not being obnoxious, The that comes to my mind is just what is your understanding of morality and how it is applied in ones life. Understanding morality on a personal level can be quite difficult, especially if you want it to make sense. Allan
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 7:39 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I hope to spend the next 5 years "not teaching" - a difficult > financial decision as this is my 'ready-to-hand' income. Some years > back I tried to take and stick to a decision not to teach 'ideological > rot' - broadly the mainstream of business and economic subjects. This > might seem a fairly easy personal, moral decision; yet it isn't. > > The interesting issues don't concern the easy morality of doing what's > right. One can find plenty of material, from Critical Theory through > to deconstructive approaches to behaviour and critical psychology - > and once, very critical management books like Peter Anthony's > 'Foundation of Management' and sort programmes out on the basis of > these. Thus one could teach material one might feel credible and > stretching, broadly aimed at students learning critical reasoning. I > do offer modules based around writers like David Graeber, Steve Keen > and modern blogs at the moment. > > What muddies the waters is a combination of streamlining costs in HE > and more or less the extirpation of syllabus control by academics, > along with a massive dilution of student brain-power and the > connection of student success with the numbers we pass. This > situation makes moral judgement very difficult and academe has > collapsed altogether as a moral place. > > Economics has long been taught as a science - an utter farce - and > management theories are only fit for ridicule (excellence, kwality and > anything with 'strategic' in it). The world works around power and > rhetoric, and this is the only real content of such "theories". > > The madness that underlies all this is that we never address what the > real issues might be. Accumulated wealth is clearly a problem for > democracy as it inevitably means some will benefit by doing nothing > while others work and that the wealth will be used to influence > politics and the very ground of commercial competition. Yet with no > consideration of this we leap into "theorising" in a system that > applauds the creation of excess wealth in few hands as a 'good'. > > One can try to teach what one believes is true and in simple morality > this is what one ought to do. The actual situation is much more > complex. The jobs available in teaching (apart from a few little > eddies I have occupied) are nearly all to do with teaching the rot, > because this is the cheapest way universities can devise. The moral > choice of not teaching rot changes to a choice not to teach (and get > paid) - partly because your own students will be examined on the rot > because you are teaching as part of a 'team' and all students are set > the same questions as part of standardisation. If you don't teach the > muck you put your students at a disadvantage. > > I see no answers to the moral conundrum - other than just to walk > away, putting distance between oneself and the madness. > > > > -- ( ) |_D Allan Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
