by what his second grade son was being taught.
The professor ended his piece with this statement:
The curriculum sets our children up for doublethink. They are told that there are no moral facts in one breath even as the next tells them how they ought to behave. We can do better. Our children deserve a consistent intellectual foundation.
I could not agree more.
Daniel Engber responded to McBrayer’s concerns with a bevy of research. Wondering aloud if we were “creating moral monsters” Engber ended by explaining McBrayer’s college freshmen
they may come off like fools, doubting every moral universal but perhaps we ought to think of their displays as a form of practice. They’re learning how to weigh the evidence and challenge their beliefs.
The idea that jumped out at me was the issue of definition.
While I cheered various comments in both articles, I wondered if Justin’s proposed definition of terms would lead to what he called “a consistent intellectual foundation.”
Transcendence, an outside, separate source of Truth, is a necessary foundation. Truth’s consistency depends on a coherent, unchangeable Standard. In my S. P. U. D. test, I summarize questions and definitions to consider. Daniel’s interest in questioning morality as “practice” made me wonder where “law” and “order” might fit with “practice.”
What we know for certain is that if “relative” exists there must be an “absolute.” Otherwise, why even concern ourselves with the question? Why declare racism, stealing, or murder as “wrong” if there is no standard of Truth to guide our answer?
Am I smarter than a second grader?
When it comes to acting with consistency on known Truth, the answer is “No.”
Here are a series of questions I was asking my high school students in the early 1990’s, wondering aloud if we were Christian relativists (*Note below).
- Do I ever circumvent, change or twist the rules for myself, for my benefit or for my protection? (Gen 4:23, 24; Judges 21:25)
- Am I tolerant of people (accepting of, treating with respect) or tolerant of their beliefs? Can two people with opposing views both be right? (Ps 51:13; 2 Tim 2:25; 3:1, 7-8)
- Do we accommodate people’s words and actions because we have misunderstood Jesus’ statement, “Judge not, lest you be judged” (Matt 7:1)? Do we ever say, “Who am I to judge?” rather than saying “There is a standard whereby to judge”? (Matt 7:15-20)
- Are we willing to stand for truth? Do we stand for what is right against what is wrong? (Neh 13; Titus 1:9-11)
- Do we admit when we are wrong? (1 Jn 1:6, 8) do we rectify problems with people (Matt 5:23, 24)?
- Do these words describe us: truthful, reliable, faithful, accurate, trustworthy, committed? (1 Jn 2:4; 3:18-19).
- Do we reduce our standard by saying, “It won’t matter, just this once.”
- Do we ever say, “Don’t do what I do, do what I say?” (in word or action)
- Do we ever excuse our actions by reducing the standard saying, “Nobody’s perfect” or “I can’t help it” or “It’s just a game” or “I was sincere” or “It wasn’t that bad” or “I go along to get along”?
- Are we gentle in our correction? Are we concerned with the individual as much as our point of view? Do we teach the truth in love? (Eph 4:15; 2 Tim 2:25)
If there is darkness, light must exist. If people have moral questions, a moral Answer must exist.
Dr. Mark Eckel is married to a very smart second grade teacher who daily tells stories of children’s moral choices. Mark teaches at Capital Seminary & Graduate School.
*NOTE* Even with the best of intentions in mind, I may not know how to practice truth or speak truth. The corruption of human beings indicates that though we are interested in truth and want to practice truth, I may not because of the influence of my corrupt nature or corrupt culture.
Also see David Brooks article from The New York Times yesterday, 3/10/2015, “The Cost of Relativism”
In my senior capstone paper, I’ve critiqued Subjective Morality, saying that if morality is truly subjective (and it must be without an objective, transcendent standard for its foundation), then morality would ultimately come down to the power of the few or the power of the many. The first is despotism. The second is an argumentum ad populum in practice.
But then, I suppose that subjectivity means that we can even question the validity of argumentum ad populum being fallacious.
No human being lives this way. It’s inconsistent. So why bother?
Joshua, that is always the question, “Can people really live this way?” Nice work. Glad to have taken that philosophy course with you!
We discussed the McBrayer article a couple of days ago in my Apologetic and Ethics class. The incredibly scary part is when you read some of the 2,000 comments given on the article.
One interesting thing we discussed was that there are likely very few actual relativists in this world. If a “relativists” rights are trampled on, they will be the first to cry, “Foul,” instead of saying, “Who’s to say what they did was wrong?” What relativism may be at its core is a cover for underlying skepticism. That is, the underlying issue may be, “I’m skeptical of your belief, therefore I’m going to shrug it off with shallow thinking and say it’s relative.”
We read Paul Copan’s “True for You But Not for Me” and he points out an interesting note that relativists contradict themselves in many places. Straight out of the shoot a relativist says everything is relative, but then expects an absolute, that his statement is true and not relative.
(A more interesting note is that I was part of your Jr. High in the late 80’s and now could be having this discussion with you possibly a second time. There may be a bit more clarity this time around.)