Why the divison here Gabs? I mean all morality is individual. National morality or cultural morality is really in the field of ethics isn't it? In that case then nobody can be a moral authority on anything but their own morality.
On Thursday, 10 May 2012 13:10:32 UTC+1, rigsy03 wrote: > But what will individual "authority" on morals change? Situation > ethics? Is the USA president a "moral authority"? The Pope? The New > York Times? How does conscience develop and does it matter if one has > one in an immoral society? What if doing the right thing ruins your > life? Or your income? Do civil laws matter, for that matter? Aren't > they biased? The minority must go along with the majority whether they > agree or not with policy and support it with behavior (silence) and > funding (taxes). Why do you consider capitalism "vicious"? Versus > what? Can a Democracy be vicious? Why or why not? > > On May 9, 8:53 am, Eman Abdulla <[email protected]> wrote: > > I can see the dilemma between doing what is ideal or abandoning the > > battle field altogether, and I guess doing what one can do and > > infusing the rot with insight and skepticism as to the moral > > ramifications of vicious capitalism( if I understood you correctly) > > would be more effective in helping the next generations come up with > > their own solutions and possibly affecting change that our generation > > could not help. I don't think that it is only morality that is being > > compromised in today's economy, but long term efficiency. Economic > > policy that dulls the pain and patches the woes will only backfire > > real hard in the future. > > > > On 5/9/12, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > So good to see you back, Lee! I agree, it would be great if we could > have a > > > better view of the collateral damage of the imparted non-curriculum > wisdom. > > > > > On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > >> I think that we can all remember some teacher or even teachers if we > are > > >> lucky, that had profound effects on our learning andf growing as > human > > >> beings. Now my schooling was frankly shit but even I can name two > > >> teachers > > >> who have had such a marked effect on me, even into adult life. > > > > >> I think most teachers manage to impart a little of their ummm 'non > > >> ciriculum' wisdom to their students, at least in my opinion the goods > ones > > >> do. > > > > >> Not quite an answer to your question I know. > > > > >> As far as simple morality goes, heh I think those of us who have > spent > > >> even a little time looking at the subject, must delcare it a > minefield and > > >> hence not simple at all. > > > > >> On Wednesday, 1 February 2012 18:39:09 UTC, archytas 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.- Hide quoted > text - > > > > - Show quoted text -
