FROLIO – Formalizable Relationship-Oriented Language-Insensitive Ontology

Welcome to FROLIO – a new attempt to merge philosophy and the "semantic web" . This website is under continuing development.

Highlights from the book "The War for Childrens Minds" by Stephen Law, Routledge 2006, ISBN 978-0-415-42768-5

Introduction

This 'war' is between those whose believe that we should bring up children to show deference to authority, and those who think that we should bring them up to know how to make up their own minds about morality. The book is a warning about fundamentalists taking over schools (maybe just like leftists took them over after the 1960s?). It implies some disquiet about Tony Blair's call for "more faith schools". It points out that the USA is both one of the most religious countries yet one of the most morally dysfunctional. Law is definitely against trying to prevent children from questioning things before they are "fully and properly immersed in the tradition" (as proposed by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks).

Chapter	Page	Highlight
Intro	1	The "authoritarian tradition" suggests "deference to authority". Such deference would presumably be to a religious book, a religious individual, a group or a regime. Secular cultures can be just as authoritarian as religious ones.
	2	Did we go too liberal after 1960?
	3	How far should the pendulum swing back?
	3	Law's theme - education should be rooted in responsible philosophy, not blind authority.
1	4 - 5	The Enlightenment could be seen as a reaction against mediaeval theocracy, especially when it was discovered that some tenets were clearly wrong.
Enlightenment	5	Some said that daring to think for oneself (a core Enlightenment value) brings the risk of moral malaise.
	6	Kant thought that pure reason - presumably his "categorical imperative" - could provide each of us with a firm moral foundation (RT - however I guess that doesn't say it provides the answer to every case).
	7	Law distinguishes The Enlightenment (the fashion, and assumption that reason can solve everything) from Kant's position, which is that we must be courageous and take on the responsibility for making moral judgments.
	8	MacIntyre and Gray (and Irving Kristol) argued that a foundation in reason alone is bound to fail - assuming we throw out all the old traditions and authorities.
	9	Other critics, e.g. Melanie Phillips (UK journalist), Jonathan Sacks (UK Chief Rabbi) - imply that the enlightenment view reduces to "mere personal preference".
	10	Sacks does not just blame "leftist" thinking" - the 1980s "greed is good" view of the right wing is just as bad.
	10	Prophets of doom warning of a "moral wasteland", e.g. Gertrude Himmelfarb; also Tammy Bruce, who definitely blames the Left and a "Gay Elite".
	11	Islam has never really experienced a full-blown enlightenment, and in some places independence of thought means you are liable to be executed.
	12-13	We are seeing the rise of young earth creationism - promoted by evangelical American churches.
	14	Moderate anti-Enlightenment says "OK, but don't allow children to think for themselves too early or too much".
2	15-17	Capital A and small A Authoritarianism, and capital L and small L Liberalism; Law shows 2 "Hot Cross Buns".
Liberal	16	The Freedom of Thought dimension is shown as orthogonal to the Freedom of Action dimension. Parent Alice is liberal regarding action but authoritarian regarding thought; parent Sophie is the other way round.
	17	The original Enlightenment thinkers never thought that all people should be free to DO whatever they want.
	18-19	Two schools can have the same clear rules and general moral code, but one allows students to discuss the rules, whereas in the other discussion and questioning is not allowed.
	20-21	Equally, one can have Liberal religious schools and Authoritarian atheist schools.
	22	Another Hot Cross Bun - Liberal/Authoritarian versus Religious/Atheist. The Pope=Auth+Religious, Stalin=Auth+Atheist, Richard Dawkins=Lib+Atheist, Ex-Prof of Divinity at Oxford=Lib+Religious.
	23	The crucial dispute is between Liberals and Authoritarians, not Religious and Atheists.
3	24-31	Methods of enforcing authority: execution, torture, cruelty and persecution, punishment (physical or impositions), rewards, propaganda, social pressure, repetition, censorship, isolation, confusion, tribalism, brainwashing.
Education	28	Example of the Catholic schoolgirl who dared ask why Catholics think contraception is wrong.
	32	Is encouraging thinking and use of reason any less a form of thought control? Law says there IS a difference, because things to which the "filter of reason" is applied are more likely to be true or correct.
	32	Are not Authoritarians wanting us, and children in particular, to turn off - or bypass - this filter? (RT - presumably advertisers have the same idea.)
	33	Even liberal parents may fall back into applying many authoritarian methods when things don't work.
	34	What differentiates Liberals is that they do encourage children to think things out, even if some rules have to be applied.
	35	Children should be trained in "thinking skills and virtues", and should acquire "emotional intelligence" - see "Extra 1" below. (I am not sure that many adults are up to the mark with many of these items!)
	36-39	Could we expect children to think philosophically? Buranda State School in Brisbane seemed to do it very successfully
4	40-41	Democracy needs people to think freely; "a daily diet of iconic imagery, them-and-us thinking, peer pressure, social stigma and terrifying news reportage might be used to manipulate citizens whose critical defences and capacity for critical reflection are pretty weak." (Isn't that like where we are now?)
Why be Liberal	42-43	JS Mill - we should encourage a "marketplace of ideas" - moderated by "survival of the fittest". However media, advertisers and fanatical factions may try and force their ideas by oratory, spin, threats (and other forms of bullshit).
	43-45	Milgram's experiments - seeing how far Joe Public would go if ordered to do so by an authority figure in a white coat. Not many said "that's going too far".
