 |
Comprehension. Follow-up. Pre-reading task
|
|
|
|
COMPREHENSION
1. Answer the questions.
- How is the modern world divided by different people?
2. What is considered to be the fundamental battle?
3. What can you say about the people in a modern society?
4. What was the impetus for numerous discussions about moral values?
5. What have science and technology brought to humans?
6. What are people ready to do for the sake of the whole society?
7. Is reconciliation in the society possible?
FOLLOW-UP
Try to predict what kind of society people will live in when 20 years pass.
MORAL CRISIS OF THE SOCIETY.
PRE-READING TASK
1. Answer the questions.
- What are moral values?
- Do we need moral values?
- Can you agree that modern society faces moral crisis?
Today we often hear that people are behaving as they do because of a breakdown in moral values. Some people assume that a lack of religious upbringing is central to the plight of our misguided society. Others reason that our value crises stems from future shock, erosion of family life, cosmopolitan effects of mass media, revolution in science and technology, and the complexity of ecological problems. While we are not certain about all the causes of increasing violence, drug use, and sexual promiscuity in a contemporary society, we are advised by leaders in the field of moral education that many people are beset with moral confusion. We are advised that many people, young and old, are unaware of their moral responsibilities to themselves and to other people. But how did we reach this state of moral confusion? Let us review some historical origins of traditional value systems and see how the systems have broken down. Throughout most of history the direction of cultural development was often determined by military power, by church, state authoritarianism, or by some other type of entrenched body which defined institutions and interpreted the value system. The individualization, industrialization and increasing population of the twentieth century have tended to diversify culture as well as value systems. In the past people were largely concerned with the inculcation of the puritan ethic. In the past we accepted the dual tenets that " fear is the mother of morality" and that 'morality is the rationalization of self-interest". Most people were constrained from doing bad things by the fear of ending up in hell, and not necessarily because they had the moral foundation within themselves that commanded them not to do bad simply because it hurt other people and things. In contrast, today we are attempting to eliminate fear from the life of the child; today we often insist that morality should not be limited to self-interest. Taking into consideration the fact that today most of us live in a pluralistic society, the following question may arise: should we support the principles of a “me-first philosophy” or should we follow common moral values? “Me-first philosophy” puts on the first place a person with his/her own interests and necessities, it justifies all the actions and deeds: I do this or that because I want and I don’t care what others will think or say, even if my actions contradict common acceptable norms. In terms of “me-first philosophy” we can judge people and their behaviour from our own point of view. As far as common moral values are concerned, one may say that in a pluralistic society people are free in their opinions and actions. This is on the one hand. On the other hand, can any society function properly when there are no limits or restraints in anything, when common rules and moral values are not observed and followed? Such situation sooner or later will result at least in chaos if not in the end of the universe. That is why we are still in need of common moral values, if not for the whole world but may be for one separate society. However, here we can face another difficulty: who or what authority will decide what values and norms are right and good for us and what should be outlawed? Moreover, in what way will these common values be promoted or imposed and whether it is possible in general? May be authoritarianism in the societies could be the way out? We are still in quest for answers to these questions because such old authorities as school, parents, church, government can no longer influence the situation. The quality of education at some schools leaves much to be desired and many teachers are not even trusted. Parents are at a loss: very often they can’t cope with proper up-bringing and behaviour of their children, not speaking about implementing of any values. New and potent intellectual force arising from the scientific and technological advances of our time and the globalized, immediate exchange of ideas, information and knowledge is debunking religious myths in the minds of millions. Organized religions are powerless to stop the debunking, because a myth can not be defended, it can only be believed in. And many modern people neither believe in God nor rely on church clergy. Governments have spoiled their reputations by having such civil servants who are embroiled in sleaze, rampant fraud and thieving. In a time in which morals were viewed as God-given, immutable, and absolute, the morality of children and adults could be assumed to be synonymous. In the past we were in relative agreement as to the content of these absolute morals, and the institutions of home, church, and school were much in agreement in the task of transmitting the cultural values to the youth. Today we find that, although these institutions are still very much concerned with teaching morality, the teachings have become more pluralistic. Each institution inculcates in children values which may be widely divergent from the values instilled by other institutions. This diversity in values training has resulted in peoples harried by confusion and anomie. Thus, we have eliminated the absolute aspect of morality, the three institutions are no longer in complete concurrence, and we have eliminated fear as the basis of morality. Yet, our societies need not remain in this state of uncertainty. Although this moral dilemma readily evidences negative implications for societies, there exist positive implications as well. For example, people may be forced to reflect upon moral issues and thus discover and admit limitations in their own moral reasoning. After a number of peoples begin to realize that their framework of values is indeed unsteady, it is hoped that a portion of these will determine that the value system should be bolstered. Since we often look to youth for flexibility and to educators for guidance, perhaps a logical approach to a stable, rational system of morals is the development of moral education within the existing school curriculum. Educators must face this situation and accept their responsibility for providing a method of early moral development. Moral education refers to a process of stage-to-stage development -- a continual process which is learned rather than reached automatically. The process of moral education can be stimulated and enriched by presenting children with moral dilemmas. In times past the traditional school curriculum utilized fables and similar moralistic " lessons" to inculcate " right" conduct. The child was trained to recite righteous precepts in the belief that recitation would lead to practice. The school, church, and family utilized sermonizing as a method of instilling morality. The overriding goal of moral education is that each person will be able to independently define his own structure. The new morality would emphasize the establishment of a system of justice which would promote the well-being of the person as an individual. [31]
|
|
|
|
|
|
GUIDE
|
|
|
