I had been educated about the dangers of smoking tobacco from a very young age. That didn't stop me using nicotine for well over ten years of my adult life. Ask any smoker and they are aware of their stupidity.

The same is true of drug abuse (illicit and presciption), obesity and so on. The self harmers know what they are doing.

Information at a younger age will not help.

Opportunities for positive living are needed not wasted lesson time.

The most important lesson for everbody is that they are responsible for the consequences of their on actions and what they do to and for themselves will have the greatest effect on their lives.

Richard Boyce, Haywards Heath, Sussex

Well said, Jamie. The world has changed. People don't accept an ultimate arbiter of right and wrong. Any attempt to impose arbitrary moral values will be shown up for what it is: hubris. Psychologists like Jonathan Haidt are beginning to understand where human moral emotions spring from. I'm hopeful that, once we learn more about this, we can re-focus these emotions towards improving our society's survival chances, in particular to meet the twin threats of over-consumption and collapsing reproduction rates.

Rob Wilard, Reading,

Philosophers have a habit of being very silly. In fact Bertrand Russell's silliness was so commented on that he thought he had better try and stop people saying he was silly - so he sat down and thought up a really, really intelligent thing to say which would prove he wasn't silly. What he came up with was - 'They think I'm silly, but I'm not'. Well he was. So is this one. In bucketsfull. No need to take him seriously. Like clowns, philosophers aren't real - they just don red noses for their act.

eric campbell, harrogate, uk

Intelligent liberals like Jamie Whyte are responsible for the state Western Civilisation finds itself in. Right and Wrong certainly exist and need to be taught if our children are not to lead the sort of formless amoral existence that 'what I want to do right now is right'. Jamie Whyte is no doubt a self-disciplined, mature and principled man, and a great deal of his moral strength will have come from an upbringing and an education that involved Right and Wrong. Would he deny the opportunities he had to others? Or are his theories of moral relativism more important than the happiness and good conduct of our young people?

Roddy Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand

The author has certainly got a point when it comes to the social engineering that politicians seem determined to impose on schools. But schools, like anything else in society, can't operate in a moral vacuum, and as for "just try it and see if the pleasure is worth the costs" - the same could be said for, say, the fun of watching your bomb blow up large numbers of people. This is the logical end of moral relativism.

Andy, Perth,

"Alas, neither politicians nor teachers know what the difference between right and wrong is"

Idiotic moral relativism...

Brian, Bristol,

Napoleon called politicians 'dream makers'. That could also be 'nightmare avoiders'.
Middle-age, middle-England voters fixated with teenage-sex, hoodies and graffiti are to be delivered from evil by Flash (only 24 hours to save the world) Gordon.
As for Britishness, couldn't have anything to do with him being an MP for a Scottish seat imposing laws on English voters who can't vote him out of office could it?

eddie reader, birmingham, uk

All normative judgements are merely statements of preference. And it is impossible for either individuals, or a functioning society, not to make normative judgements. Without a substantial consensus, we'd spend all our time killing each other.

Hence, the proper reply to Mr. Whyte's article is: "Yes? So? This is bad why, exactly?"

S.M. Stirling, Santa Fe, NM, USA