	46-48	Jonathan Glover researched people who went along with persecutions in Nazi Germany, Rwanda and Bosnia. Stanley and Pearl Oliner researched non-Jews who rescued Holocaust victims. The suggestion is that better actions came from those whose parents explained things rather than simply applied discipline.
	48-50	The Muslim terrorist tendency: Shabbir Akhtar (author of 'A Faith for All Seasons') wrote: "Allah is the subject of faith and loving obedience, not of rational enquiry or purely discursive thought." A few Muslim writers say this needs to change, but probably more clerics are advocating jihad.
	49	Tony Blair called for more "faith" schools - but that might include many that could be dangerous.
	50	Richard Dawkins: "To fill a world with religion, or religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns" - maybe a bit extreme, but some highly Authoritarian schools might justify such a remark.
	50	Melanie Phillips: "the Enlightenment gave us the Holocaust" - how, exactly?
	51	Hitler claimed to be a Christian, and objected to secular schools (although he changed when the churches criticized him).
	52-55	Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot were all cruelly Authoritarian figures who wished to control thought - so was the Inquisition. It's not Liberalism that is to blame, and religion / atheism is not the issue either.
5	57	Trusting an authority - who is to blame if things go wrong? Chemistry professor example - if he gave wrong advice. But a suicide bomber told to kill unbelievers by a religious authority? No, the individual must take some blame.
Kinds of	58	Law's justification - one can't delegate moral judgments, unlike technical judgments. Sometimes, we have to "play God".
Authority	60a	This is more mature, and a Liberal (rather than an Authoritarian) education will help.
	60b	A Liberal approach to education is incompatible with one built around a religion based on a sacred text.
	61	Parents, Judges, Policemen - need to be allowed some authority, to enforce good rules.
	63	It's wrong to equate Liberalism with "a culture of shallow, selfish, materialist individualism".
	65	Mistakes are inevitable - what's important is to foster a culture in which we can correct each other.
	66	A Liberal society has a dilemma with Authoritarian cults. It has to tolerate them, but if they advocate violence, then they must act.
	67	We would all like our children to acknowledge that there is much to learn from others, even religious leaders. But we need to emphasize that they should never hand over responsibility for making moral judgments to some external authority.
6	68-69	What is the "moral malaise"? Secularism (no moral bearings)? Rise in crime? Relativism?
Moral Malaise	70	Sacks laments the loss of pointers and value of institutions - family, school. community - experienced even in pub, pulpit, cricket. Religions' calendars set the rites of passage. We "belonged".
	71	Morality has become privatized.
	71-2	Recorded crime - UK increased 12 times in 55 years, US violent crime 5 times.
	72	Young people are less well behaved, are feckless, lazy, rude, greedy, shallow, materialistic, arrogant. Baden-Powell (Scouts) said much the same in 1900.
	73	Out of wedlock births in England & Wales: 1960: 5%, 1992:32%.
	74	Relativism - no moral truth - all opinions and cultures are equally valid.
	75	What about forced female circumcision? It's proper in Somalia.
	76	The politically correct argument for Relativism: we Westerners forced our standards on others in the past, but we now question our own moral infallibility. Cultural imperialism is not "PC".
	78	Extreme relativism - even to question another's opinion amounts to imposing your view. Some people won't even condemn Nazis and the Holocaust.
	81	Loss of religion can't be totally to blame - religion never went away in the US. But Himmelfarb says - US religiosity is a mile wide but an inch deep.
	84	But is the cure really just to go back to old-style religious external authority, (RT - when the full consequences of that religious culture make so little sense to so many)?
7	85-7	In some spheres, moral attitudes in the West have improved, e.g. civil rights, racism, attitudes to women, tolerance of homosexuality, the environment, animal rights.
Relativism	88a	We can acknowledge that we are fallible about what is right and wrong, without accepting relativism.
	88b	Arguments against relativism: 1) a relativist ought to be certain that one view is just as good as any other (one would think that the default would be that there would always be one view with better value); 2) a relativist who judges someone else for making judgments is hypocritical (because by doing this they are themselves making a judgment).
	88c	(One might add: 3) a relativist can never believe that something is wrong; 4) to acknowledge the possibility of our being mistaken is incompatible with relativism.)
	89a	Only if we reject moral relativism are we free to promote tolerance and open-mindedness as universal virtues. Relativism is politically-correct twaddle of a rather noxious sort.
	89b	Law doesn't know any Liberals who are moral relativists (RT - neither do I). So who are they? Who can we blame if it isn't the thinking Liberals?
8	90	US Liberal-phobia - book title "Help! Mom! There are Liberals under my Bed". Often equated with "the Left".
Great Myth	91	Is it atheists maybe? But again, probably few (thinking) atheists are relativists.
	93a	Science encourages individual critical thinking, but not relativism - you can't say "my theory is just as good as any other".
	93b	To suggest that science should defer to some external authority, e.g. Aristotle or the Bible, would be going back to the Middle Ages.
	94	It's a Hot Cross Bun again - Liberal-Authoritarian and Relativist-Non-relativist are orthogonal axes.
	97	Sometimes religious education triggers relativism - because of the need to say that something is "true for Christians and false for Muslims".
	98	Fukuyama: "relativism ... fires indiscriminately, shooting out the legs of not only the absolutisms, dogmas and certainties of the western tradition, but that tradition's emphasis on tolerance, diversity and freedom of thought as well".
