David Warlick has produced a Code of Ethics, and Stephen Downes disagrees with the idea. Stephen Downes is both right and wrong.

In an interesting example of synchronicity (or perhaps mere coincidence), David Warlick and I have covered similar ground this week: I in my article entitled  "Asking the right questions" and David in his (earlier) article entitled  "Getting Right Down To It". David's is the more comprehensive.

One would have thought that there is little to take issue with over a code of ethics that includes headings such as "Seek Truth and Express It" and "Be accountable", yet Stephen Downes has done so, in a recent post, in which he questions both the usefulness of such a Code and the implications of some of its details.

He states that in his view "a code of ethics is not useful, because if one believes in the ethics, the coded is not needed, and if one doesn't, the code will not be followed." This is similar to Shankara's  dictum that "to an unenlightened person, the Scriptures are meaningless, and to an enlightened person, the Scriptures are useless."

Shankara was right, of course, but that doesn't prevent people finding their own Scriptures both meaningful and useful. Downes may be correct in a logical sense, but I don't see how his position actually helps anyone working in schools.

He goes on to disagree with Warlick's appeal to question the sources' motives: "No, because the motives are often irrelevant." Well, perhaps they are "often" irrelevant, but that implies they are sometimes relevant -- and as you don't know in advance which is the case, surely it is right to question the sources' motives?

Bizarrely in my view, Downes also disagrees with the clause "Never use information from another person without proper citation and permission?", stating: "A bad principle; I would not be able to criticize most people and companies." Surely the starting point is to instil the ethical value of citing sources with permission, before bringing in the obvious exceptions?

I have not studied philosophy or logic, so I am happy to give Downes some benefit of the doubt. But my main concern is the practical business of enabling schools to develop their students' abilities to not merely survive, but to thrive, in the so-called flat world in which we live. What we need are strategies and guidelines, not theoretical arguments which have no practical value that I can see.

What do you think? Please leave a comment.