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

The way I see it is that we are complex beings that are endowed with
conflicting impulses having to do with self preservation,
ethnocentricity, and ever widening circles of concern for our human
kin and our environment and living beings, but the further the circle,
the weaker the impulse to act in order to preserve it and the more
complicated decisions become as to whose interest is a priority, to
what degree, and what level of urgency is required to take action.
Morality is an evolving collective code that is contextual, but is
guided by basic human feelings and concerns, what may be called
ethical sensibility. Although it canges with time, basic albeit loose
guidelines remain the same as all visionary leaders talked of freedom,
equality, justice, and compassion. Each, however, had a different take
on such principles as was needed at the time. I think a visionary, far
outside the confines of time and social context will be deemed insane
and won't be given any weight.
As for capitalism, we seem to have very different views of it. I see
it as flawed at best, and in need of reform , in a sense less greed
and more empathy. I agree that empathy can be a mask, but true empathy
does exist and it is the reason why the poor and the weak( i.e those
deemed useless) are not all starving in the streets.

On 5/12/12, rigsy03 <rigsy03@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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 <emana...@gmail.com> 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 <rigs...@yahoo.com> 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 <emana...@gmail.com> 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 <gabbyd...@gmail.com> 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
>> >> > <leerevdoug...@gmail.com>
>> >> > 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 -
>