Content area
Full Text
In the last column we introduced the idea of ethical reasoning (see Paul & Elder, 2006) and discussed its importance to education, assuming the intention is to cultivate fairminded critical thinking. We also discussed the problem of intrinsic egocentric thinking as a fundamental barrier to ethical reasoning. In this column we focus on conceptual distinctions essential to skilled ethical reasoning and, consequently, to fostering the educated mind.
The Sociocentric Counterfeits of Ethical Reasoning
Skilled ethical thinkers routinely distinguish ethics from its counterfeits, such as the domains of social conventions (conventional thinking), religion (theological thinking), politics (ideological thinking), and the law (legal thinking). Too often, ethics is confused with these very different modes of thinking. It is not uncommon, for example, for highly variant and conflicting social values and taboos to be treated as if they were universal ethical principles.
Thus, religious ideologies, social "rules," and laws are often mistakenly taken to be inherently ethical in nature. If this amalgamation of domains was equated with universal ethics, then by implication every practice within any religious system would necessarily be ethically binding, every social rule ethically obligatory, and every law ethically justified.
If all particular religious do's and don'ts defined ethics, no religious practices (e.g., torturing unbelievers or burning them alive), could be judged as unethical. In the same way, if ethical and conventional thinking were one and the same, every social practice within any culture would necessarily be ethically obligatory, including social conventions in Nazi Germany. It would be impossible, then, to condemn any social traditions, norms, and taboos from an ethical standpoint, however ethically bankrupt they in fact were. What's more, if one country's laws defined ethics, then by implication politicians and lawyers would be considered experts on ethics, and every law they finagled to get on the books would take on the status of a moral truth.
It is essential, then, to differentiate ethics from other modes of thinking commonly confused with ethics. Critical thinkers and autonomous persons must remain free to critique commonly accepted social conventions, religious practices, political ideas, and laws using ethical concepts not defined by these counterfeits of ethics. No one lacking this ability can become proficient in genuine ethical reasoning. Next we consider these domains of pseudo ethics more...