It seems to me that any society which decides to actively refrain from teaching morality or virtue is doomed to failure.  A society of any organization can only sustain itself when people are trained to act, at least in part, for the good of the whole and not just for the good of the individual.  A classical liberal education, or a traditional Aristotelian education, sought to produce good citizens and virtuous individuals, not well-trained individuals ready to join the work force (although it didn't entirely neglect this either).  Seeing as how our (I'm thinking of America here, although I think these remarks are pertinent for Europeans as well) society does not teach people about morality, virtue, or citizenship, it is only a matter of time before our education system completely fails.  As it stands, our education system produces students with lower and lower scores in reading, math, and science, and I think that this is probably related to the fact that we attempt to teach people technical skills without teaching them the value of things like moderation, prudence, contemplation or justice.  

I am curious to hear other people's thoughts on this, but I am also curious about the following: Given the current political and social climate (which I take to be bleak and barren), what would a good education look like?  This is a question I am curious in because I am an educator, but also because there are plenty of things that I am not educated in (being a product of modernity), and I am interested in finding my own flaws in this area.. 

Any thoughts?

Mysterious Brony wrote:

(This post is mostly for iwpoe, but anybody is more than welcome to comment) I realized that the American political establishment may be some sort of model of Plato's city. According to the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I think that one could look at these "self-evident truths" and say these are the "Platonic Forms." The US forefathers could be looked as the Philosopher Kings and who are the "closest to see these truths." Religion could be looked as the, dare I say it, the "Noble Lie." Some of the forefathers did not like religion and thought it false however I think they allowed religion because religion can discipline people. As I recall, Plato argued that "lying in words" is permissible, so, religion to some of the forefathers were false, however religion conveys some truths, which can be useful to keep society running. These are my thoughts and I hope this doesn't come off as too far-fetched. Of course, there might be other things I'm missing. 

 
This sort of thinking is certainty in line with some Straussians (the so called West Coast Straussians), but the Noble Lie is not only religion, but the equality of men and self-evident truths.   Men are not equal in any normal sense of the word, and the self evident truths the Constitution speaks of are not obviously self-evident. 

As noted above though, Plato (and maybe Strauss) would point to our democracy as a weakness.  It is also worth noting, as Strauss does quite often, that the goal of Plato's city was to produce virtuous citizens, not happy people with inalianable right.  This difference in ends puts us at odds with the ancients, regardless of how similar our society may look in outward form.