A revival of Plato's Academy?Wile E. Coyote wrote:Yes. And that awareness should be derived from knowledge born of moral education.AiA in Atlanta wrote:Okay. Yet that decision needs more self-awareness than the average person has.Wile E. Coyote wrote:
No, I'm saying that before you can make a moral judgement, you must first decide if a moral or amoral action has occurred.
Neither of us are saying that the average person is incapable of moral awareness, just that they haven't been taught. Over the past few decades there has been an mass exodus from religion across western nations. WASPS are no longer vogue.
That means people aren't getting their weekly dose of moral education, which has been the traditional place of teaching morality to the masses for centuries. But there has been nothing to take its place... and it only takes a couple of generations for a society to loose social knowledge.
The moral life is necessary for civilizations to thrive and survive. Perhaps it's time to teach secular morality in our schools.
The amorality of badness
Forum rules
Don't poop in these threads. This isn't Europe, okay? There are rules here!
Don't poop in these threads. This isn't Europe, okay? There are rules here!
- AiA in Atlanta
- Posts: 7259
- Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:44 pm
Re: The amorality of badness
Re: The amorality of badness
Not at all, I've never been a fan of Plato... too elitist by far. I'm thinking more of a replacement for religious education in state schools and an adjunct to private school curricula.AiA in Atlanta wrote:A revival of Plato's Academy?Wile E. Coyote wrote:Yes. And that awareness should be derived from knowledge born of moral education.
Neither of us are saying that the average person is incapable of moral awareness, just that they haven't been taught. Over the past few decades there has been an mass exodus from religion across western nations. WASPS are no longer vogue.
That means people aren't getting their weekly dose of moral education, which has been the traditional place of teaching morality to the masses for centuries. But there has been nothing to take its place... and it only takes a couple of generations for a society to loose social knowledge.
The moral life is necessary for civilizations to thrive and survive. Perhaps it's time to teach secular morality in our schools.
- Outlaw Yogi
- Posts: 2404
- Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 9:27 pm
Re: The amorality of badness
I thought ethics was already part of some secular institutions curriculum.
If Donald Trump is so close to the Ruskis, why couldn't he get Vladimir Putin to put novichok in Xi Jjinping's lipstick?
Re: The amorality of badness
The most 2 most significant things, I think, to come from the Industrial Revolution, was the urbanization of nations and the creation of the nuclear mobile family... and all that they entailed.boxy wrote:I don't think the problem is mainly due to a reduction in religious indoctrination, but rather the fact that we have moved into a society where you don't know your neighbour.
Now we are in the midst of a Technological Revolution which is transforming the way in which we communicate with one another and how we view communities and who our neighbours are.
Technocats have communities, located on social network and message board sites. In most cases, people know their next door neighbours and school (with kids) and work communities. People are still inclined to be engaged with clubs of some kind of outdoorsy pursuit.It used to be that we lived in small to medium sized communities, where everyone knew of any "immoral acts" that you perpetrated. Now we live in mega cities, consisting of millions of others.
Therefore, I think you are wrong.
Is it easier to hide immorality where the society is not morally aware, do you think?It's far to easy to hide your immorality when you can just screw people over, and then move on to a fresh start with a whole new set of suckers.
Re: The amorality of badness
I'm not sure about other states but not in Victoria, except perhaps as an nebulous academic thing for Higher School Tertiary Entry Scores... but nothing as I've suggested. I think that one hour of practical, age appropriate, ethics and morality per week during primary and secondary school would be the best way to raise the moral awareness of society.Outlaw Yogi wrote:I thought ethics was already part of some secular institutions curriculum.
Never know... once they understand how their world operates and who is impacted by same, they may become less tolerant of the status quo...
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b5817/b581763e51ed5f50c41b266d0ce60a3c3f9cf8b6" alt="Twisted Evil :twisted:"
- boxy
- Posts: 6748
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 11:59 pm
Re: The amorality of badness
The point isn't that people "know" their neighbours... as in, now their names, and that they have kids... and a few other trivialities.Wile E. Coyote wrote:Technocats have communities, located on social network and message board sites. In most cases, people know their next door neighbours and school (with kids) and work communities. People are still inclined to be engaged with clubs of some kind of outdoorsy pursuit.boxy wrote:It used to be that we lived in small to medium sized communities, where everyone knew of any "immoral acts" that you perpetrated. Now we live in mega cities, consisting of millions of others.
