This comment is an extension to my contribution called “Citizenship or ethics” but it can stand on its own.

Everybody starts forming an opinion of what is right and wrong from an early age. Most base their judgement on their parents’ values, which is quite often based on the teaching of the parents’ religion. Some base the validity of their beliefs on the number of similar believers, the more similar believers the more their code of belief is enforced. Some base their ideas on a particular political ideology.

Many children are discouraged from asking why a certain law of behaviour should be enforced. Many leaders demand blind obedience and discourage a questioning mind. I still remember what happened to me when as a young child I used to ask questions to the catechist. She just refused to sign for me to receive Holy Communion even though I had all the requisite knowledge. In the end, another catechist had to sign for me to receive the sacrament.

Many leaders enforce their ideas on their followers by attributing them to some high authority, such as God himself. As a matter of fact, at one time the Church had to declare that certain teachings were not the word of Jesus or the Holy Spirit. These teachings are called apocryphal. As this practice of attributing certain laws to God and so on is still practised today, one would not be mistaken to believe that such a habit was followed in Old Testament times and that the Church just missed declaring certain Old Testament books, such as Genesis as apocryphal

Schools should teach students to ask why a law is enforced so that when there is no longer its need they would find no compulsion to abandon the said law.

It is the citizens who should determine what is good or bad for a current situation. The future generation should be nurtured to establish the laws of right or wrong in accordance with their circumstances. We should stop imposing antiquated laws on future generations.

There is nothing intrinsically right or wrong but everything depends on the circumstances, so many laws cannot be but provisional.

Some laws are anti-social and oppressive and it is our duty not to impose them on future generations.

We should not trust priests and scientists to establish ethical values or better still citizenship studies.

Many people trust either one of these blindly but both have vested interests. One has to remember that the greater a con artist is, the more likable and respected he is.

Priests should not be trusted with this task as quite often their first reaction to something new is negative. We have numerous examples of this in history. On the other hand, many scientists first proclaim a discovery, and then they say that there might be ethical problems in implementing it, quite often, so that they would sell it to very rich people on the black market. Then when the rich market is exhausted, the ethical problem vanishes and the market is opened to the middle class.

The ideal law would be one in which the interest of others is also the interest of the individual. That’s why I do not believe that ethical professionals, quite often self-styled or with questionable qualifications should teach ethics. I prefer the teaching of citizenship.

Also, I consider this topic is far too dangerous to be subjected to exams. Many exam results are subjective. I still remember that my level, of let’s say the English language, used to fluctuate from very high to low depending on whether I reflected the beliefs of the examiner in question.

Exams in ethics might very likely serve to enforce certain attitudes.

I know that this subject is a new area in our culture and I am very grateful to the people working on it, but I advise caution, so that we do not change one dictatorial system with another.

Josephine Gatt-Ciancio

Kalkara