	101	Real relativists (RT - are these the Postmodernists?) hate the thinking Liberals as people who want to ram their white, male, reactionary views down childrens' throats under the pretext that this is what "reason" demands.
	103	"Witch-hunt" labelling of the chairperson of the US Planned Parenthood Federation.
	104	Melanie Phillips missing the point in her criticism of Graham Haydon.
	106	Rabbi Sacks claiming that Kant advocates non-judgmentalism.
	107	A lot of commentators have fallen for a very simplistic myth.
9	108	A more rational objection to Liberal education - many individuals (children, but young adults too) just aren't up to grasping the issues and rational consequences.
Reason & Morality	109	Moral truths aren't the same as "true by definition" - like a triangle has 3 sides.
	110	The sausage machine of reason is subject to "garbage in, garbage out".
	111	Induction suggests probable, but not cast-iron certain truths (RT - black swans).
	112	A morality based on reason would need to produce "ought" conclusions from "is" premises - a gap which can't be filled logically.
	113	One would need to feed at least one "ought" into the sausage machine.
	114	But this implies infinite regress - what is the starting "ought"? So let's not depend on such arguments. Instead ...
	116	Method 1 - reveal unacknowledged consequences
	117	Method 2 - reveal logical inconsistencies
	118	Method 3 - use reason, science where one can
	119	Method 4 - reveal faulty reasoning
	120a	An external moral authority is exercising its own subjective morality, often by force or other type of compulsion. (RT - think Hitler; and it's a problem if more than one external authority is competing, e.g. secular versus Sharia law).
	120b	But the similarities are stronger than the differences. "Almost everyone signs up to certain basic, fundamentally similar moral principles ... that limit the range of moral belief systems open to them".
	121a	We must bring feelings into it as well as reason, and regard them as being educable (e.g. widening our empathy). (RT - or at least, reflection on, and control of, our feelings.)
	121b	Law's solution - train everyone up to a higher level of reasoning. (RT - isn't the problem the few who drop out, get left behind, or have some mental or emotional obstacles to keeping up? Is this a problem of education today, that teachers don't have the time to spot the pupils with such problems, e.g. because of large classes, heavy curricula, too many diversions for the students)?
10	122	One approach - building character by instilling good habits.
Character Education	123	William James approach - repetitive drilling. Good behaviour should become unthinking and automatic. "Habit is the enormous flywheel of society."
	124	Aristotle - childrens' nature, to begin with, is to do whatever they feel like doing. According to Sarah Broadie, Aristotle says that habituation cannot be a mindless process.
	125	We learn, through feedback, that behaving in certain ways is good (and others bad).
	128	The Liberal approach needs to be paired with character education - but also vice versa.
	129	The risk of "character education", on its own, leading to entrenched, narrow attitudes. Thinking carefully, and reflecting about moral issues, should be included among the character traits being instilled.
	130	Some proponents of character education, are (Law claims) looking for an excuse to turn children into moral sheep with a religious authority leading the flock.
11	132	Macintyre - it's not possible to conjure morality out of thin air - we need some tradition.
Tradition & Community	133	Macintyre, Rowan Williams - we learn through stories.
	134	Williams claims it must be a religious tradition.
	135	Law says religion does not have a monopoly on addressing fundamental issues - so does philosophy. (RT - in some eastern religions, there doesn't seem so much difference). Williams would not advocate shutting down independent critical thought.
	136	Macintyre - "Nothing can claim exemption from reflective critique".
	137	Simon Blackburn - societies (e.g. breakaway communes) that profess a common religion last 4 times longer than if they do not.
	138	Blackburn - "sprinkling fairy dust on a set of beliefs ... acts to close off questions and doubts, and in effect fend off reason, making it all the more difficult for an individual to break step with their community".
	139a	But are the liberal alternatives to the glue of religious authority strong enough?
	139b	Religious authority-based communities are not only oppressive, they produce moral sheep and can be dangerous (RT - e.g. Jihadists). They will be more hostile towards outsiders.
	140	They may label outsiders as corrupt and beyond the pale. This is disastrous in a country with more than one religion.
	141	Reason only undermines those religious moral positions that are flawed anyhow (e.g. anti homosexuals, women, Jews etc).
	142a	To question is not necessarily to reject.
	142b	Marcus Aurelius justified persecuting Christians on the grounds that they threatened to dissolve those ties that knit society together.
	143	Sacks - only allow independent critical thought when individuals have been fully and properly immersed in the tradition.
	145	How can one possibly, these days, suppress children using their critical faculties until a "late stage"?
12	147	If one says only religious authority will do, how is one going to enforce belief in a traditional-style God these days?
Keeping the	148	The Santa Claus' list syndrome
Masses in	149a	Machiavelli's advice - preach one thing, do another.
Line	149b	Leo Strauss - religion is important for moral order & stability, but the ruling elite don't need to be religious, they can pretend.
	151	Kristol - dangers of unrestricted access to the truth. There are different kinds of truth for different people - children, adults, elite highly-educated adults.
	152	Kristol - let a handful of sages, who know the truth and can live with it, keep it among themselves. Private religion is existentially unsatisfactory.
