“Young people today are no less moral than we were at their age”

Why is the idea of ​​explaining to students the difference between good and evil no longer obvious today?

Andre Comte-Sponville: Explain the difference? All only for! But in France there is no longer agreement on what is good and what is evil. And how to teach this difference is also unclear. Of course, there is unity on some innocuous points: it is better to be benevolent than spiteful, courageous rather than cowardly, generous rather than selfish… But as soon as it comes to something really difficult, disagreements immediately show up!

For example: Is abortion morally acceptable? What about sexual freedom? What about blasphemy? What about capitalism? As a result of globalization, different cultures and different spiritual traditions have met, and today completely different, sometimes opposite answers can be given to these questions. Meanwhile, the difficulty lies in the fact that the answers do not come from knowledge, but from judgments about values, which are always subjective and can be challenged.

Imagine that a student asks a teacher about the moral side of abortion. The teacher probably has his own opinion on this matter (which depends on his religion or personal morality). But our secular republic has no opinion. How is the teacher doing? He replies that in France, abortion is legally allowed during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. In other words, he is engaged in education in the field of civil rights. But the student’s question was not about law, but about morality!

So the teacher almost inevitably answers “past” the question, or proceeds from his own moral values, and not from the values ​​of the state. At best, he will explain that the answer to this question depends on the conscience of a particular person and therefore, if the law is observed, we must be tolerant of different answers.

Fine. But we never gave an answer to the teenager’s question … If the teacher has the time and courage, then he will help the students formulate their own point of view, teach them to be critical of it, clarify it, defend it … And I will take my hat off to him! But still, we must admit that this is something completely different than what happens in the lessons of mathematics, language or history!

Morality refers not to education (which conveys knowledge), but to education (which conveys values). This is an objective problem. So it is easier for the teacher to broadcast what he knows (for example, in mathematics or in history) than his judgments or beliefs. This in no way belittles moral education, quite the contrary, but partly explains its difficulties. Training creates fewer problems. But it can neither replace moral education nor be sufficient in itself.

The state has the task of broadcasting its values ​​…

A.K.-S.: Yes: freedom, equality, fraternity… But everything becomes more complicated as soon as we try to consider their application in practice! Thus, capitalism inevitably breeds inequality. Is this enough to condemn him morally? Some teachers think that it is enough, others – that it is not… Nevertheless, the republic does not give an answer to this question.

It’s the same story with freedom: it’s a key value, but it says nothing about the moral side of free exchange. So teachers, when talking about these problems, should help students reason, find their own answers to these questions, instead of answering for them, claiming knowledge, which in this case is impossible or unreliable.

What is the most appropriate way to convey moral values?

A.K.-S.: For a long time, this way was religion… In a secular society, three main paths remain: family, school, living culture (the books we read, the films we watch, the songs we listen to). However, these three paths today, in my opinion, are under threat for various reasons. There is nothing surprising in the fact that the transmission of moral values ​​today is difficult compared to other eras!

Although we will not dramatize the situation: most often the transmission of values ​​continues. Yes, there are young people who are completely devoid of guidance and supports, who no longer distinguish between good and evil, or understand them perversely. But this is an exception to the rule. In general, young people today are no less moral than we were at their age.

How valuable is morality imposed from outside?

A.K.-S.: We are not born virtuous, we become them. And first of all as a result of education. So all morality comes from outside. In this connection I will mention, for example, the concept of ideology in Marx or the “Superego” in Freud. There are limitations here. “Super-I”, according to Freud, is the assimilation, internalization of parental prohibitions. But restrictions do not cancel freedom: they prepare it and give it the opportunity to be realized, including against those prohibitions that have been learned. Here we move, as Jean-Jacques Rousseau said, from natural, natural freedom to moral freedom, “which alone makes a person a real master of himself”.

In A Small Treatise on the Great Virtues, you write: “Courtesy is the first virtue, and perhaps the cause of all others.” How does the transition from superficial to deep occur?

A.K.-S.: First we imitate, then we learn. First, we imitate the external, what is customary to do (good manners), and then we learn what dоshould do (moral). Politeness is only a semblance of morality: to behave politely means to behave as if we are virtuous. This is better than rudeness or rudeness, but still says nothing about individual moral values. The bastard can be polite. A dork can be a decent person.

Learning to play virtue isn’t the best way to move on to practicing it?

A.K.-S.: Is that possible. However, politeness is the least of the virtues, it is not yet morality, and it would be immoral to be content with it! Politeness is necessary, but it is never enough. It is the simplest of virtues: it is difficult to be just or generous, but easy to be polite. And good pedagogy requires you to start simple…

Then can we not see in politeness something more than pretense, say, evidence of civilization?

A.K.-S.: Of course, politeness is part of civilized behavior. But it cannot be sufficient. To say “Only after you” means to pretend to be an altruist and a respectful person. But this will only be relevant to morality if we are not content with appearances, if it is something other than a mere formula of politeness!

Isn’t elementary education, without which no life in society is possible, more relevant for us than deep morality?

A.K.-S.: Socially, yes. On an individual basis, no. A society of polite egoists can function just fine. But at the same time, we will still be, at best, nonentities, and at worst, well-mannered scoundrels.

Philosophy magazine interview.