A hand in the sweet jar
Thomas did it.
Notes
Thomas has graduated from virtue yesterday to vice today, having been caught stealing sweets from a jar on the teacher’s desk. These are meant to be a reward for pupils who have done good work.[1] Mr Bollard wonders what’d happen if everyone helped themselves. Thomas argues (clumsily) that if anyone is hungry, tired and normally responsible, and [because] there are lots of sweeties, then it’d be all right for everyone to help themselves. Mr Bollard is about to clout the little bugger with a blackboard duster, but wonders whether he has a point.
Mrs Cook the dinner lady says that what Thomas did was wrong because the sweet didn’t belong to him and he was naughty because he stole it.
But Thomas is undaunted and enlists Anarchists. He wants to know why his action was wrong, not just to be told it was wrong.
Mr Bollard is a bit dim, methinks, unless he understands something about Thomas’s original argument that I don’t. For a start, sweets don’t satisfy anyone’s hunger, although they might be refreshing because of something in them (not sugar; that’s a myth) to counteract tiredness. He might also wonder how Thomas would define “normally responsible”. Banks have lots of money stashed in their vaults, but it’s not all right to help ourselves to it. Although sweets are not a form of currency, the principle seems to be the same. Similarly, the value of the sweets as a reward is effectively nullified if they no longer have any special worth for the recipients.[2]
I don’t know whether there’s a Fallacy of Abundance, but this would seem to be an example. It’s the idea that when something is abundant, we needn’t be restrained with regard to how much of it we take even although the quantity is actually finite; yet while it’s abundant, we ignore the need for conservation. (Fishermen seem to have this problem; having overfished the North Sea, they then complain when they’re subject to quotas which are intended to ensure their continuing livelihood.) Thus, the sweets won’t last forever, and Mr Bollard may feel disinclined to purchase them if he finds that they’re being vacuumed up by the likes of Thomas.
I’m not sure whether Mrs Cook’s argument is valid or not. Thomas exclaims, “Petitio principii!” I assume that he means it’s wrong to say something is wrong because someone said it was.
Shall we see what the discussion at the back of the book has to say for itself? Mrs Cook is assuming that Thomas’s action was wrong without proving that it was. There’s also some more Kant here in that if the universalisation of an action makes a nonsense of it, then an action cannot be moral.[3] In this case, Thomas’s action cannot be moral under circumstances which would be regarded as normal in my world.
The book also has an interesting discussion about experiments done in the moral development of children and how their consideration of different actions differs from one period of their development to the next. I can’t identify what stage my pupils have reached. There seems to be nothing corresponding to their belief that if they’re not the owner of the mobile phone, I shouldn’t confiscate it. I’ve never really formulated a coherent reason why they believe that if something is in their possession, but they don’t own it, then I’m somehow wrong to confiscate it. Do they feel a sense of responsibility towards the owner? Are they trying to avoid punishment? Are they just really stupid? I think we have an answer.
Mrs Cook the dinner lady says that what Thomas did was wrong because the sweet didn’t belong to him and he was naughty because he stole it.
But Thomas is undaunted and enlists Anarchists. He wants to know why his action was wrong, not just to be told it was wrong.
Mr Bollard is a bit dim, methinks, unless he understands something about Thomas’s original argument that I don’t. For a start, sweets don’t satisfy anyone’s hunger, although they might be refreshing because of something in them (not sugar; that’s a myth) to counteract tiredness. He might also wonder how Thomas would define “normally responsible”. Banks have lots of money stashed in their vaults, but it’s not all right to help ourselves to it. Although sweets are not a form of currency, the principle seems to be the same. Similarly, the value of the sweets as a reward is effectively nullified if they no longer have any special worth for the recipients.[2]
I don’t know whether there’s a Fallacy of Abundance, but this would seem to be an example. It’s the idea that when something is abundant, we needn’t be restrained with regard to how much of it we take even although the quantity is actually finite; yet while it’s abundant, we ignore the need for conservation. (Fishermen seem to have this problem; having overfished the North Sea, they then complain when they’re subject to quotas which are intended to ensure their continuing livelihood.) Thus, the sweets won’t last forever, and Mr Bollard may feel disinclined to purchase them if he finds that they’re being vacuumed up by the likes of Thomas.
I’m not sure whether Mrs Cook’s argument is valid or not. Thomas exclaims, “Petitio principii!” I assume that he means it’s wrong to say something is wrong because someone said it was.
Shall we see what the discussion at the back of the book has to say for itself? Mrs Cook is assuming that Thomas’s action was wrong without proving that it was. There’s also some more Kant here in that if the universalisation of an action makes a nonsense of it, then an action cannot be moral.[3] In this case, Thomas’s action cannot be moral under circumstances which would be regarded as normal in my world.
The book also has an interesting discussion about experiments done in the moral development of children and how their consideration of different actions differs from one period of their development to the next. I can’t identify what stage my pupils have reached. There seems to be nothing corresponding to their belief that if they’re not the owner of the mobile phone, I shouldn’t confiscate it. I’ve never really formulated a coherent reason why they believe that if something is in their possession, but they don’t own it, then I’m somehow wrong to confiscate it. Do they feel a sense of responsibility towards the owner? Are they trying to avoid punishment? Are they just really stupid? I think we have an answer.
Tomorrow’s dilemma takes us in a new direction. Thomas can sulk as Mr Bollard visits righteous indignity on him with the blackboard duster while we wonder about the millions of Justin Megabucks.
Notes
1. Now there’s a good idea. Rewarding hard-working pupils with sweets which will cause tooth decay. On the other hand, dentists will benefit from the business. Oh well, every cloud etc.
2. The dilemma doesn’t say whether pupils work hard because they know they’ll be rewarded, or whether they work hard anyway.
3. The categorical imperative. I’m not sure whether I’ve stated it well or not.
2. The dilemma doesn’t say whether pupils work hard because they know they’ll be rewarded, or whether they work hard anyway.
3. The categorical imperative. I’m not sure whether I’ve stated it well or not.
Comments