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

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 <rigsy03@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 -
>