It is difficult to see how anyone could object to the teaching of ethics in schools. Everyone could benefit from a better understanding of ethics after all.
However, the recent emerging brawl in NSW over the teaching of ethics in public schools is making for some interesting bedfellows as the Atheist Foundation and the Sydney Anglican diocese trade blows over the proposal by the St James Ethics Centre.
The Centre is proposing that students who do not sign up for scripture classes in the public school system should be offered ethics courses as an attractive alternative to 'twiddling their fingers' while scripture classes take place.
One of the ironies of the fight is that the Centre itself was originally established by the Anglican parish of St James, King Street, Sydney. This is one of the few tolerated 'non-evangelical' Anglican parishes in a diocese otherwise dominated by the evangelical approach of the Jensens.
Still the Centre is now less formally related to the parish and has moved towards a greater independence from any particular religion. Nonetheless their website home page prominently features a quote from St Augustine.
And they can now count the Atheist Foundation as an ally in their efforts to promote ethics education in schools. The Foundation argues that one can be ethical without religious faith and that secular values 'can be appreciated regardless of one's religion or lack thereof'.
The concerns of the Anglican diocese seem to move in two directions. The first is that the ethics programs might attract students away from existing scripture classes and diminish their effectiveness. This looks more like a matter of turf wars, of seeking to maintain numbers and so
justify their continuance.
However the more substantive issue is the Anglicans' concerns over a 'secular' ethics displacing traditional Judeao-Christian ethics based on the Bible. Secularism is raising its ugly head!
This is perhaps less an issue for Catholics who have always claimed a basis for ethics in 'natural law', not just the Bible. But for evangelical Christians solely dependent on the scriptures for their ethical demands, the claim of a secular ethics based on reason alone is more problematic.
Indeed the Catholic Church has been much less vocal on the issue, perhaps for this reason. The Catholic tradition has always seen its ethical precepts as based on reason, with scripture assisting us because of the 'darkening of the intellect' caused by sin.
The claim that a purely 'secular' ethics can be developed based on reason alone is itself not unproblematic. At least since the time of Kant, philosophers have been attempting to derive ethical precepts 'from reason alone', with lesser and greater success.
Certainly there has been no agreement between them beyond bland generalities. Indeed the injunctions offered by Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion, such as 'in all things strive to do no harm', 'live life with a sense of joy and wonder' and 'enjoy your own sex life' are superficial and ineffectual in resolving significant moral issues.
On the other hand the course proposals of the St James Centre seem on first glance more designed to make people more reflective moral agents, rather than to help them arrive at substantive moral precepts; more about procedure than content. While of value in itself, such a process has no clear way of overcoming the debilitating effects of self-interest, however enlightened, leading to a moral subjectivism and relativism.
Certainly the moral relativism of our present age will not be challenged by such an approach. Absolute injunctions against torture or slavery require something more than a procedural account of moral reasoning.
In seeking to develop our moral reasoning, we may well ask what exactly counts as 'reason'? Many people today would claim that the ability of our Aboriginal people to live sustainably on this continent may have something to teach us about proper use of resources, a major moral issue. Is that not then a 'reason' to at least consider their moral precepts?
The fact that the vast majority of religious believers live lives of simple virtue, despite some spectacular failures, may also be a 'reason' to seriously consider the contribution of religious ethics.
Even a secular ethics may find in this sufficient reason to at least dialogue with religious ethics; certainly it would be unreasonable to completely exclude such dialogue. I'm sure the St James Centre would agree, but I'm not sure their atheist supporters would.
Finally any ethical approach must recognise the difference between moral reasoning and moral performance. Beyond appeals to self-control, moral reasoning cannot provide the empowerment we need in order consistently to perform as moral agents. Nor can it tell us what to do in the face of our own persistent moral failure.
We need something beyond moral condemnation and genuine moral guilt in the face of such failures if we are not to sink into despair. And so beyond ethical consideration there are questions of grace and forgiveness, areas where Christianity at least claims to know something worth knowing.
Part two: Storming the atheist ethic
Neil Ormerod is Professor of Theology at Australian Catholic University. He co-authored with Shane Clifton, a Pentecostal theologian, the book Globalization and the Mission of the Church (T&T Clark, 2009).