Blissfully Uneducated

my2hands · July 2007

a bunch of folks commenting on how colleges were before the 60's is a tad funny to me, unless of couse you guys are over 60 years old :rolleyes:

Abookamongstthemany · July 2007

CorporateWhore wrote:

Um, yes...I agree.

You're agreeing with me then?

That killing has always been wrong...yes, I agree with that. But I think we disagree about how we, as a people, come to these conclusions.

RainDog · July 2007

CorporateWhore wrote:

You're complicating it. Moral relativism is easily proven to be a false belief.

Our moral information is updated with science and reason so that we can determine that yes, owning slaves is wrong because blacks have human rights like whites. The eternal truth was always that slavery was wrong - human beings were not informed enough.

Moral relativism would have you believe that if you live in an Islamic country, it's morally right for women to be beaten for speaking to another man besides their husband. It's right for them, but not right for us? False. It is wrong for both.

Because moral relativism is a false doctrine, then there must be at least some moral truth. We are currently determining which moral truths there are through faith and reason.

Ironic that you mention "faith" yet condemn a religious sect for following theirs. After all, the Bible was used to defend slavery in the past. I would posit that moral truths are determined through reason.

But that still doesn't discount my statement. I said that what you view as moral relativism may in fact be universal truth in the transition between ignorance and discovery. And I never defended "moral relativism" iself, as that's just a buzz word for "I don't like modern society."

CorporateWhore · July 2007

RainDog wrote:

Ironic that you mention "faith" yet condemn a religious sect for following theirs. After all, the Bible was used to defend slavery in the past. I would posit that moral truths are determined through reason.

But that still doesn't discount my statement. I said that what you view as moral relativism may in fact be universal truth in the transition between ignorance and discovery. And I never defended "moral relativism" iself, as that's just a buzz word for "I don't like modern society."

Moral relativism is a subject discussed in philosophy departments in colleges. It's not a buzz word at all. Professors spend their lives studying it.

The problem is: there's no legitimate "discovery" in moral relativism. The only thing you "discover" is what particular attitudes are at that time and place. There's no analytical process that goes into moral reasoning.

Um, irrespective of their religious views, Islam's teachings on how to treat women are immoral. Though, faith does inform many moral teachings, such as the Ten commandments.

Abookamongstthemany · July 2007

ArmsinaV wrote:

Change? What kind of change are you in favor of that the article references? Academically speaking, I'm curious as a teacher. Specifically, what about classical education are you against or, what new programs do you feel have merit especially?

"The church, government, military, schools, and family stifled the individual and perpetuated a capitalist, male hierarchy that had warped Western society. So if, for a mere four years, the university could educate students to counter these much larger sinister forces, the nation itself could be changed for the better. Colleges could serve as a counterweight to the insidious prejudices embedded in the core of America." - quote from the original article

This is absolutely the role of the university according to many professors. Education classes at the university-level - particularly grad courses - are full of former Vietnam protesting radicals who still think it's up to them to fix the system. How many times have I heard a professor bring up Social Security, Iraq, Christianity, homosexual rights, etc. in classes that had NOTHING to do with anyof those things?

I had one Methodology course where the local education union rep spent a full class recruiting future teachers, and went into a huge diatribe about how tax incentives don't actually work in the private sector. He didn't know what he was talking about, but that sure didn't stop him.

I also had a "Diversity in Education" professor who constantly rambled through class by asking advice for how to deal with her gay son, telling us how guilty she felt about attending private school, and showing movies depicting white settlers abusing Native Americans.

In one particularly ridiculous session, she mentioned that a scene in "The Breakfast Club" was just like watching a rape. (I have no idea how the topic came up.) She was referencing a scene where Judd Nelson is talking to Molly Ringwald sexually. I made a comment that the word "rape" is strong and I didn't think it was a totally accurate comparison because rape is such a serious crime. She snapped back with, "Well have YOU been raped? Because I have and it IS rape."

It was completely bizarre, but, actually, well in line with how she conducted class as a personal ranting session full of political and social topics that had nothing to do with education.

It's still education. It just so happens you disagree. So much in life intertwines, in fact, everything intertwines...it's very easy for one discussion to lead into another discussion and still be very relevent.

Rushlimbo · July 2007

ArmsinaV wrote:

Change? What kind of change are you in favor of that the article references? Academically speaking, I'm curious as a teacher. Specifically, what about classical education are you against or, what new programs do you feel have merit especially?

"The church, government, military, schools, and family stifled the individual and perpetuated a capitalist, male hierarchy that had warped Western society. So if, for a mere four years, the university could educate students to counter these much larger sinister forces, the nation itself could be changed for the better. Colleges could serve as a counterweight to the insidious prejudices embedded in the core of America." - quote from the original article

This is absolutely the role of the university according to many professors. Education classes at the university-level - particularly grad courses - are full of former Vietnam protesting radicals who still think it's up to them to fix the system. How many times have I heard a professor bring up Social Security, Iraq, Christianity, homosexual rights, etc. in classes that had NOTHING to do with anyof those things?

