This will be a bit unusual because I am writing from an isolated place. I have no books and, most of the time, no Internet access. I am in a nice place on the Fundy Coast. In the fog.
I can get Internet access by climbing up the hill with my laptop and logging onto a very slow WiFi. I don’t like to do that often.
Anyway, here is a bit more about why I think it’s important to present moral beliefs with authority. That is to talk about morality by taking sides. And that means by taking sides you really believe in.
This time, I want to take a different tack and ask why anybody would not do this. What are the supposed virtues of not taking a neutral stance.
Except, whoops, we can’t talk about virtues here. To say teaching morality from a neutral stance has virtues would be to make a claim that it is morally better.
But, of course, that is exactly what people defending the view do. You can see this in the very language people use to defend the idea. They attack teaching with authority as “indoctrination” or “net letting people think for themselves”. Those are moral claims and they are being made with authority.
And that is the biggest problem with the claim that we should teach without authority. It’s self-contradictory.
More later but do yourself a favour and go read this argument. Do you have an answer to that? I don’t because he is right.