Therefore, I think you are wrong.
The point is, it used to be that your neighbours were your whole world. You knew pretty much everything about them, because there was no "hopping in the car, and going to town". Your community was your whole world. You traded with only them, you partied with only them... you married, only them... mostly.
Urbanisation has encouraged immorality, not through less "education" in the moral arts, but through being able to move on far too easily from bad decisions.
Morality is still taught to us, BTW, through mass media. Artistic works, encouraging and exploring our collective beliefs. In fact, it may mean that in effect, we are more in agreement as to what is "right and wrong" than in past times... it's just that it becomes easier to get away with wronging your neighbour...
"But you will run your fluffy bunny mouth at me. And I will take it, to play poker."
- AiA in Atlanta
- Posts: 7259
- Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:44 pm
Re: The amorality of badness
Thought about this thread while staying in a hotel on a business trip this week. I could have taken the towels, the compact fluorescent lightbulbs and more. Would it have hurt anyone? Well, am sure the cost (theft) of those items was already built into the room charge ... but I never considered doing it. Why? It lacks integrity.
- boxy
- Posts: 6748
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 11:59 pm
Re: The amorality of badness
But it does cost people. Everyone who stays in a hotel room has to pay that little bit more because of the arseclowns who steal the fittings.
But then, evolution has ensured that "badness" has been written into our DNA, from way back in our history. Sad fact is, that it's totally logical to cheat the rest of society, when you don't get caught, and you don't harm society enough to affect your own safety.
But then, evolution has ensured that "badness" has been written into our DNA, from way back in our history. Sad fact is, that it's totally logical to cheat the rest of society, when you don't get caught, and you don't harm society enough to affect your own safety.
"But you will run your fluffy bunny mouth at me. And I will take it, to play poker."
Re: The amorality of badness
Pfft... that's just what they say because they can say it... In reality the price is derived from finding the elastic sweet spot in a supply/ demand graph. At best it is factored in as an insurance cost and as a payment to offset their tax obligation. But what the hey... I won't let reality get in the way of a good moral story. I wonder though, is the idea of stealing or not stealing incidentals from a hotel a moral consideration? Not in most cases would be my answer.boxy wrote:But it does cost people. Everyone who stays in a hotel room has to pay that little bit more because of the arseclowns who steal the fittings.
Who exactly is harmed? What is the situation which leads into the act of stealing an incidental item from the hotel?
- Outlaw Yogi
- Posts: 2404
- Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 9:27 pm
Re: The amorality of badness
Nor do I.boxy wrote: I don't think the problem is mainly due to a reduction in religious indoctrination,
Maybe. Not really sure to be honest.... but rather the fact that we have moved into a society where you don't know your neighbour. It used to be that we lived in small to medium sized communities, where everyone knew of any "immoral acts" that you perpetrated. Now we live in mega cities, consisting of millions of others. It's far to easy to hide your immorality when you can just screw people over, and then move on to a fresh start with a whole new set of suckers.
I have a really bad neighbor. Imagines he's better than everyone else around him and is constantly causing dramas for someone. Originally he started on me, but I let him know being a nuisance would cost him money. I'm forever hearing allegations of things I'm supposed to have done which I know nothing about. I have told neighbors "If he wants a war, I'll give him one". Am told he reckons he's going to run me out of the valley. Which is funny 'coz I've had my block for 19-20 years and have friends amoungst my neighbors. He's been there less that 5 years and has alienated everyone.
More recently he's been targeting my next block neighbors. Someone smashed his pebble-crete cement letterbox shortly before Xmas, so he poison baited my next block neighbors dog.
So now the war has begun ..
He has done this to the fense (on my land) near the rear of my block >
And now I am doing this on my side fence along his access track >
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
If Donald Trump is so close to the Ruskis, why couldn't he get Vladimir Putin to put novichok in Xi Jjinping's lipstick?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 49 guests