Part 2. Developing Moral Reasoning
A philosophy curriculum for children must not begin with erudition, merely living wonder. It must also begin by distinguishing philosophical questions from other sorts of questions. There is a profound difference between asking how many fingers are on my hands, and asking whether having ten fingers is why we like the number ten so much. The first question is primarily a scientific or mathematical question; the second is largely a philosophical or teleological question. And though there is no question that cannot be approached from either perspective, it essential, when guiding children through their own philosophical concerns, to start initially with a distinction between philosophy and the other disciplines. And it is that initial distinction between philosophical questions and other sorts of questions that allows a place for pure philosophical wondering to begin, even if that distinction is merely an artificial stipulation.
So the young philosopher must begin by learning to recognize the sorts of questions, that easily allow for philosophical inquiry and to distinguish these from other sorts of questions, such as questions that generally entail empirical observation or even questions about faith which also are generally considered resistant to philosophical inquiry. Once the domain of philosophical inquiry is thereby loosely outlined, and distinguished from other disciplines such as questions of science, math and religion, the student can then begin to engage in philosophical inquiry within a separate context. And in this fashion our young philosopher, without fear of religious or political censure, can begin to engage safely in the process of inquiring about coherencies and incoherencies --analyses that hang together and analyses that don't hang together in an entirely philosophical way.
Now to attempt to demonstrate how philosophy is a necessary condition for moral reasoning. Essential for philosophical reasoning and therefore moral reasoning is the notion of "fittingness." This initial insight comes from an amalgamation of David Hume’s moral philosophy of moral sentiment and Maurice Mandelbaum’s book, The Phenomenology of Moral Experience.
Article comments
1 - Tao Jonez
yo, a lie is a lie. both are tryin ta deceive. sayin anything less is just self deception. philosophy is a good thang, got no problem there, but it is about askin questions with no objective answers. not a good thang ta stick in the heads of lil tykes that still ain't learned there ain't no Santa.
between this bit, and part one, sounds ta me like ya is advocating indoctrination more than exploration. and that just ain't right.
commie china under Mao and the Hitler youth all started the exact same way, all thinking it wuz the best ta start training the tykes ta think the way they wanted when they wuz young, so they woudl grow up ta not question.
thas the diametrically opposed purpose of philosophy, which is ta explore and question everything.
keep yer sunday school training camp in chuch, and keep objective reading , writing, arithmetic and science out there in the public arena, cuz not everybody grooves to da same tunes, and it ain't right ta force peeps ta dance if they don't dig the groove
know what i'm sayin?
2 - carmine
Tao,
And what exactly does all that mean, perhaps in English? Are you suggesting we should just lie to children or even worse, punish them for thinking or asking questions about moral dilemmas? There may be no absolute extra-human truth. But certainly some people sling some pretty mean "bullshit" and kids generally recognize it for what it is. There is a new book called "On Bullshit" by Harry G. Frankfurt. He is philosophy professor from Princeton or Harvard. He too has had his full of bullshit.
3 - Tao Jonez
nah carmine, dat wuz bigtime sarcazm, saying be stand up, be truthful, use yer brain, use yer reason, gain the Knowledge
ya can read over my shit again, dat should
make it more better clear