h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Is it ethical, is it right, is it even justifiable, that education is compulsory? That youth is wasted away in the classroom, that children are treated as lesser than other people closer to death, even as sub humans? Is it right that people don't have the right to vote on matters that affect their lives directly and with no small consequence until they are 18 or drink alcohol until they are 21? Is it right that a new driver who is younger than 18 can't drive with his/her friends alone for 6 months, or between midnight and 5am, when an 18 year old with conceivable less experience can? Is it right that there is censorship; that the 1st amendment is treated as less important than the 2nd? And is it right that America continues to call itself the leader of the free world, when its own citizens are not free?

> Is it ethical, is it right, is it even justifiable, that education is compulsory?

Yes.

First reason - it is in your own best interests - freedom is not an absolute right, occasionally it has to be compromised for the benefit of others, and this is a case in point.

Second, you have a right to education - and that right is too important to be removed simply because the child in question does not want it.

Third reason, the needs of the many are important here - and it is in the overwhelming interests of the country at large for all children to be educated - it is an investment in the future, without which we would have no doctors, no engineers, no architects, no artists.

Fourth reason, and most important - ask any adult who didn't go to school, whether they regret it - 99% of them will say Yes. The adult that the child is growing into will almost certainly 'ratify' their earlier restriction of freedom.

> That youth is wasted away in the classroom, that children are treated as lesser than other people closer to death, even as sub humans?

I don't think you can take closeness to death as the defining factor in how important someone is...

Those who are very young are lesser in some sense - they are less wise, less experienced, weaker, and typically unable to fend for themselves.

The 'fend for themselves' bit is critical. If you eat the food and drink the drink provided by your parents then you are under obligation to them. One of those obligations is to go to school, so that when they are old and enfeebled you will be able to provide them with food and drink.

> "Is it right that people don't have the right to vote on matters that affect their lives directly and with no small consequence until they are 18 or drink alcohol until they are 21?"

Maybe. Remember "no taxation without representation"? Well, as a child you aren't being taxed - why then should you get representation?

Of course, this argument rather falls apart in a backward democracy like America - or the UK - but the principle is there, even if the voing system is idiotic.

Personally, I would lower the drinking age to 16, and instead make it illegal to be /drunk/ up to 21.

> "Is it right that a new driver who is younger than 18 can't drive with his/her friends alone for 6 months, or between midnight and 5am, when an 18 year old with conceivable less experience can?"

Yes.

Who's roads are they? Not yours, that's for certain. The people who built those roads have the right to set rules for usage to make them as safe (and hence as popular) as possible. This is identical to private clubs not allowing people to take in guns and knives.

> "Is it right that there is censorship; that the 1st amendment is treated as less important than the 2nd?"

I don't know USA amendments. In English?

> "And is it right that America continues to call itself the leader of the free world, when its own citizens are not free?

Bleh. America isn't the leader in anything, except global warming.

In the U.S., the 1st Amendment is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religeon, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of greivancess." The 2nd Amendment secures the right to bear arms (e.g., the gun, which I consider to be a cowards weapon, because without training it is possible to kill anyone anywhere with or without reason)

It would seem to me that alot of your arguments are based on the belief that the whole is more important than the individual. I disagree; but you have a right to your opinions.

Firstly, I don't think that these are some questions of ethics...

Secondly, education isn't compulsory, only in developed countries. I just want to conjure a scenario for you... imagine you never went to school, thus imagine you never learnt to read. Now you have no access to what is happening in the world, you don't know you're rights including any amendments, you can be thrown out of your house, or your land as a result. Also when confronted with people who CAN read, who ask you to sign your house away, you do so not knowing what you're signing...because you can't read.
This is why education is compulsory.
I really think you're being melodramatic with the whole wasted youth, sub-human thing- if you're not perhaps you ought to go to another school! Also, it obviously isn't a wasted youth- your thread is eloquently written, which you would be unable to do without education.
For the whole age thing... noone is happy with every rule in their country, in UK for example they're currently making decisions about my financial future with university tuition fees etc. However, if governments didn't do anything until everyone was happy, nothing would ever be done.. so tough to be harsh!
intrepidexplorer
Sorry to be push no punches!

