Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

[servant]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

"I just don't see the usefulness of including morality in sex education."

I guess this is where we will have to agree to disagree.

By the way, far be it from me to speak on the behalf of atheists but I think many would take great exception to the implication of your last post. Even I know atheists who believe that adultery is wrong.

[Diplomat]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Originally posted by servant:

"I just don't see the usefulness of including morality in sex education."

I guess this is where we will have to agree to disagree.

A question that came to mind as I read this was: Is there an 'absolute morality' - pardon the expression - that can be taught that is accepted by all? It seems to me that because morality can be such a relative virtue, it would be difficult to 'teach' it without being accused of imposing one's values on another. Any thoughts?

[Guest]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Originally posted by CEW:
[qb] A question that came to mind as I read this was: Is there an 'absolute morality' - pardon the expression - that can be taught that is accepted by all? It seems to me that because morality can be such a relative virtue, it would be difficult to 'teach' it without being accused of imposing one's values on another. Any thoughts? [/qb]

That's what I was trying to get across, but you said it much better than I did.

[servant]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Let us look at a practical example.

Marital fidelity is felt by some to be a moral issue.

Marital fidelity also militates against the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

Should this information be withheld from children in the interest of not imposing one's moral values on them ?

[Diplomat]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

servant: I do not think the problem is with the message, in so much as it with how it is transmitted. Instead of using a term like "marital fidelity", which is felt by some to be moral issue, what if someone were to teach the benefits of being monogamous?

[Guest]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

'Marital fidelity' is a moral value not shared by all. There are couples who live together for much longer periods than the duration of some marriages.

Wouldn't 'abstinence' be a more neutral equivalent?

I have to ask this again: When dealing with public health issues like smoking or wearing seat belts morality is never invoked. Why should sexuality (which is even more private) be any different?

[Diplomat]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Originally posted by MissB:

I have to ask this again: When dealing with public health issues like smoking or wearing seat belts morality is never invoked. Why should sexuality (which is even more private) be any different?

Why would smoking or wearing seatbelts be considered a moral issue? I am not sure I see the connection.

[Guest]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Originally posted by CEW:
[qb]Why would smoking or wearing seatbelts be considered a moral issue? I am not sure I see the connection. [/qb]

Servant says if moral values were taught in conjuction with sex education there would be fewer STDs. However, I see sex education as a public health issue, not a moral one. Morality has not been necessary to decrease tobacco consumption, for example, so why should morality be necessary to decrease occurrences of STDs?

[Diplomat]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

MissB: I agree with you that sex education is a public health issue, but I understand servant to be saying that outside of some moral construct, it is not efficient, and I agree with that position also. I do not think anyone is saying that sex education cannot be taught without the imposition of moral values.

I do not see how one could make a moral argument against tobacco consumption. I can see why you are asking the question, but in my mind they are two different things so I still do not see the connection.

[Fledgist]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Originally posted by servant:
[qb] How is saying "....were not its consequences so tragic for everyone involved" expressing "glee" pray tell ? [/qb]

What you said was: "This preposterous concept, laughable to any sane person, would be amusing were not its consequences so tragic for everyone involved" you mean? The first part of the sentence rather overbalances the second part.

[Fledgist]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Originally posted by servant:
[qb] CEW, please, I never said the information was not beneficial to some.

As far as the CDC estimate is concerned, they may not collect data by orientation themselves, but STD clinics do. Partner identification and treatment being a mainstay of STD prevention. I imagine projections could be made from those figures.

This article, for example, points to the kind of sources that have been used in the past to generate this kind of data: http://www.thebody.com/cdc/std/gay_std.html

In any event CEW, the question I am raising is whether information pertaining to human sexual behavior is as efficient a change agent when it is presented absent a moral context.

What do you think ? [/qb]

Much better to suppress such information and thus ensure that the rate of infection goes sky-high?

[britisha]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Originally posted by CEW:
[qb]

Originally posted by MissB:

I have to ask this again: When dealing with public health issues like smoking or wearing seat belts morality is never invoked. Why should sexuality (which is even more private) be any different?