	154-5	US (with lots of religion) has more crime than Canada, Japan or Europe (which have less). Perhaps good welfare systems have some effect on this.
	155-6	The "moral capital" argument - atheists only behave well because of the previous religious traditions - no justification though.
	156-7	The "lower orders" argument - ethical atheists are elitists, the masses can't hack it (thinking for themselves ethically).
	158	Confucianism was secular - Chinese morality went up and down regardless.
	159a	There was morality before there was the church. There may be a genetic factor involved.
	159b	The USA is the worst country for social dysfunction.
	162-3	Disposing of the "Last Ditch" argument; "All the same, we need to make sure children are thoroughly indoctrinated in religious morality before we risk them thinking critically about it." Isn't religion itself "just another model", with its own problems and contradictions. Why should it do any better than secular rationalism? For my thoughts, see RT2 below.
13	164	Liberal education 1) leads to better emotional and social maturity; 2) raises citizens to exercise their democratic rights well; 3) provides a defence against cults, bullshit, brainwashing and "big lies"; 4) provides a weapon against relativism; 5) avoids delegating personal responsibility to someone else outside.
Conclusion	165	The book has hopefully exploded the "simple choice between authoritarianism or relativism" myth.
	166	Curriculum should include: 1) open discussion periods; 2) presentation of a range of different beliefs and arguments; 3) in religious education, include some basic philosophical stuff.
	167a	"Christianity stands head and shoulders above the rest, so no worries".
	167b	Melanie Phillips: to get children to think critically and independently about religion is itself "ideological indoctrination".
	168	Parental freedom above all? Not if it stunts development (extreme example, Chinese foot-binding).
	170	We wouldn't allow political schools, even if parents wanted it.
	171	Many religious schools are in fact political as well (e.g. in attitude to homosexuals, womens' place, abortion, Israel, jihad, justice, poverty).
A1	172	Blaming Enlightenment for the Holocaust?
Holocaust	173	Might just as well blame Christianity for the evils of the Inquisition.
	174a	Best defence against such moral catastrophes is not to make them deferential to authority, but to be critical thinkers.
	174b	Post-modernist view - reason is just another form of thought control? But surely not if it's independent.
	176	Eichmann claimed that he followed Kant; but he claimed to be "following orders", and that certainly isn't Kant.
A2	178	The Enlightenment as Macintyre characterizes it isn't the same as Kant characterized it.
Macintyre	179	Rational enquiry cannot be engaged in a traditional way by a wholly socially-disengaged individual.
	180	Macintyre has been co-opted as a pin-up boy for Authoritarians.
	181	Macintyre's view that we need a religious, teleological view of morality doesn't justify Authoritarianism.
Extra 1	35	Thinking skills and virtues - full list
	−	reveal and question underlying assumptions
	−	figure out the perhaps unforeseen consequences of a moral decision or point of view
	−	spot and diagnose faulty reasoning
	−	weigh up evidence fairly and impartially
	−	make a point clearly and concisely
	−	take turns in a debate, and listen attentively without interrupting
	−	argue without personalizing a dispute
	−	look at issues from the point of view of others
	−	question the appropriateness of, or the appropriateness of acting on, one's own feelings.
Extra 2	162-3	RT thoughts regarding the "Last Ditch" argument
	−	I think Law's approach is too much of a 'Straw Man' or 'Aunt Sally'.
	−	"Get young people to turn off their powers of reason" - how is anyone going to do this effectively?
	−	What happens when a few boys and girls get together in leisure times? My experience was that we explored all sorts of real and imaginary ideas, and we had discussions about them. Maybe our logic and reasoning skills were faulty and weak, but they certainly weren't turned off.
	−	The only hope of "turning off" reason, therefore, would be to stop kids getting together unless they are permanently and closely supervised and monitored. This certainly didn't happen even at my 1950s boarding schools. And it isn't going to happen with the information and commitment overload that most parents suffer today.
	−	An alternative approach, of course, is to bombard children with media "hits" on individuals, reducing them to zombies. Examples would be computer games, pop music, advertisements, censored news etc.
	−	Even then, with mobile phones, Twitter and other social networking, parents and teacher control is even less possible.
	−	I would say that, these days, it is almost impossible to shut children off from finding things out, asking questions and hearing different opinions.
	−	The cat gets ever more truly out of the bag. Sure, the 1960s brought in a stepwise surge in independent thinking, just as the enlightenment did earlier, and the renaissance, the convivencia, the Athenian democracy and even the fall of Adam before that!
	−	How much we can enforce religion (or any unquestionable authority) depends on how far out of the bag the cat has got. It's a lot different between a time when few people knew or thought much - and a time like today when many more people know much more. I think it is impossible to roll that back.
	−	Even if we go back to enforced authority, there will be terrific pressure to ease off to a more consensual authority. Examples are the former Soviet Union, and even Iran since the excesses following the 1979 revolution.
	−	I agree that a problem for any organized religion is that it is very prone to getting hi-jacked by the self-serving interests of the oligarchies that depend on it. This forces the religion into corners, since it is unwilling to admit that it has been wrong, or doesn't have all the answers.
	−	I'm slightly surprised that Law doesn't mention the idea of "de-mythologized" religion, as proposed by Robinson 'Honest to God' (see my highlights) and Aldous Huxley 'The Perennial Philosophy' (see my highlights).

