Print section

Ethics and Religious Culture

Competency 3 – Engages in dialogue

To develop the competencies Reflects on ethical questions and Demonstrates an understanding of the phenomenon of religion, students must learn to engage in dialogue. To do so, they further the knowledge they acquired at the elementary level and acquire new knowledge related to the forms of dialogue, the conditions that foster it and the means to be used to develop and examine a point of view.

The following table presents the knowledge that will allow students to organize their thinking, interact with others and develop a substantiated point of view in relation to an ethical reflection or to understanding an aspect of the phenomenon of religion. By reflecting on an ethical question or seeking to understand a form of religious expression, students acquire the elements of knowledge related to the competency Engages in dialogue.

Knowledge related to the pratice of dialogue

Student constructs knowledge with teacher guidance.

Student applies knowledge by the end of the school year.

 

Student reinvests knowledge.

This learning is suggested; it is not prescribed in the program.

E: The letter E indicates that some of the concepts related to this learning were covered in elementary school.

Elementary

Secondary
Cycle
One
Cycle
Two
  1. Forms of dialogue1
  1 2 4 5
  1. Explains, in his/her own words, the meaning of a panel
     
  1. Uses, in a situation involving dialogue:
    1. conversation, discussion, narration, deliberation, interview, debate
E        
    1. panel
     
  1. Conditions that foster dialogue2
  1 2 4 5
  1. Respects conditions that foster dialogue:
    1. observes rules for engaging in dialogue
E        
    1. correctly expresses his/her ideas
E        
    1. respects the right of others to speak
E        
    1. attentively listens to what another person has to say in order to grasp the meaning
E        
    1. considers all other paths for fostering dialogue, ERC program, secondary, p. 48 (508)
E        
  1. Contributes to establishing conditions that foster dialogue:
    1. suggests rules for engaging in dialogue
E        
    1. proposes ways of alleviating tensions
E        
    1. introduces nuances to his/her comments and recognizes the nuances introduced by others
E        
    1. is open to different ways of thinking
E        
    1. considers all other paths for fostering dialogue, ERC program, secondary, p. 48 (508)
E        
  1. Means for developing a point of view3
  1 2 4 5
  1. Explains, in his/her own words, the use of description, comparison, synthesis, explanation and justification
E        
  1. Uses description to enumerate the characteristics of the subject discussed4 (e.g. in Cycle One, in the context of a story, describes the setting where the action takes place, the characters and the important events; in Cycle Two, in the context of a religious experience, describes the place where the experience took place, what the person felt, what actions were taken, what words were spoken, etc.)
E
  1. Uses comparison to highlight similarities and differences among the elements of the subject discussed (e.g. in Cycle One, names two differences between an adolescent and an adult’s conception of freedom; in Cycle Two, indicates the similarities and differences between Hubert Reeves and David Suzuki’s vision of the future of humanity)
E
  1. Uses synthesis to provide a coherent summary of the elements of the subject discussed (e.g. in Cycle One, summarizes what he/she has learned about connections between the stories, rites and rules of religious traditions; in Cycle Two, summarizes his/her understanding of the different answers religious traditions propose for an existential question)
E
  1. Uses explanation to help others to know or understand the meaning of the subject discussed (e.g. in Cycle One, social order is an agreement between the members of a group about norms to be respected and values to be espoused; in Cycle Two, human ambivalence is a state in which a person is undecided about two options as they both involve equally important values)
E
  1. Uses justification to present, in a logical way, a few reasons and ideas that support a point of view (e.g. in Cycle One, “I think everyone’s freedom is limited because there are rules, codes of conduct and laws that govern our behaviour;” in Cycle Two, “I believe that a pilgrimage is a religious experience, because the believer finds a spiritual meaning there and becomes personally involved, which strengthens his or her faith.”)
E
  1. Types of reasoning5
  1 2 4 5
  1. Explains in his/her own words: reasoning by induction, deduction, analogy, hypothesis
     
  1. Recognizes, in a situation involving dialogue:
    1. reasoning by induction (e.g. “My friend Marie listens to music while she studies and she does very well. Therefore, listening to music must foster success.”)
     
    1. reasoning by deduction (e.g. “Team sports require members to be in good physical shape. Therefore, anyone who practises team sports must be in good physical shape.”)
     
    1. reasoning by analogy (e.g. “I can ride my bike safely, following road safety rules. Therefore, I can drive a scooter.”)
     
    1. reasoning by hypothesis (e.g. “People who do 30 minutes or more of physical activity a day have a longer life expectancy than the national average.”)
     
  1. Questions, in a situation involving dialogue:6
    1. reasoning by induction (e.g. “How can we say that what is true for one person is true for everyone?”)
     
    1. reasoning by deduction (e.g. “Is it possible for someone who practises a team sport to be in poor physical shape?”)
     
    1. reasoning by analogy (e.g. “Can you name some big differences between riding a bike and driving a scooter?”)
     
    1. reasoning by hypothesis (e.g. “Can a scientific study confirm this hypothesis?”)
     
