The government have come up with yet another initiative to promote Britishness or citizenship or both: discussion groups on "modern British cultural and social history", "social and moral responsibility", "community involvement" and "political literacy", whatever they mean. I thought the British Test was bad enough from all points of view. It is expensive, patronising and ideological. Instead of promoting the importance of partipating and integrating in the community at large, the test seems designed to alienate. There are impossible and irrelevant questions, such as: "Do many children live in single parent families or step-families? When do children leave home?"; "How many people say they have a religion and how many attend religious services? What are the largest religious groups?"; "How do elections for the House of Commons work? How are candidates selected? What do the Speaker and Whips do?"; "How are local services managed, governed and paid for?"
The last one is quite interesting given the intricacies of local government finance.
I have no idea who thought these questions, but it must have been someone who has no idea of where democracy comes from, how it works and, above all, its importance.
The Times was right in dismissing the government’s latest attempt at citizenship as "mush". Britishness and British democracy, its ideas of equality, liberty, tolerance and rule of law originate from Graeco-Roman culture. Liberal democracies are the product of the often dramatic events and ideas that have dominated European history. Yet, these ‘common values’ are not static; rather they have adapted and developed as a result of the meeting and sometimes clash with other cultures. Multiculturalism has so far relied on the recognition of group rights thus essentialising difference. If we want to ensure that liberal democracy is a concrete reality enjoyed by each one of us, rather than a philosophical concept, we need to create the opportunity for groups and individuals to meet and interact, to discuss citizenship and rights. Democracy happens when there is integration and when individuals’ diversity and rights are respected just as much as groups’ diversity and rights. This is who we (Europeans) are.
26 January 2007
19 January 2007
Law and morality
Has law anything to do with morality? I think it does. Firstly, law comes from religion as Roman law, the first legal system, testifies. Secondly, I believe you can see it in principles such as due process and presumption of innocence. Thirdly, and most importantly, human rights are nothing but the legalisation of ethical principles.
Nevertheless, one ought to recognise two things: first, by virtue of living in a society, individual (and community) rights clash with other individual (and community) rights; second, there is an aspect of ‘private morality’.
People are often uncomfortable with the fact that human rights, as enshrined in the European Convention for example, are not absolute but have restrictions. I believe ethics is something that needs to be found in the day to day conduct of people, when they interact. We act morally when we truly understand the complexity of any given situation and accommodate in such way to achieve best outcome possible. I don’t mean this in a utilitarian sense. Rather, ethics is in the contingencies not the principles, it is in the practice not in the abstract words. A defined ‘virtue’ supposedly shared by the community (as advocated by barmy Alasdair MacIntyre) is inevitably totalitarian. People have different interpretations of morality and how to act in a given situation because there are different aspects not because some are more or less moral than others!
This brings me to my point about ‘private morality’. To recognise that some choices are up to the individual is to recognise the individual’s maturity. One cannot grow and develop one’s morality if one is not permitted to exercise it. To ban certain behaviours that could be deemed immoral does not further the cause of morality. A better way to further a better moral outcome is, for example, to educate and/or to develop a sense of community. Why should humans take away the free will God gave us?
These are just few thoughts before the weekend …
Nevertheless, one ought to recognise two things: first, by virtue of living in a society, individual (and community) rights clash with other individual (and community) rights; second, there is an aspect of ‘private morality’.
People are often uncomfortable with the fact that human rights, as enshrined in the European Convention for example, are not absolute but have restrictions. I believe ethics is something that needs to be found in the day to day conduct of people, when they interact. We act morally when we truly understand the complexity of any given situation and accommodate in such way to achieve best outcome possible. I don’t mean this in a utilitarian sense. Rather, ethics is in the contingencies not the principles, it is in the practice not in the abstract words. A defined ‘virtue’ supposedly shared by the community (as advocated by barmy Alasdair MacIntyre) is inevitably totalitarian. People have different interpretations of morality and how to act in a given situation because there are different aspects not because some are more or less moral than others!
This brings me to my point about ‘private morality’. To recognise that some choices are up to the individual is to recognise the individual’s maturity. One cannot grow and develop one’s morality if one is not permitted to exercise it. To ban certain behaviours that could be deemed immoral does not further the cause of morality. A better way to further a better moral outcome is, for example, to educate and/or to develop a sense of community. Why should humans take away the free will God gave us?
These are just few thoughts before the weekend …
17 January 2007
The usefulness of freedom
I’ve come across a few news items on Latin lately. Yesterday, Mary Beard (Prof. In classics) defended the non-elitist nature of the study of Latin on the pages of the Guardian, and previously its usefulness on the Times.
However she might be one of very few voices on the ‘side’ of Latin. Tim Harford’s column ‘Dear Economist’ in the FT, in response to a letter from an Italian student complaining about the study of Latin, dismissed Latin in favour of Chinese and blamed a phantom teachers’ lobby for pressurising for the teaching of Latin in Italian schools. This particular column is indeed light-hearted, but this shouldn’t be an excuse for getting things wrong. Latin is still taught (alas less and less) because Italian is a Latin language and Italian, and indeed European, culture comes from the Graeco-Roman world.
To add insult to injury, an Italian student from a classical lycee and with a CV which includes excellent results from Harvard and other reputable universities, was discourage from applying to Cambridge on the grounds that a ‘classical’ preparation was not good enough for a scientific course. Indeed Latin and ancient Greek do not provide you with scientific notions but with the means to understand them and to find new ones. One would expect Cambridge to understand this and know where science comes from. It sounds like it's time for the Dons to go back to Virgilius as T S Eliot suggested.
