That is fair. And a sensible part of a school age curriculum (already included in my country, that’s included in philosophy mandatory courses). But I don’t see it having a extension to be included “everywhere”, once taught in school is taught. I won’t see a point continuing that formation in universities, same as I won’t see why someone studying history should have an algebra course in university.

But that’s not advocating for everyone studying. It’s advocating for everyone being taught it. By a teacher. That implies that there would be a specific curriculum. And that curriculum will follow a specific dogma.

With other subjects you can have neutral teachings. Math is math. Others may be more complicated, like history, but there’s some degree of neutrality to be found

With ethics I think is inherently impossible to teach it on a neutral way. You would need to teach some particular set of ethics. And there’s not a scientific way to describe a set of ethic norms as the right one. Quoting Professor Farnsworth “Science have not prove that human life is important”. A set of ethics would be chosen as the correct one, and it will be taught by a teacher that will most likely come from a particular political scene. And even while agreeing with that political school of thought, I see great dangers in trying to officially push it as the correct one.

I remember in my school years. I had both religion subject (because it was a religious school) and moral subject (a subject mandated in school curriculum by the government). And it was just wrong, trying to push things like that into children (or adults) even if it was good (moral subject curriculum was written by a left wing government).

I think the members of society should conclude to the best ethical norms, not by indoctrination, but by experience. It should be the set of norms that they would see better for their experience in the society. Thus the way to “teach” people about the ethics we see as good is building a good society with those ethics. Basically teach by experience.

But ethics and morality emerges from society. Giving a small group the power to decide and indoctrinate over that is dangerous and ultimately “unethical”.

I get the feeling of trying to push it. Nowadays most people studying philosophy is left wing. So pushing that those people should control society ethics is basically pushing our political agenda.

I’m leftist, but not the kind of leftist that would do “everything” for the cause. Because I see the dangers of it. What if we do that, we leave ethics of society into a small group and that small group now or in the future diverges from what the society or myself consider moral?

That’s why I’m also against that idea of trying to push a “ethics” course on every major. Now it’s seen as a way to push a particular agenda that we agree on. But surely in the future it will be used to push an agenda we don’t like (as it had happened in the past), that’s a big risk.

I prefer to leave ethics to the individual and society as a sum. An not giving a small group power over it.

I have nothing about people choosing to study whatever they want.

I get a little bothered when people suggest philosophy majors as the “moral compass of society”. For instance, I’ve been hearing more and more on how “philosophy is central to society because we need philosophy majors in ethical committees everywhere”. And while I agree that ethical committees are important, I disagree that studying philosophy makes you more fit for a ethical committee than any other person. As moral of a society derives from the whole society, those ethical committees should follow more a popular jury structure imho.

My point is that when people follow this position they are, inherently saying “a philosophy major is more moral than you” which is the thing that ultimately bothers me.

I agree with journalism.

They should pay me if they want to wash my brain with their propaganda.