Single figures do promote their views of morality- Moses- Jesus- Mohammed- as well as warriors and writers, etc. but they need a system and vocabulary to entice followers/adherents plus a system of punishments and rewards.
On May 10, 4:04 pm, Eman Abdulla <[email protected]> wrote: > My problem with public forums is that I tend to assume that certain > concepts are givens when in fact they are not and I thank you for > bringing this to my attention. I am not one to oversimplify but I do > think that there is a such a thing as basic morality that includes > notions such as giving others rights and liberties that people expect > for themselves. I know that has not always been the case and is still > not the case in most parts of the world, but I believe that we reached > a level of maturity as a species to recognize that power is not a > license to abuse and that the minority is entitled to the same rights > as the majority. I think that capitalism in its absolute form lacks > the checks and balances that will ensure that the powerful and the > wealthy will not exploit the weak to increase profit, and there is no > shortage of examples whether it be the recent economic crisis or > worldwide in resource rich places like Africa. In this complex and > interrelated world of ours, so many variables and consequences need to > be taken into account when making a decision in order to attain a > level of moral integrity. However, the basic guidelines are the same > and they have more to do with the state of the heart as free of > malignant bias and greed and capable of empathizing with others who > may be different. > I don't think a single figure can ever act as a representative of > morality, but it is a collective code that has to be revised with > every generation but it still has to emanate from the ability to > empathize and balance the wellfare of the individual with the > wellbeing of society as it is today and as it will be handed over to > future generations. > On 5/10/12, rigsy03 <[email protected]> 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
