Hi there, thanks for your reply. I will need some more time to reflect on what you have said and the links you sent but I wanted to send a preliminary reply based on my first impressions.
Firstly I don’t really disagree with anything you have said. I wouldn’t say I have assumed there is no possibility of a downside and I wouldn’t suggest that. However I sincerely take your comments on board and recognise that considerations of downsides would have to play a central role if taking this idea any further. As mentioned I have posted an intentionally basic analysis for exploratory value and it was not intended to be holistic in the slightest.
Some of the downsides you bring up are EA-specific, so this would seem to imply that you may see greater potential in the teaching of ethics more generally to children in schools as opposed to ethics specific to EA. Would you broadly agree with this?
The interventions considered in the links you sent and your conception of ‘outreach’ is perhaps subtly different to what I am exploring. I am essentially interested in institutional change by changing curricula, as opposed to outreach. I will need some more time to consider how this may or may not influence the relevance of your criticisms and the content in the links you sent. Any such institutional change would necessarily go through a lot of bureaucracy and ‘checks and balances’ which may reduce, but certainly not eliminate, worries about doing harm.
P.S. I see in hindsight that the use of the term ‘malleable’ is slightly sinister!
Yes, my reply focused entirely on the “Embed EA specifically as part of the curriculum” part of this. Encouraging ethics to be taught more widely is its own conversation, and one I haven’t though much about. the downside risks in terms of reputational harm to EA are obviously much smaller, though I think the “poor first impression” concern still holds some water. In my experience, non-examinable but compulsory parts of the school curriculum tend not to be taken particularly seriously by either teaching staff or students.
I’ve slightly edited my post above to clarify how I think the downside risks I mentioned apply specifically in the case of board curriculum change.
Hi there, thanks for your reply. I will need some more time to reflect on what you have said and the links you sent but I wanted to send a preliminary reply based on my first impressions.
Firstly I don’t really disagree with anything you have said. I wouldn’t say I have assumed there is no possibility of a downside and I wouldn’t suggest that. However I sincerely take your comments on board and recognise that considerations of downsides would have to play a central role if taking this idea any further. As mentioned I have posted an intentionally basic analysis for exploratory value and it was not intended to be holistic in the slightest.
Some of the downsides you bring up are EA-specific, so this would seem to imply that you may see greater potential in the teaching of ethics more generally to children in schools as opposed to ethics specific to EA. Would you broadly agree with this?
The interventions considered in the links you sent and your conception of ‘outreach’ is perhaps subtly different to what I am exploring. I am essentially interested in institutional change by changing curricula, as opposed to outreach. I will need some more time to consider how this may or may not influence the relevance of your criticisms and the content in the links you sent. Any such institutional change would necessarily go through a lot of bureaucracy and ‘checks and balances’ which may reduce, but certainly not eliminate, worries about doing harm.
P.S. I see in hindsight that the use of the term ‘malleable’ is slightly sinister!
Yes, my reply focused entirely on the “Embed EA specifically as part of the curriculum” part of this. Encouraging ethics to be taught more widely is its own conversation, and one I haven’t though much about. the downside risks in terms of reputational harm to EA are obviously much smaller, though I think the “poor first impression” concern still holds some water. In my experience, non-examinable but compulsory parts of the school curriculum tend not to be taken particularly seriously by either teaching staff or students.
I’ve slightly edited my post above to clarify how I think the downside risks I mentioned apply specifically in the case of board curriculum change.
X