Why would smoking or wearing seatbelts be considered a moral issue? I am not sure I see the connection. [/qb]

Many would consider smoking and not wearing a seat belt to be inherently immoral because they are Malum prohibitum.

Definition of MP:

An act which is immoral because it is illegal; not necessarily illegal because it is immoral.

Take cigarette smoking for example, if a smoker goes into a hospital ward where oxygen is being used and there are patients suffering from respiratory conditions, he could be charged with a crime, for the act of smoking under such circumstances are illegal, and some would argue immoral since it could not only cause an explosion but exacerbate the illness of the patients. So from this standpoint smoking could be regarded as both illegal and immoral.

As for not wearing seatbelts, the potential for serious injury to the driver, which could result in excessive costs for medical care could be viewed by some as being immoral as well. This could pose a further burden on the taxpayers as in the case of cigarette smokers who inflate medical care costs to the tune of millions if not billions of dollars yearly. These monies could be better spent for example on education, which is an argument I hear proposed more often than not.

Again, these acts like prostitution could be regarded as being immoral, for the simple reason that they are illegal.

The question becomes is morality tied in with legality? If so, is the state/lawmakers who create these laws dictating what is immoral and what is not?

[Diplomat]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Originally posted by britisha:

Many would consider smoking and not wearing a seat belt to be inherently immoral because they are Malum prohibitum.

Definition of MP:

An act which is immoral because it is illegal; not necessarily illegal because it is immoral.

I guess the question in my mind is: what is morality? One source states:

The term “morality” can be used either
(1) descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,
(a) some other group, such as a religion, or
(b) accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
(2) normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

How morality is defined plays a crucial, although often unacknowledged, role in formulating ethical theories. To take “morality” to refer to an actually existing code of conduct is quite likely to lead to some form of relativism. Among those who use “morality” normatively, different specifications of the conditions under which all rational persons would put forward a code of conduct result in different kinds of moral theories. To claim that “morality” in the normative sense does not have any referent, that is, to claim that there is no code of conduct that, under any plausible specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons, results in moral skepticism.

IMHO, it is the relativity of the definition that contributes to the problem. I am not so sure that all prosititutes would consider what they do immoral, (they accept what they do as their personal code of conduct for earning an income) yet because they are in breach of one of society's code, their actions are classified that way.

One could argue that any number of acts could be considered immoral because they are illegal. I do not necessarily agree with that position at all.

The question becomes is morality tied in with legality? If so, is the state/lawmakers who create these laws dictating what is immoral and what is not?

A similar topic was discussed here some time ago. In its simplest definition, morality is the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct. Can that be legislated? Is legislation the legal means of protecting society from sometimes obvious right and wrong, simply because if left up to each person, we would not necessarily comply with what some would argue should be natural responses to what we know? For example, while studies has shown that wearing seatbelts saves lives, if wearing them was not made mandatory, would the majority of us wear them?

Again, IMHO, it does go back to the definition of morality. If we accept the aforementioned definition as being reasonable, then everytime legislation is passed telling us how to 'behave', 'morality' is being legislated.

[servant]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Well well well. I am actually in agreement with everything Fledgist just said.

In answer to your question, I believe the answer is yes. As contentious as the words "right" and "wrong" are, it would seem to me that these concepts are the basis of our system of jurispudence and important to our understanding of what morality is.

Miss B, do you think that an atheist would necessarily find the idea of monogamy incompatible with their world view ? I don't think so but again, maybe this is something that Fledgist should address instead of me.

"Wouldn't 'abstinence' be a more neutral equivalent?"

I found it interesting that you would say this because many of the programs that have been advocating abstinence before marriage, have been faith based in nature. The word "abstinence" has become a very loaded one in sex ed circles as a result.

[Guest]

Re: Sex Ed - Missing The Forest

Originally posted by servant:
[qb] And this is why, Miss B, I would not agree that an atheist would necessarily find the idea of monogamy incompatible with their world view.
[/qb]

To me 'abstinence' and 'monogamy' are types of behavior with absolutely no moral connotations. 'Marital fidelity' sounds more poetic, but to me, rings more like a moral or value.