So far, I have found our text very interesting and informative. Despite being a secular textbook, it appears to take a very moderate, informative view instead of a heavily opinionated one, and I appreciate that effort. I've read Chapters 2, 1, and 11 so far, and in that order in accordance with our class syllabus.
Since we've been jumping around in the book so much, I decided to take a look through the table of contents to see what it contained. Here's what I found:
- 1. The Case for Cultural Diversity
- 2. Critical Thinking and Moral Reasoning
- 3. Aristotle and Aquinas
- 4. Kant's Deontology
- 5. Mill and Utilitarian Ethics
- 6. Feminist Ethics
- 7. Hindu Dharma
- 8. Buddhist Ethics
- 9. Confucian Harmony
- 10. Ethics in Africa: To Be Is to Belong
- 11. Islamic Ethics
- 12. Ethics and the Environment
- And an Appendix of various readings.
There is no discussion of Judeo-Christian ethics in this entire book.
How can this be: an ethics book that claims to look at the topic "across cultures" that doesn't include a discussion of the Judeo-Christian viewpoint in depth? This book covers all of the major philosophical views as well as many religious ones including Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam. But there is no Biblical viewpoint.
I thought that perhaps the author thought that his audience would be well aware of the Christian ethical standpoint. However at this day and age, I don't think even that should be taken for granted.
Even from a secular perspective, the Biblical view should be covered. Ethical views which were supposedly founded upon the Bible have radically shaped the course of the Western world over the past 2,000 years. While some of these changes were misguided and others were well-founded, the fact that this one book, the Bible, has been an astronomically powerful force cannot be denied. It deserves a place in every ethics textbook ever written.
Thankfully, my professor is going to be covering the topic using writings from another source. We have not read or discussed them yet (at the time of this post was written, I have since read the selections in question), so it will be interesting to see what slant the professor and the texts that she provides take on scripture.
Stay tuned to see how it turns out...
Your Turn: What role do you think Judeo-Christian ethics should play in an "Ethics from a Global Perspective" course?
This sounds like the accepted collegiate approach to everything---let's get God out of the way. Separation of church and school---at least, CHRISTIANITY. Welcome to America in 2011.
Yeah, you're totally right Clint. But it's just not logical, especially in this instance!
Interesting!
Undoubtedly, Judeo-Christian ethics should be taken into account when considering the ethics of any other philosophical/religious claims.
Certainly there will be Christian ethics and doctrine included in the section "Aristotle and Aquinas", which is a bonus, but who knows to what detail will it be covered?
This ethics class sounds awesome! I'm extremely glad that you have the opportunity to take a course like that. Also looking forward to hearing more about what is covered and discussed!
-AJ
@AJ, I wrote this post about a week or so ago, and since then we've completed the whole series of lectures on "The Biblical Approach." Very, very slanted lectures for sure. From the outside, I could see how someone might possibly think that she was trying to be objective, but in the way she presented her information I could see that she was definitely pushing a strong anti-Christian agenda. Working on a couple of blog posts about that....
I intently anticipate reading them! That was the same case with my Philosophy class last semester - A very poor understanding of Biblical doctrines and concepts was given. Sadly, there was never a time for correction or discussion throughout the course days.
-AJ
Another blog post about my ethics class is coming up on Wednesday!
Of course, it will all be slanted. Like Clint said, Welcome to
America in 2011. The question is, are you raising the right questions? and...YOU ARE! AJ, you did not have opportunity? for correction or discussion? don't they raise their hands anymore in class?
that is to say...don't YOU?
I can understand the feeling of not being able to get a word in edge-wise. There's only so much time in a class, and while I may raise a good question, my professor will often counter it, and sometimes here reasoning is wrong. But sometimes there just isn't the time for the two of us to have a dialogue about it... other students raise their hands too.
As a result, I pick and choose my questions carefully to have the maximum impact in the fewest words. Also, the phrase "choose your battles" comes into play here...
My favorite philosophy class so far was only about 15 students sitting in a circle around a very large table. We were expected to have read the selections and be prepared to answer questions when asked and basically lead the discussion. If not, we'd get thrown out. I learned so much in that class! Of course, that's not possible with a larger class size.