Very interesting discussion (both this thread and the whole "Ethics" issue). Is it too late to add comments here?


One thing I disagree with, though:
Posted Jan 25, 2001 by Vonce
"The 2nd Amendment secures the right to bear arms (e.g., the gun, which I consider to be a cowards weapon, because without training it is possible to kill anyone anywhere with or without reason)"


I do not believe that the gun is a "cowards' weapon".

Hiding in the bushes and shooting random passers-by is cowardly.

As is sneaking up behind them and hitting them over the head with a brick.

As is, indeed, strapping on a big suit of armour, picking up a great big sword, climbing onto a horse covered in flags and banners, and charging around hacking up peasants, who have no chance to defend themselves because they caould never afford the weapons and armour you are using, nor have the time to train to use them effectively.

(Indeed, the increasing availability of guns, which, as you say, almost "anyone can use", were important in altering the balance of power away from rich-thugs-in-armour and in favour of the ordinary people).


And in any case, the reason all three of those acts are immoral is not (in my opinion) because they are "cowardly", but because they are unjustified violence against people who do not deserve it.

I'd say that when it is wrong to fight or kill, then it is wrong to fight or kill. What weapon or tactics you use are irrelevant.

But is fighting or killing is justified (eg to defend against an unjust attack), there is no moral obligation to "fight fair". You may as well use whatever means best ensures victory.

Being cowardly - acting to minimise the risk of being harmed - is wrong if doing so causes you to kill more innocents, or do nothing where you ought to act decisively, or otherwise behave immorally.

Because cowardice is a selfish trait, thinking only of our own safety, it often leads to actions that are immoral, if understandable. Rather, cultivate a selfless concern for the safety of others, and recall that you are always expendable for the greater good.

"Minimising risk" seems a very broad definition of cowardice.

Might not a better definition be "Acting to minimise the risk of being harmed *when doing so* causes you to kill more innocents, or do nothing where you ought to act decisively, or otherwise behave immorally"?

(Although I suppose there could be other acts of "Want of courage to face danger" (to use a dictionary definition) that could be seen as cowardice without actually harming anyone).

You're right: it is pretty broad - your definition seems better. Thanks!

Living just south of Detroit, in Canada, I get a perspective on the predominant American culture that Old World Folks (where I was born) don’t. I work regularly in the States, as far down as Arkansas. Allow me to opine that OWFs would be horrified by the slant that ethics has taken in the land of the Leaders of the Free World.
It is no surprise that, once the discussion turned to the question of Individualism vs. The Common Good, Vonce departed the discussion (no doubt, in disgust at what the commy Europeans were trying to re-foist on the Free World).
While working for the city of Cleveland, to get 30 “disadvantaged” people off the welfare rolls, I was assaulted daily by the blacks/whites, rich/poor divide of America. Of the people I taught, one was white, but he lived near the “Flats” (=slums) and so he wasn’t really white. By the way, the course was very successful. The last part included hands-on work for setting up small businesses, maintaining the viability of the business, and growing their network of contacts. I’m very proud of what they’ve been able to do over the past 10 years.

What ethics differences did they have from their masters on the “Heights” (=white suburbs). Actually, there was very little difference. Their ethical stance can be distilled to: keep your head down if you’re not on top; when you get to the top, take what you can and hide it from the gov'ment.

Of course, this is a simplification. Not everybody is like that. Michael Moore isn’t. And… well, there is a Susan in Troy, but she’s even older than me. Anyway…

"Of the people I taught, one was white, but he lived near the “Flats” (=slums) and so he wasn’t really white."


I'm not sure what you mean there. Could you explain, please?

Of course, I was being facetious. The Flats is the river mouth and harbour area where the poor live. Some of the poor are caucasian, but they are treated by those up in the suburbs in the same as way as African-Americans. If you get a chance to see Michael Moore's "Bowling For Columbine" you will have a slightly better understanding of the nature of the rich/poor, black/white divide in America.