  1. Means for examining a point of view7
  1 2 4 5
  1. Types of judgment
  • 1.1.   Explains, in his/her own words the meaning of a judgment of preference, a judgment of prescription, a judgment of reality and a judgment of value
E        
  • 1.2.   Recognizes, in a situation involving dialogue:
    1. a judgment of preference (e.g. “I prefer the norms imposed by my parents to those imposed by my friends’ parents.”)
E    
    1. a judgment of prescription (e.g. “It’s important to respect the freedom of others.”)
E    
    1. a judgment of reality (e.g. “The Bible tells a number of stories that have inspired the creation of religious rites.”)
E    
    1. a judgment of value (e.g. “The social order is more important than freedom.”)
E    
  • 1.3.   Questions, in a situation involving dialogue: 8
    1. a judgment of preference (e.g. “How are your parents’ norms better than those imposed by your friends’ parents?”)
E
    1. a judgment of prescription (e.g. “Do I have to respect someone else’s freedom even if it limits my freedom?”)
E
    1. a judgment of reality (e.g. “Can you give an example of a story that has inspired the creation of a rite?”)
E
    1. a judgment of value (e.g. “How is the social order more important to you than freedom?”)
E
  1. Processes that may hinder dialogue9
  • 2.1.   Explains, in his/her own words:
    1. a hasty generalization, a personal attack, an appeal to the people, an appeal to the crowd (bandwagon), an appeal to prejudice, an appeal to stereotype, an argument from authority
E        
    1. “two wrongs don’t make a right” argument, a straw man argument, a false dilemma, a causal fallacy, a false analogy, a slippery slope, a conspiracy
 
  • 2.2.   Recognizes, in a situation involving dialogue:
    1. a hasty generalization (e.g. “All adolescents disobey their parents.”)
E    
    1. a personal attack (e.g. “You are not smart enough to find the solution.”)
E    
    1. an appeal to the people (e.g. “My friends all say that the best form of justice is fairness, so it must be true.”)
E    
    1. an appeal to the crowd (e.g. “This computer has the highest sales; that means it must be the best model.”)
E    
    1. an appeal to prejudice (e.g. “A handicapped person can never be autonomous.”)
E    
    1. an appeal to stereotype (e.g. “Boys are less co-dependent than girls.”)
E    
    1. an argument from authority (e.g. “I believe there is life after death because a famous sociologist said so.”)
E    
    1. “two wrongs don’t make a right” argument (e.g. “You came home much too late last night.” “But Dad, my friend Sam went home two hours later than I did!”)
 
    1. a straw man argument (e.g. “Ecologists think that we should all wear green plants in order to save the planet.”)
 
    1. a false dilemma (e.g. “Either you let me get my driver’s license or I won’t do any more housework.”)
 
    1. a causal fallacy (e.g. “I scored a goal because I was playing with a hockey stick signed by my idol.”)
 
    1. a false analogy (e.g. “Since that student plays the guitar so well, he or she must sing well.”)
 
    1. a slippery slope (e.g. “If you are late for class one more time, you will fail your exam, you won’t get your high school diploma and you will never find a job.”)
 
    1. a conspiracy (e.g. “We will never be able to save the planet because politicians in all the rich countries have agreed that the economy is their priority.”)
 
  • 2.3.   Questions, in a situation involving dialogue: 10
    1. a hasty generalization (e.g. “What is your basis for saying that all adolescents disobey their parents?”)
E    
    1. a personal attack (e.g. “Do you really think that insulting me will help us find the solution?”)
E    
    1. an appeal to the crowd (e.g. “Is everything your friends say always true?”)
E    
    1. an appeal to the people (e.g. “Does the number of computers sold guarantee the quality of the model?”)
E    
    1. an appeal to prejudice (e.g. “Can you give me your definition of autonomy?”)
E    
    1. an appeal to stereotype (e.g. “What is your basis for saying that boys are less co-dependent than girls?”)
E    
    1. an argument from authority (e.g. “Regardless of what the sociologist said and regardless of his reputation, what do you think and what are your arguments?”)
E    
    1. “two wrongs don’t make a right” argument (e.g. “If your friend goes home at 7:00 p.m., should you do likewise?”)
 
    1. a straw man argument (e.g. “What would we do in the middle of winter?”)
 
    1. a false dilemma (e.g. “What is the connection between getting your driver’s license and doing housework?”)
 
    1. a causal fallacy (e.g. “Do all players who score goals use sticks autographed by their idols?”)
 
    1. a false analogy (e.g. “Are the same skills required to sing and to play the guitar?”)
 
    1. a slippery slope (e.g. “Aren’t you exaggerating a little? Being late for this class will not determine the rest of my life.”)
 
    1. a conspiracy (e.g. “Can you prove that the politicians agreed on this point?”)
 
1.  Ethics and Religious Culture Program, Secondary, p. 48 (546).
2.  Ethics and Religious Culture Program, Secondary, p. 48 (546).
3.  Ethics and Religious Culture Program, Secondary, p. 49 (547).
4.  The subject being discussed refers to the object of dialogue, i.e. the ethical situation or the form of religious expression dealt with in class.
5.  Ethics and Religious Culture Program, Secondary, p. 54 (514).
6.  The examples below are related to those given in point 2.
7.  Ethics and Religious Culture Program, Secondary, p. 50 (548).
8.  The examples below are connected to those given in point 1.2.
9.  Ethics and Religious Culture Program, Secondary, p. 52 (550).
10.  The examples given below are related to those given in point 2.2.

Haut de page