Sadly, the educational system as a whole seems to have followed an idea of 'usefulness' in choosing to 'ease Latin out'. In our technological and scientific culture, Latin provides a non-quantifiable and non-applicable knowledge that is therefore deemed of no use. But who decides what knowledge is useful? Latin and ancient Greek are essential in developing logical and critical thinking and knowledge can only be advanced by those who can think.
And thinking is what makes you free, by the way. It is thus regrettable to see that the educational establishment is more interested in forming individuals to be useful to society rather than in aiding individuals to be free and thus model society.
However she might be one of very few voices on the ‘side’ of Latin. Tim Harford’s column ‘Dear Economist’ in the FT, in response to a letter from an Italian student complaining about the study of Latin, dismissed Latin in favour of Chinese and blamed a phantom teachers’ lobby for pressurising for the teaching of Latin in Italian schools. This particular column is indeed light-hearted, but this shouldn’t be an excuse for getting things wrong. Latin is still taught (alas less and less) because Italian is a Latin language and Italian, and indeed European, culture comes from the Graeco-Roman world.
To add insult to injury, an Italian student from a classical lycee and with a CV which includes excellent results from Harvard and other reputable universities, was discourage from applying to Cambridge on the grounds that a ‘classical’ preparation was not good enough for a scientific course. Indeed Latin and ancient Greek do not provide you with scientific notions but with the means to understand them and to find new ones. One would expect Cambridge to understand this and know where science comes from. It sounds like it's time for the Dons to go back to Virgilius as T S Eliot suggested.
Sadly, the educational system as a whole seems to have followed an idea of 'usefulness' in choosing to 'ease Latin out'. In our technological and scientific culture, Latin provides a non-quantifiable and non-applicable knowledge that is therefore deemed of no use. But who decides what knowledge is useful? Latin and ancient Greek are essential in developing logical and critical thinking and knowledge can only be advanced by those who can think.
And thinking is what makes you free, by the way. It is thus regrettable to see that the educational establishment is more interested in forming individuals to be useful to society rather than in aiding individuals to be free and thus model society.
09 January 2007
Freedom of conscience
The group ‘Christian concern for our nation’ is campaigning against the Sexual Orientation Regulations 2006 and petitioning the Queen today. The regulations will make it illegal for anyone who provides goods, services, facilities, premises, education or public functions to someone else, to discriminate against that person on the grounds of their sexual orientation. Christian concern for our nation say, in their website, that
I don’t get how they jump from considering homosexual practice wrong to ‘discriminating’ against homosexuals. One is free to believe and say that homosexuality is wrong but there are various reasons why this discrimination is WRONG:
1. Law: first of all, the legal system is primarily concerned with keeping the peace and ensuring that all have the same rights and freedoms, not with regulating matters of personal morality.
2. Facts: although I don't believe homosexuality is wrong, actions that can be deemed 'immoral' need to be seen in their context, they are not abstract concepts but acts done by individuals. People cannot be judged and condemned on the grounds of a rigid principle dissociated from contingencies relative to the case. For example, in a case of murder in self-defence, one could hold that the attack was immoral however justified in view of the circumstances.
3. Freedom of conscience: ironically, this group is undermining the freedom of conscience of all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation, to consider ethical issues in the light of their own morality or their own religious tradition. To allow discrimination against homosexuals on the grounds of a specific interpretation of a religious tradition is to legally recognise such interpretation over and above any other interpretation of the same religious tradition or of any other religious or non-religious tradition. Basically, not all Christians, Muslims and Jews would agree that homosexuality is wrong and/or that it is right to discriminate against homosexuals!
Personally I consider homophobia wrong and intrinsically misogynistic. The condemnation of homosexuality is often dependent on a view of masculinity as superior to femininity, where gender roles are clearly defined and where women are valued only as 'mothers'. All that aside, it would be interesting to see whether a B&B owner member of the ‘Christian concern for our nation’ searched for contraceptives in his/her customers’ luggage or checked whether his/her customers are by any chance adulterous.
the Bible is clear that the only rightful sexual relationship for which we were created, is a relationship between a man and a woman in the context of a legitimate marriage. Consequently there are times when Christians need to be free to discriminate against homosexuals in order to make it clear that we believe in the Bible’s teaching that homosexual practice is wrong.
I don’t get how they jump from considering homosexual practice wrong to ‘discriminating’ against homosexuals. One is free to believe and say that homosexuality is wrong but there are various reasons why this discrimination is WRONG:
1. Law: first of all, the legal system is primarily concerned with keeping the peace and ensuring that all have the same rights and freedoms, not with regulating matters of personal morality.
2. Facts: although I don't believe homosexuality is wrong, actions that can be deemed 'immoral' need to be seen in their context, they are not abstract concepts but acts done by individuals. People cannot be judged and condemned on the grounds of a rigid principle dissociated from contingencies relative to the case. For example, in a case of murder in self-defence, one could hold that the attack was immoral however justified in view of the circumstances.
3. Freedom of conscience: ironically, this group is undermining the freedom of conscience of all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation, to consider ethical issues in the light of their own morality or their own religious tradition. To allow discrimination against homosexuals on the grounds of a specific interpretation of a religious tradition is to legally recognise such interpretation over and above any other interpretation of the same religious tradition or of any other religious or non-religious tradition. Basically, not all Christians, Muslims and Jews would agree that homosexuality is wrong and/or that it is right to discriminate against homosexuals!
Personally I consider homophobia wrong and intrinsically misogynistic. The condemnation of homosexuality is often dependent on a view of masculinity as superior to femininity, where gender roles are clearly defined and where women are valued only as 'mothers'. All that aside, it would be interesting to see whether a B&B owner member of the ‘Christian concern for our nation’ searched for contraceptives in his/her customers’ luggage or checked whether his/her customers are by any chance adulterous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)