Most teachers need to teach Moral Education in school besides their regular specialty subjects. There is a pitiful lack of guidance as to how to teach this subject. It is not easy. Son No 1 just confessed to me that they are normally given a free period.
When I was assigned to teach Moral Ed to a Sec 4 (Normal) class not too long ago, I decided that my students should be challenged to do some thinking. I gave them some scenarios and asked them what they would do and why. It is easy to answer I don't know, but that's not an option - and don't let that be an option for you! Think about it. Here are some examples:
1 The Value of a Friend You recently got to know that one of your best friends is taking drugs/getting involved in gangs. Nobody else knows about it. What would you do?
2 The Value of a Promise A close friend confides in you that he has stolen some money from a classmate and he made you promise not to tell. When the teacher accuses another student (who is not a friend) of stealing the money, do you keep your promise? This innocent student will be severely punished. If the person who is being unfairly accused is also a good friend, would it make any difference to your decision?
3 The Value of Trust You have a close relationship with your parents and they trust you that you will not lie to them. One of your friends is planning a party when her parents are out of town and you dearly want to go to the party because you want to be in the "in" crowd. But you know your parents will not let you go to a party without adult supervision. All your other friends are not telling their parents the truth and they urge you to do the same. What would you do?
The above are typical moral dilemmas faced by teenage students, in various guises. Moral dilemmas usually arise when there is a conflict between doing what is RIGHT (our duty) versus what is GOOD (as in morally acceptable) and when the RIGHT action may lead to BAD (undesirable) consequences.
In the first scenario, The Value of a Friend, we recognise that the dilemma arises because teens hold this strong value of peer loyalty - which ordinarily is something GOOD because we don't want friends who snitch or tell on us. But in such a situation, they may want to think about what is the meaning of true friendship. They know that taking drugs or joining gangs will eventually lead their friend to doom, thus they know that the RIGHT thing to do is to tell - to save the friend. But it takes an awful lot of courage to tell - they will almost certainly lose the friendship, a BAD consequence, from their point of view.
This is what is called the courage of conviction - when one knows what is the RIGHT thing to do and will do it, however tough the action is, or undesirable the consequence may be. This theme was expounded in the book, "To Kill A Mockingbird" when Atticus Finch took on the case to defend a black man in a conservative town despite knowing the undesirable consequences that he and his children would inevitably encounter.
The second scenario, The Value of a Promise, explores again the conflict between what is GOOD - to keep your promise - and what is RIGHT - to save the innocent. Many students will make the distinction between saving the accused - if the accused is a friend - and not doing anything - if the accused is not a friend. This again illustrates to me the strong bonds of friendship that exist among teens. This dilemma of "saving the innocent" versus "personal detriment" reminds me of the lead character, Jean Valjean, in "Les Miserables". Jean was an escaped convict - and when another person, a vagabond, was mistakenly arrested and identified as him, he was in a dilemma whether to confess of not.
The third scenario, The Value of Trust, requires the students to weigh the consequence of lying to their parents which, if discovered, will lead to the loss of trust between the parents and the child. The students need to ask themselves, "Is it worth it?" This is a dilemma created when a GOOD action - telling the truth - will lead to a BAD (undesirable) outcome, as far as the student is concerned, because he risks not going to the party, unless he manages to persuade his parents otherwise.
I normally tell my students to trust their parents to do the right thing. Parents do not make rules to make their children miserable. They make rules to make their children safe. And parents want their children to be happy - in fact, they want them to have a lifetime of happiness, not a moment of temporary happiness which may lead to a lifetime of misery. A recent Liam Neeson show, "Taken", actually dramatised this learning point to make an interesting movie.
Now that we all have got the hang of moral reasoning, lol, we can try out this more complex but interesting case. This is a true story, so the internet tells me, and happened in 1842.
The Overcrowded Lifeboat A ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. The lifeboat was giving way. It soon became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anybody were to survive. You are the captain. What would you do?
I will reveal what actually happened in due course :) See Comments
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
The Captain reasoned that the right thing to do was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action was NOT unfair to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway if nothing was done. If, however, the Captain did not do anything, then he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved (7 lives).
The next question was who to save?
The Captain further reasoned that since the only possibility of rescue was through great efforts of rowing, thus the weakest would have to be sacrificed.
The story was not clear exactly what happened after that, but we were told that the Captain and the 7 chosen survivors were eventually rescued but the Captin was tried in the Court for his action.
Post a Comment