The much-awaited result is probably already out, and one can only hope for the best. In the meantime, I have to answer to the opinion piece written last week by a 'major Maltese philosopher' who barraged me with abuse and insults (for the second time).

So, let's put the record straight, shall we?

There are two things I want to tell Kenneth Wain. One is about Kant and Rorty, two philsophers for whom he has a soft spot. The other is about the ethics programme, apparently his brainchild. And with this reply I hope to close this exchange.

No matter how much Kenneth Wain stamps his feet and screams (Teaching ethics and social responsibility, TMIS 10/09/2017), what I wrote about 'Kantfancy': I referred to what others said.

Hegel was of the opinion that Kant 'gave pessimism a philosophical form, and proved it systematically (FK178 /GW 420)" (Sally Sedgwick, Hegel's Critique of Kant, p. 6). For Hartmann, Kant was the "Father of Pessimism" ("Kant als Vater des Pessimismus" - see picture, and Frederick Beiser, After Hegel: German Philosophy 1840-1900, p. 193). Others have expressed similar views (Hannah Arendt, Susan Shell, Oliver Thorndike).

Kant's many communitarian detractors (such as MacIntyre) consider him 'largely responsible for leading Western moral philosophy down the wrong path' (see Jennifer Moore, "Kant's ethical community" in The Journal of Value Inquiry, 1992 26:51, even though Moore is sympathetic toward Kant).

Furthermore, somewhere I read that Nietzsche wrote this: 'What destroys a man more quickly than to work, think and feel without inner necessity, without any deep personal desire, without pleasure as a mere automaton of duty? That is the recipe for decadence, and no less for idiocy. Kant became an idiot." (Der Antichrist, Chapter 11).

Lastly, I purposely used 'pessimistic world-view'. My opinion is informed by Simon Baron-Cohen's hints on Kant's condition (as reported by Jonathan Haidt in The Righteous Mind, p. 137).

Let me now turn to Rorty. In Human Rights, Rationality, and Sentimentality, Rorty endorses another philosopher, Colin McGinn, and his views on telling right from wrong. Rorty agrees with McGinn that it is 'not very hard to convert [generations of nice, tolerant, well-off, secure, other-respecting students] to standard liberal views about abortion, gay rights, and the like' (in Wronging Rights: Philosophical Challenges for Human Rights, p. 122). Had Rorty still been alive, would he have something to say on the charges of sexual harassment levelled against McGinn by a female student in 2012-3?

I take exception to Wain calling me 'a fraud' and calling my integrity and intellectual honesty into doubt. Had we been in Italy, I would tell him vaffanc*lo! Wain may disagree with the sources I quote, but he may not cast doubt on whether I quote them faithfully. And I won't take any browbeating or any other sort of bullying from anybody, no less from someone who hasn't got the guts to own up to what's cooking. But more about this later.

Moreover, only an idiot would think that a newspaper is the right place for a scholarly discussion. As a matter of fact, however, I am not in the least interested in a scholarly discussion on these philosophers. I consider myself not a scholar of philosophy but a man of culture - like many others - and, like many others, I have an opinion on what I read. I know lawyers and other professionals who read Chomsky, say, and other public thinkers, at the airport while waiting for embarkation. I don't think any of us would say they are scholars. But men and women of culture, yes.

Which brings to the fore a gigantic contradiction in Wain's thinking, to which he seems completely oblivious. How can Wain expect 16-year-old students to think responsibly and independently when he savagely attacks somebody who disagrees with his interpretation of philosophers?

The ethics programme seems to me to target nice students in their teenage years and pave the way for the eventual legalisation of the voluntary termination of pregnancy (which is what piques my interest in this case). Already, there is a pro-abortion current. Only a few days ago, a group of nine men (aged 19 to 35) called for a discussion on abortion in the National Youth Parliament.

Yes, Kenneth Wain has pointed out that young people over the age of 16 have been given the right to vote at local elections. But he failed to mention that they cannot drive a car, they cannot watch an adult movie, they cannot sign a contract and I think it is reasonable to presume that there must be a reason for these restrictions.

Even the possibility of having 16- or 17-year-old mayors is not a given and a public consultation exercise on the matter is underway. If Wain were right, there wouldn't be any need to consult the public. Incidentally, I am not at all embarrassed to say that I am sceptical about a 16-year-old becoming the mayor of a town. What's next? Logan's Run?

I am similarly sceptical about responsibly discussing a thorny subject like abortion with 16-year-olds. If you could do that, then minors would be allowed to watch adult movies and drive motor vehicles, which they are not, and rightly so.

Anyway, let's cut to the chase. Where did this controversy start from? A few weeks ago, I wrote an article arguing that, in my view, exposing teenagers to religion is better than exposing them to secular ethics, at least on life-and-death issues.

My argument essentially is that exposing teenagers to the possibility that abortion is ethically acceptable amounts to paving the way for the eventual acceptance of abortion. I base this opinion on a recent study published in 2016 by Professor John H. Evans in a book entitled What is a Human? So that the Professor of Insults, major Maltese philosopher Kenneth Wain, does not call me a 'fraud' again, let me quote. Evans speaks of organ selling which, in the United States and unlike abortion, is still illegal. So just substitute organ buying or selling with abortion in this paragraph, and you will understand what I mean:

'Individual talk and attitudes shape the treatment of others through public opinion. For example, you cannot engage in the act of buying a kidney in the United States because of law and policy, which is strongly determined by public opinion. Public opinion in the result of individuals' opinions and talk of such opinion, and if the public opinion were to change, it is easy to imagine organ selling becoming legal. Mere talk about the morality of buying organs then indirectly determines actions by creating policies that force people not to buy organs, whether they want to or not. How people talk about anthropologies and how we should treat each other is therefore critical to understanding what people actually will do.' (p. 16).

Rorty, by Wain's own admission, is one source of inspiration for the secular ethics course. Now Rorty and the liberal camp - which dominates secular ethics - are pro-abortion. The Catholic religion is against. To me, it is a simple syllogism. Or two concomitant syllogisms, if you prefer, with the same conclusion: if you are against abortion, you should not expose teenagers to secular ethics.

Despite all the insults and the din, Kenneth Wain failed to address one simple issue. Does the school subject called 'Ethics' involve exposing teenagers to both sides of the story (ie, "pro-life" and "pro-choice") as if both sides were ethically equivalent? Or does it guide teenagers to understand that abortion is ethically unacceptable?

Wain's answers have been characterised by absolute silence on this point. If he can give the assurance that teenagers are not invited to consider the two positions as if they were morally equivalent, then I will have nothing to add, and he can have the last word (which he seems to crave so desperately).

But if teenagers are invited to consider the two positions as morally equivalent, then Kenneth Wain is not being honest. He offers a supposedly neutral stance when, in reality, it indirectly opens the door to acceptance, and therefore legalisation.

Now if he doesn't want - or is unable - to understand this point, what can I do? I can only refer him to empirical data as collected and interpreted by Evans. If, after reading Evans, he still maintains that teaching secular Ethics (as opposed to Religion) is better, then at least he should have the intellectual honesty and personal integrity to admit that he's pro-choice, and that's that.

All the insults and abuse would then be understood in their proper context.

Talking of honesty and integrity. Kenneth Wain's Wikipedia page, written by 'Katafore' on 8 September 2011, states that Wain is "a major Maltese philosopher" who "established himself as a public figure of liberal views with a ready, sharp, but always civil, tongue". If Kenneth Wain thinks that this is not accurate, then he should amend the Wikipedia text so that it reflects the truth.

In the meanwhile, I shall draw the conclusion that 'Katafore' - whoever they may be - is a master of irony.