Blimey, if you followed my last post, you were doing well. To be fair, I was in a huge hurry this am, and it is interesting (well to me anyhow) to see what spills out in such a situation. Basically, it seems that my inclination towards pedantry, (a hopefully usually recessive genetic aspergic trait) pops up when I let myself go unedited.
By way of a contrast and as a picture of clarity and good sense, and a more legal viewpoint, please see the ARCH comment for a very satisfactory critique of Prof Archard's piece.
But before signing out, there is more on the matter of what the government is proposing for schools, on this occasion from The Times. Don't worry, I'm not going to start all over again, though GOOD GRIEF, it's tempting - all those hidden genes are bubbling to the surface at this very moment....just look at this for an example of provocation to pedantic criticism:
"SCHOOLS would no longer be required to teach children the difference between right and wrong under plans to revise the core aims of the National Curriculum. Instead, under a new wording that reflects a world of relative rather than absolute values, teachers would be asked to encourage pupils to develop “secure values and beliefs”.
Ummm, eerr....no STOP. What I just want to know is - who is it who's actually confused here? Is it government policy makers or the hacks, or as I strongly suspect, is it both?
Anyhow, whoever it is should go read Popper and get their heads slightly more round this subject matter. They could start with Bryan Magee's very succinct Popper if they have to get their policy or copy out in the next few days. Once they've done this and have got at least a basic grasp of ethics and theories of knowledge, and then visited the ARCH website just to make sure they aren't infringing any current legislation, THEN and only THEN should they start offering up their ideas on these sorts of issues.