pocket change is important and Vam is right. Allan On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote:
> I had a lot of problems with morality (fine details) when I was a cop.. > My Boss set me down and said "Allan, it is this way 'We's da good guys, > da's da bad guys. sie" Even today it put morality in its proper place. > > If you understand your own morality it seems you can separate that from > the world you you working,, it will also allows you to know where the line > is.. and that can be taught as part of the course.. > Allan > > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 6:14 AM, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I do not think refusing a means to livelihood is any solution to the >> moral conundrum, if one is not able to afford the decision nor have an >> alternate opportunity in line with one's moral preference. >> >> Delivering the rot with one's own insight is not impossible. For >> instance, the reviled "strategic" makes sense when it stands for a >> change or intervention that improves the whole [ organisation, >> process, service, product, reach, cost...] And, Koetler is not rot... >> as a reference for concepts, activities, processes. >> >> What is rotten is the immoral practice, use and effect. There was this >> MD of a contracting organisation who was siphoning off steel and >> cement procured at project sites, even while he had commissioned my >> services to implement Project Mgt & Control System in his orgn. It >> stank ! That was untenable. >> >> On Feb 2, 1:54 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> > I had a sense of doing what seemed right as a cop Allan - even though >> > most situations were difficult to see a right side in. The academy >> > stinks as in the State of Denmark and I get to feel the only thing is >> > to retreat to the margins. My working guess is that it's >> > "meritocracy" that sucks. >> > >> > On Feb 1, 8:30 pm, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > 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. >> > > > > -- > ( > ) > |_D Allan > > Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living. > > > -- ( ) |_D Allan Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
