Harry Brrighouse On Education Summary

Connection of Church and State
In Harry Brighouse’s On Education, he argues that schools are responsible for teaching students autonomy, or moral independence. Brighouse says that one important way for schools to do this is to expose students to people of all religious views; those who are extremely religious, agnostic, atheist, or anything in between. In addition to this, he says that these people should share how they have handled religious and moral conflicts and changes in personal faith. I believe that schools should be allowed to teach children about different religions and religious beliefs in order to facilitate personal autonomy and flourishing. A main objection to this could be found in the Constitution, specifically the First Amendment, where the Founding Fathers allude that there must a separation between church and state. Opponents of Brighouse’s theory would say that adding religious education into schools would directly be
breaking the Constitution, and thereby overstepping the state’s bounds.
However, if these people are to state the Constitution as opposition, they must consider the document in its entirety. In the preamble, the same men who declare this separation of church and state also assert that all humans should have the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”. Happiness is an important aspect in a person’s flourishing, and can only be attained when a person is given the full chance to explore all options of life, including religious ones. Therefore, the Constitution, although indirectly, also offers support for the inclusion of different educational beliefs and principles in schools Skeptics may also say that it is not the State’s responsibility to teach students about different religious beliefs. These naysayers may instead say
that it is a parent’s choice of what ways of life to expose their children to. The primary downfall of this idea, however, is that parents may chose to not expose their child to any new ways of life, potentially trapping them in a life that will lead to unhappiness and a lack of flourishing. A prime example of this is would be Christian fundamentalists that homeschool their children. In these cases, children are restricted from learning about a life outside of their strict Christian home. An example of this is Erika Diegel Martin, a girl who family removed her from school when she turned 14. In an interview, she shares that her parents “had [her] believing that public schools were these horrible places” that were full of “secular, godless, [and] atheist teachers” that would spread nothing but lies. Her brothers left school between the ages of 12 and 16, and when Martin attempted to earn her GED her parents told her that she was not allowed to, because “it would open up opportunities that were forbidden to [her]” and that she would instead “work in the family business until [she] got married, and then [would] become a homemaker”, even though this was not the life she wanted. While this is an extreme case, one can clearly see how this type of lifestyle cannot facilitate a life of flourishing, as the children are given no choice in what they do. This means that in more cases than not, children are going to end up living in a way that is not conducive to personal flourishing. Therefore, schools should be required to teach children about different religious options available to them, so they can freely choose the best option for themselves. It is the state’s duty and responsibility to expose children to different religious views and ideals in order to foster personal autonomy and flourishing. While the Constitution alludes to a separation of church and state, it also places importance on liberty and happiness, which can only be achieved by personal autonomy.