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

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 -