A failure mode I see here is where philosophy education comes to be regarded as something like math education is now: something that everyone believes has no practical application, but we are forced to learn it anyway. Why does a farmer or engineer need to know the difference “between consequentialism and deontology”? If philosophy comes to be seen as rigor for the sake of pointless rigor, it will be trusted less.
Yes, it would be good if these contents could be taught in a way that makes them relevant to actual societal questions to make sure people use these concepts outisde the classroom.
The farmer and the engineer don’t only farm and engineer but also vote, consume and discuss their views with others. They should know about consequentialism and deontology to be able to think more clearly about political problems and arguments.
A failure mode I see here is where philosophy education comes to be regarded as something like math education is now: something that everyone believes has no practical application, but we are forced to learn it anyway. Why does a farmer or engineer need to know the difference “between consequentialism and deontology”? If philosophy comes to be seen as rigor for the sake of pointless rigor, it will be trusted less.
Yes, it would be good if these contents could be taught in a way that makes them relevant to actual societal questions to make sure people use these concepts outisde the classroom.
The farmer and the engineer don’t only farm and engineer but also vote, consume and discuss their views with others. They should know about consequentialism and deontology to be able to think more clearly about political problems and arguments.