By John Taylor; 2007 Mar 27
Yesterday as a courtesy I emailed Rick Garlikov to let him know of my
admiration for his work and that this Badi Blog is currently preoccupied
with some of the essays on his site. He was kind enough to reply
promptly, saying that he had looked over yesterday's Badi' essay and
although I mentioned that I disagree with some of points I seemed only
to be agreeing with him so far. I replied that my problems are with Mr.
Garlikov's understanding of the Golden Rule. I will come to that soon,
but first I must disappoint him again by pointing out an essay that I
fervently, ardently and wholeheartedly agree with, entitled:
"The Immorality of Giving Tests for Grades in Teaching"
http://www.garlikov.com/philosophy/testmora.htm
Mr. Garlikov offers the following reasons that he considers it immoral
to give tests exclusively for evaluation purposes, rather than as an
inherent part of the learning process,
"The two main reasons testing for grading purposes while teaching is
morally wrong are that (1) it often makes a mockery of teaching (and
learning), and (2) it bestows important rewards even though (A) testing
does not show what it seems to show, and though (B) even if it did show
what it seems to, it would still not be the right basis on which to
bestow those rewards."
You can read the evidence that he gives for this startling thesis for
yourself at the above URL. My first thought was that Garlikov has proven
only that it is massively stupid for teachers to be so reliant on
examinations, but is this practice immoral? But then I thought that
Socrates would probably say, "Yes it is, whatever is based upon
ignorance, imitation and laziness ultimately breeds nothing but wrong
and immorality." If I had any say in the running of the world, every
student pedagogue entering teacher's college would have to read and
discuss Garlikov's essay on their first day of class.
I would add one further thing to what Garlikov says about testing being
immoral. A month or so ago I discussed on this blog an article in
McLeans Magazine reporting an entire change of culture in universities
over the past decade; now cheating on examinations is so pandemic that
cheating is considered by most students (rather than a minority, as
before) not as immoral but as a necessary survival skill. Thus,
immorality (testing) breeds lawlessness (cheating).
The McLeans article pointed out that as this generation of cheaters
enter the world of work the corruptive consequences for us all are
frightening, impossible to calculate. We will go to the doctor and not
know if the tests she gives are reliable because she or some clown in a
lab somewhere does not know or care what they are doing. The facts are
plain: if you institute an immoral system that relies completely upon
artificial examinations rather than actual performance in real
situations the results are predictable: complete subversion of the
system, reversion to forgetfulness and, in the end, collapse. As Jane
Jacobs warned in her last book, if we want to enter into a dark age this
is exactly how to go about it.
Tarnishing the Golden Rule; The Garlikov Objection, Part I
Finally, I turn to an equally startling and iconoclastic idea that
Garlikov puts forward. He holds -- if I am not oversimplifying -- that
the Golden Rule does not work because is not a moral rule. He brings it
up almost incidentally in an essay discussing how to teach children
using the Socratic Method. For convenience I will call it Garlikov's
Objection to the Golden Rule. Here is where you can read the whole essay:
<http://www.garlikov.com/teaching/absorb.html>
This threw me for a loop when I read it, I must say. Do I disagree? As
my 12 year old daughter says, "Well duh. Of course." Of course I
disagree. I think. First, to avoid misunderstandings let Mr. Garlikov
speak for himself.
"For example, I teach that the "Golden Rule" is not a feasible rule for
determining what is right because what you want may not be what others
want, and because even if you all want the same thing, it may still not
be the right thing."
Garlikov presents his challenge in actual teaching situations, so he is
very confident of the invalidity of the Golden Rule. He sums up saying,
"I try to show through various, usually memorable, examples (e.g., if
you want a girl you just happened to see on the street for the first
time to kiss you, does that mean you should run across the street and
kiss her?) that the Golden Rule fails and why it fails, pointing out
that it only seems to work because it coincides with the right results
when what you want for yourself is right, not because you want it, but
because of other reasons that make it right."
Is Garlikov making the same objection that George Bernard Shaw did when
he wrote in 1903: "Do not do unto others as you would that they should
do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same." Sometimes I think so,
however, Garlikov hastens to add that, unlike Shaw, he understands the
metaphorical as well as the literal meaning of the Golden Rule,
"I do point out that one way of taking the Golden Rule is that one
should remember other people are human beings with feelings, just as you
are, and so they should be treated decently and rightly, just as you
would want yourself to be treated and just as you and everyone else
deserves to be treated. But that understanding of the Golden Rule does
not really help you determine what is right, or what is the right way to
treat others. It only lets you know that once you know what is the right
way to treat others, that you ought to do it, just as you would want
them to treat you in ways that they know to be right."
It looks like mundane affairs are calling me away. Let us deal with the
substance of our reservations about the Garlikov Objection at length
next time.
No comments:
Post a Comment