0:35 No. This method works even better with adults, but NOT when it is about Ethics. You cannot have a definition of ‘Good’ or ‘Truth’ that can be bent, contextualised, etc. If you do not have a proper, immutable definition/ conceptualisation of each Ethical value you end-up with nonsense. I will give you a simple, though tragic, example of moral confusion that stems directly from the poison of dialectics on top of other garbage the young generation is being fed. *The teacher in class* ‘You must not kill’. *A kid at the back raises his hand* ‘Miss, my Dad was killed by [the enemy]. It is bad to kill’. *starts to sob* *Another kid* ‘How many did your father kill? Do not kill means do not kill’. *The first kid stops crying and his face gleams with pride* ‘Many. Last time he came home on leave, he told me he had killed 100 enemies’. *He turns to the other kid and his face gets red with anger* ‘Are you saying that my Dad is not a hero, but a bad person?!’ Same with ‘truth’. When is it ‘useful’ and ‘appropriate’ to lie? What about ‘integrity’? How do you explain ‘integrity’ to kids if you don’t have an immutable, clear, apriori definition/ premise? No. No. And no, again. Forever ‘no’. Stop confusing people! To relativise what should not be contingent on anything as part of any curriculum is nothing short of a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY. Just STOP it!