I had one Methodology course where the local education union rep spent a full class recruiting future teachers, and went into a huge diatribe about how tax incentives don't actually work in the private sector. He didn't know what he was talking about, but that sure didn't stop him.

I also had a "Diversity in Education" professor who constantly rambled through class by asking advice for how to deal with her gay son, telling us how guilty she felt about attending private school, and showing movies depicting white settlers abusing Native Americans.

In one particularly ridiculous session, she mentioned that a scene in "The Breakfast Club" was just like watching a rape. (I have no idea how the topic came up.) She was referencing a scene where Judd Nelson is talking to Molly Ringwald sexually. I made a comment that the word "rape" is strong and I didn't think it was a totally accurate comparison because rape is such a serious crime. She snapped back with, "Well have YOU been raped? Because I have and it IS rape."

It was completely bizarre, but, actually, well in line with how she conducted class as a personal ranting session full of political and social topics that had nothing to do with education.

I guess you are trying to say that your experiences with those couple of professors is how it is at every educational institution? You must teach at a less than desirable college.

ArmsinaV · July 2007

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

It's still education. It just so happens you disagree. So much in life intertwines, in fact, everything intertwines...it's very easy for one discussion to lead into another discussion and still be very relevent.

That's the point. "Everything" is not education. When you start calling it that, you cheapen it.

I wonder what you would think if a professor of yours started a pro-Nazi speech and that jews really are evil. I wonder if you would sit back and say, "it's all education. everything is entwined." Or how about if someone started evangelizing in the name of Jesus or Islam.

These discussions didn't "lead" to other topics. They WERE the topics that she presented. Our only assignment in the class was writing a "cultural history" of ourselves, and EVERYONE got an A if they finished it.

ArmsinaV · July 2007

Rushlimbo wrote:

I guess you are trying to say that your experiences with those couple of professors is how it is at every educational institution? You must teach at a less than desirable college.

I am saying that the overwhelming majority of professors are leftists. That is absolutely true. A 2005 Rothman-Lichter-Nevitte study showed that 72 percent of professors were self-described liberals. This isn't conclusive evidence per se, but any experience at a university - especially a large state school - would reiterate that point, as well.

And it wasn't where I teach. I teach at a public school.

IndianSummer · July 2007

meme wrote:

"studies" are not the problem. Overscheduled (and heavy-partying) college kids, and a culture that accepts that college time is appropriately spent with only a tiny fraction of the time actually devoted to reading, those are the problem.

i tend to agree.

RainDog · July 2007

CorporateWhore wrote:

Moral relativism is a subject discussed in philosophy departments in colleges. It's not a buzz word at all. Professors spend their lives studying it.

The problem is: there's no legitimate "discovery" in moral relativism. The only thing you "discover" is what particular attitudes are at that time and place. There's no analytical process that goes into moral reasoning.

Um, irrespective of their religious views, Islam's teachings on how to treat women are immoral. Though, faith does inform many moral teachings, such as the Ten commandments.

"Moral Relativism" is a buzz word when used by conservatives attempting to stop social changes in our society. Moral Relativism as a philosophical study is something different.

Wikipedia wrote:

"In popular culture people often describe themselves as "morally relativist," meaning that they are accepting of other people's values and agree that there is no one "right" way of doing some things. However, this actually has little to do with the philosophical idea of relativism; relativism does not necessarily imply tolerance, just as moral objectivism does not imply intolerance. These people's moral outlook can be explained from both theoretical frameworks."

However, you're dodging my point. I'm saying that what you - you specifically - are calling moral relativism is in actuality the discovery of a "universal truth". For example, in hindsight slavery is wrong. That's the absolute truth. At the time, however, it was considered morally relative by the conservatives to abolish it. After all, it is condoned by the Bible; as is the abuse of women.

Leviticus 21:9 King James Version wrote:

And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12 wrote:

If two men fight together, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of the one attacking him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall not pity her.

Sounds like what you're accusing the Muslims of. Would you call these teachings immoral? If so, are you being morally relative? Or, is it that the universal truth is it's immoral to treat women this way even though changing society from a Biblical, faith-based model is often accused of being morally relative.

ArmsinaV · July 2007

RainDog wrote:

"Moral Relativism" is a buzz word when used by conservatives attempting to stop social changes in our society. Moral Relativism as a philosophical study is something different.

Do you believe in any absolute truths?

CorporateWhore · July 2007

ArmsinaV wrote:

I teach at a public school.

