Re: Mind's Eye What really lies in simple moral positions?

pocket change is important and Vam is right.

Allan

On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Allan H <allanh1946@gmail.com> 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 <atewari2007@gmail.com> 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 <nwte...@gmail.com> 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 <allanh1...@gmail.com> 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 <nwte...@gmail.com> 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.