Share this comment
I thought of these matters while reading the recent David Brooks essay (theatlantic.com/magazinβ¦), where he says, among other things, that "...we would never want to go back to the training methods that prevailed for so long, rooted in so many π΅π©π°πΆ π΄π©π’ππ π―π°π΅π΄ and so much shaming, and riddled with so much racism and sexism."
Lβ¦
I thought of these matters while reading the recent David Brooks essay (https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/09/us-culture-moral-education-formation/674765/), where he says, among other things, that "...we would never want to go back to the training methods that prevailed for so long, rooted in so many π΅π©π°πΆ π΄π©π’ππ π―π°π΅π΄ and so much shaming, and riddled with so much racism and sexism."
Leave aside the racism, which I think is a red-herring here, as one won't easily find anyone claiming that our proper moral education requires that we distinguish people by race. He's saying that we won't review our current assumptions about human nature and morality even though, considered as a test of a hypothesis for what makes a good society and a good life, there's evidence that they're wrong.
That's fair. There are things we think are morally wrong and will avoid doing even if they might make most of us happier. I don't think a recognition of differences between the sexes, or that people have obligations to their communities and to both previous and succeeding generations, or that people have obligations to God, are in that category.