It's good to hear we have an educator who's on the right side.

bigdvs · July 2007

/raises hand

Hi, Classics major here, from very respectable NY private college. Most of my professors in major were liberals yes, but the reason I was attracted to the major and this group of educators was because they were teaching something whole different from the rest of the college. This was not a "I am going to ask you how you feel about a subject, explain to you how I came to my decision and expect yours to similarly fall in line" type of major. Rational disagreement and discourse was expected, encouraged and even demonstrated (every student in the major was allowed to attend faculty discussions on topics with huge grey areas where more often then not 2 or more of the professors would have differing understandings and teachings regarding the subject). One of the greatest things I learned early on in my Classics classes was that it was niether better or worse back then then it is today. There was no gilded age of the Romans or Greeks or Eygptians. And they were not dumb or stupid for not inventing cars, phones, and TVs. They just were. And what they mostly just were is human. With that said:

This modernist view that we are better now then we were 3000 years ago is incorrect. Look at the things that are discussed in this forum on a daily basis (global politcs, world enviornmental destruction, education, weapon control). All of these concerns that meant little or nothing to the Athenian sheep herder 2000 years ago but also mean little or nothing to the 1000s of sheep herders in our present time. There has been no evolution, there has been no enlightment, humans are today the same as they have been for around the last 50,000+ years. I would even toss out that slavery to some extent continues in legalized morally acceptable forms as we speak. Are the Israelis not benefitting from cheap labor from the Palastenians, are US farmers not using Mexican labor. Both of these are acceptable today but we may look back in 50/100/150 years and feel morally at that time that what we do today is abhorent.

CorporateWhore · July 2007

RainDog wrote:

"Moral Relativism" is a buzz word when used by conservatives attempting to stop social changes in our society. Moral Relativism as a philosophical study is something different.

However, you're dodging my point. I'm saying that what you - you specifically - are calling moral relativism is in actuality the discovery of a "universal truth". For example, in hindsight slavery is wrong. That's the absolute truth. At the time, however, it was considered morally relative by the conservatives to abolish it. After all, it is condoned by the Bible; as is the abuse of women.

Sounds like what you're accusing the Muslims of. Would you call these teachings immoral? If so, are you being morally relative? Or, is it that the universal truth is it's immoral to treat women this way even though changing society from a Biblical, faith-based model is often accused of being morally relative.

Look, you're trying to say that a lack of belief in universal truth is a universal truth. If you do not believe in universal truths, then universal truths cannot be a part of your argument. You must defend moral relativism based on its merits. You cannot.

You're pretty much calling moral relativism a "universal truth" and that is no better of an argument than defending moral relativism itself. If moral relativism is false, then moral relativism as a universal truth is false too.

Is it immoral to beat your wife? Yes. Did Jesus Christ say it was immoral to beat your wife when he was alive? Yes. Nothing else to say regarding Christianity's views of beating women.

I think you're confusing yourself by trying to defend moral relativism. It's indefensible.

RainDog · July 2007

ArmsinaV wrote:

Do you believe in any absolute truths?

Yes.

CorporateWhore · July 2007

RainDog wrote:

Yes.

Then you believe that moral relativism is false.

RainDog · July 2007

CorporateWhore wrote:

Look, you're trying to say that a lack of belief in universal truth is a universal truth. If you do not believe in universal truths, then universal truths cannot be a part of your argument. You must defend moral relativism based on its merits. You cannot.

No, I'm not. You are missing my point. And I'd thank you not to tell me what I can and cannot do.

CorporateWhore wrote:

You're pretty much calling moral relativism a "universal truth" and that is no better of an argument than defending moral relativism itself. If moral relativism is false, then moral relativism as a universal truth is false too.

I never said moral relativism is false. I'm saying what you think is moral relativism isn't moral relativism.

CorporateWhore wrote:

Is it immoral to beat your wife? Yes. Did Jesus Christ say it was immoral to beat your wife when he was alive? Yes. Nothing else to say regarding Christianity's views of beating women.

Plenty else to say about Christianity's views on women in general. I'm not familiar with what Jesus said about wife beating; though I do know he was rather egalitarian towards women, at least for his time.

CorporateWhore wrote:

I think you're confusing yourself by trying to defend moral relativism. It's indefensible.

I'm not confusing myself; though I seem to have confused you. I'm saying that whenever conservatives throw around the term "moral relativism" they are using it solely to argue against change in society without regard to what may in fact be "right."

inmytree · July 2007

CorporateWhore wrote:

Then you believe that moral relativism is false.

absolutely...!

RainDog · July 2007

CorporateWhore wrote:

Then you believe that moral relativism is false.

That's not it at all. Let's say that "murder is wrong" is an absolute truth. Is killing?

This black and white shit you've signed on to will drive you nuts. I suggest a broader approach to the world.

Abookamongstthemany · July 2007

ArmsinaV wrote:

That's the point. "Everything" is not education. When you start calling it that, you cheapen it.

I wonder what you would think if a professor of yours started a pro-Nazi speech and that jews really are evil. I wonder if you would sit back and say, "it's all education. everything is entwined." Or how about if someone started evangelizing in the name of Jesus or Islam.

These discussions didn't "lead" to other topics. They WERE the topics that she presented. Our only assignment in the class was writing a "cultural history" of ourselves, and EVERYONE got an A if they finished it.

I was under the impression that she was leading into these side topics with a connection she recognized....which I see as perfectly fine.

Everything that you learn is education. Obviously some education might have more merit than others....it all depends on your perspective and personal bias. Some people view teaching children laws from the bible (esp ones which require a condemnation of certain groups of people) to be just as wrong as your tried and true Nazi reference.

Blissfully Uneducated

Comments

Categories