Reflections

I think this is an important book, one that underlines what appear to be two rival prescriptions for how to educate future generations in western countries. As Law says on page 23, "the crucial dispute is between Liberals and Authoritarians, not Religious and Atheists". Can we really hope to return to a more authoritarian style in children's education? Maybe a sympathetic government could help impose such a style, but there would need to be compulsion to enforce it. This might keep the 'untermensch' more docile and law-abiding, but at the possible cost of suppressing those with the motivation to climb above the mediocre average - individuals who might have the imagination to look for a better future for all. Personally, I reckon there would be more simmering discontent and disengagement, especially among teenagers.

However I would not say that just encouraging children to think for themselves is enough by itself. I think peer pressure to conform, and the strength of the 'tall poppy syndrome', have become too powerful for many motivated children to stand up for what they personally believe. The teaching profession does not have the capacity to spend enough time with individual students and small groups to counter the effects of peer pressure - which is exacerbated by the reduction of time and energy that many parents find they have left to get involved with their own children's issues.

So, it is a problem, but I don't favour any turning back of the clock as the solution.

Links

Index to more highlights of interesting books

FROLIO home page

Some of these links may be under construction – or re-construction.

This version updated on 12^th January 2011

If you have constructive suggestions or comments, please contact the author rogertag@tpg.com.au .