It would be great if you will analyze my ISSUE ESSAY.

[dalal.sagar92]

Some people believe that teaching morality should be the foundation of education. Others believe that teaching a foundation of logical reasoning would do more to produce a moral society.

Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented above.

RESPONSE

I believe that teaching a foundation of logical reasoning would do more to produce a moral society than teaching morality.Morality is to be conscious about what is good and bad, while logical reasoning is a internal process which answers to the question why something is good and why the other bad. So teaching logical reasoning would have a greater impact in creating a moral society than just teaching morality.

When morality is taken to be the foundation of teaching , it creates many questions in the mind of the learner. Consider a student being taught about that corruption is a vice? He/She may have many questions, like why is it bad ? who is harmed by such actions ? So just stating morality without inculcating a reasoning process will not be an effective mode for teaching.But when he/she is aware of the reasoning process behind why some actions are bad , they would understand it in a better way and would imbibe those values . So logical reasoning gives a better picture and the principles learned have a greater chance of being imbibed in the minds of the learner. Thus creating a better society.

Some may argue that logical reasoning casts doubt on many established principle as it often seen. The best example of this situation is SCIENCE vs RELIGION, they are not against each other but are made to by some of us. Science is the epitome of logical reasoning and Religion of morality. It is often seen that in recent times with such great scientific discoveries and inventions ,science and religion have often seen to support opposing view point.In many religions following the principles and ideas supported by it is considered to be moral and anything against the principles is considered as heresy.So in such a quagmire , which alternative is correct ? I think as long as our reasoning process is not meant to insult any one's faith and is based on sound judgement than such a reasoning is a correct one although it may not fit in the religious moral framework.

One of the most famous example of why logical reasoning is important for a society is Galileo Galilee, he proposed a heliocentric universe as opposed to geocentric framework which was supported by the church for centuries. At that point of time it was considered amoral to propose such an idea and Galileo was tried for heresy and was kept in house arrest for his entire life. But after many centuries the world rejoices Galileo's heliocentric theory. If it was not for a man to support his belief by sound scientific observation and logcial inference we might have still be with out geocentric belief. I think that logical reasoning helps us to question what is around us and help us to know the TRUTH , rather than morality which just states without any reasoning.

In conclusion , reasoning is what makes us humans. It is this process which has embarked us on a journey of scientific discoveries and knowing the truth.It helps in creating a better society in which knowing the TRUTH is the greatest moral act.

[tommywallach]

Hey Dalal,

Good start here. The length is perfect and some of the points are solid. However, there are two major problems:

1) The grammar/writing: There are too many grammatical errors here. You need to either take more time for editing what you have and/or study on your rules.

For example: "It is often seen that in recent times with such great scientific discoveries and inventions ,science and religion have often seen to support opposing view point."

The truth is, I don't know what this sentence means. What is "often seen"? And then I think you mean "often seeM" later on, but wrote "seen" again. And do you mean they support opposing viewpoints (against each other), or they support an opposing viewpoint (against something else)? It's unclear. Sentences like this abound. Also, don't use words if you're not 100% sure of the meaning ("imbibe" is used incorrectly here).

2) Topic: Make sure you stay on top of proving your thesis. Your first paragraph doesn't make a lot of sense. Corruption is a vice, by definition, so what questions would people have? also, one would assume that "teaching" morality would not just be telling people what to do, but actually teaching a way of thinking about morality.

Hope that helps!

-t

[dalal.sagar92]

Thank you , i will definitely work on the flaws.