Education won't solve social woes

SOMEONE once asked Confucius how he would deal with the problem ofoverpopulation, and the answer was ""educatethem''. That was 2,500 years ago. But some things haven't changed with time. ""Education'' is often mooted as the way to solve social ills … fromovereating to gambling to sexual addiction. Its basic assumption … the more you are told what is right, the lesslikely you will do what is wrong … is naivelyoptimistic. Fifty years ago, a university graduate was almost unheard of. A childwho started school at age seven would be out ofit by 12. That was all the education many of our founding fathers had, buttheir lack of formal education was no stumblingblock to their achievements. As the late Dr Wee Kim Wee, who did not complete his formal education,said: ""My university was the university oflife.'' Confucius advocated the development of a person's character, inaddition to academic training. However, thatdefinition of education is often narrowed to mean only that which is taughtin schools. Today, most children receive at least 12 to 16 years of formaleducation, but that hasn't solved many of their woes. The fact is, more formal education simply does not equate to beingbetter educated and having a better character. How effective education is has to be seen in the context of a risingindividualism among the young. We come from the I-Me-My generation that is used to instantgratification. Hence, the claim … ""I know what's best foryou'' … made by traditional figures of authority like parents, teachers andeven the government is no longer taken at facevalue but questioned. A modern teenager's beliefs are rooted in ""what works for me'' … nomore benchmarking my behaviour against what youthink I ought to do, but I make decisions based on what I think I like(subs: pls italicise) to do. As such, science textbooks and abstinence organisations - for all theyare worth - are destined to remain sciencetextbooks and abstinence organisations. Why? Many of the prescriptive measures dished out to youths merely assertthe ""what'' and ""how to'', and seldom delveinto ""why'' something is right or wrong. People say that being promiscuous is wrong. My retort is: Why is itwrong? Is it because promiscuity will lead to thespread of infectious diseases that affect society? But if I use a condom, I can help prevent the transmission of HIV/Aids.Does that make permissive behaviour right? If our notions of right and wrong are reduced to a matter of ""whatworks must be right'', then I fear we are slippinginto a dangerous moral relativism. And if that happens, education … which is supposed to teach one torecognise right from wrong … will be madeincreasingly irrelevant. And being promiscuous is right … if not for you … at least it is forme.