Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperIt does seem odd to me that that you continue to take my post as an attack on liberals in general, when I made quite clear that I am attacking only this idea, which I perceive as an "extreme liberal" idea.
It sounds to me that you completely lack a fundamental misunderstanding of Liberal views. The whole "amoralism" concept is classic Limbaugh style strawman for Liberal ideals.
As Melanerpes pointed out, the very fact that Liberals even fight for causes indicates a clear set of moral values, even if those values conflict with Conservative ones.
Are you an "extreme liberal"? I didn't think so. I don't get offended when you attack the extreme right ideas or organizations because they don't apply to me.
So, do you agree that amoralism is a dangerous idea? Do you agree that redefining "lazy" to eliminate blame and assign the entire concept to lack of motivation is a step towards amoralism? If not, fine. Tell me why. It's not necessary to harp on a meaningless technicality of whether it's a liberal idea or not. Although. now that I think about it, amoralism is probably better assigned to extreme social libertarians (which of course, generally coincides with liberalism, at least in the US). From an economic perspective, if anything, it's a neo-liberal/ far right concept.
Originally posted by sh76I apologize if my post came across as harsh. I've just heard similar claims over and over about "no morals" or "no moral compass" and it's really one of my petpeeves.
It does seem odd to me that that you continue to take my post as an attack on liberals in general, when I made quite clear that I am attacking only this idea, which I perceive as an "extreme liberal" idea.
Are you an "extreme liberal"? I didn't think so. I don't get offended when you attack the extreme right ideas or organizations because they don't apply to ...[text shortened]... ). From an economic perspective, if anything, it's a neo-liberal/ far right concept.
Perhaps you can elaborate on what you're referring to.
Originally posted by sh76A lack of motivation "to do the right thing" would not imply moral neutrality, but of course this is because you have introduced the moral concept of "right thing".
If an appropriate sense of morality is included in the "motivation" that you speak of in your OP, then I am less inclined to disagree with you; but more inclined to wonder exactly what your point is and whether there are any practical ramifications at all in your original question.
You say that "lazy" is a criticism, clearly implying, I think, that "demotiva ...[text shortened]... do the right thing a criticism or merely a morally neutral product of circumstances?
I think the desire to have a clear conscience and feel good about ourselves and avoid guilt and indeed the more direct results of doing the "wrong thing" such as ending up in prison or being lonely as a result of being unkind to people around us, is one of the strongest motivational forces within the human condition.
But i wasn't really thinking in terms of ethics when i posed the question. I will give you some context of the main point i am trying to make.
When i was young I couldn't see the point in working hard at school. I just wasn't inspired by my teachers or environment. Every year my report said "lazy" or "could do better". I was always feeling guilty about it.
As an adult I became enthusiastic about something (education funnily enough) and worked harder than anyone else i know. seriously. for about 6 years.
The word "lazy" is constantly used to describe certain students and teachers around me, and i feel sorry for them because i don't think they are bad people, and i understand that they simply haven't found enthusiasm (motivation) in what they are presently doing. They are made to feel guilty, which makes them worse, and even less motivated.
If a person has a clear idea of what they want to achieve in life, nothing will stop them. they will give it 100 percent. If they are not really excited by anything they have come across in life yet, everything is a laborious struggle. They are labelled as lazy. This seems a bit unkind and i feel sorry for them. In fact they are just demotivated, which is a horrible and boring state to be in.
Thanks to those of you who were motivated enough to get to the end of my ramblings.
3 edits
Originally posted by twiceaknightYou raise a really important point about education.
A lack of motivation "to do the right thing" would not imply moral neutrality, but of course this is because you have introduced the moral concept of "right thing".
I think the desire to have a clear conscience and feel good about ourselves and avoid guilt and indeed the more direct results of doing the "wrong thing" such as ending up in prison or be ks to those of you who were motivated enough to get to the end of my ramblings.
So much focus seems to be put on having "standards" and "tests" -- and on having quality teachers where "quality" is measured in terms of how well students perform on tests.
But if the students are uninspired and bored, what good is it if we just force them "work hard" enough to pass those freakin' tests? In six months, those students will forgetten just about ALL of what they learned.
On the other hand, if students find education to be something they really enjoy and find meaning in - or if they at least see education as leading them to something meaningful in the future, the students will have plenty of motivation and will probably do extremely well on the tests -- even if they have a TERRIBLE teacher -- they'll get out the book and read it themselves, and if they don't understand it, they'll keep looking until they find someone who can help them, and they'll go to the library or the internet because they want to learn more and more.
So that should be the CORE focus of education research. How can students of all ages be inspired to learn and achieve?
Originally posted by MelanerpesYes. I think it is sad that education can't have more focus on individual learner needs. Everyone is different but we all go through a "one size fits all" system.
You raise a really important point about education.
So much focus seems to be put on having "standards" and "tests" -- and on having quality teachers where "quality" is measured in terms of how well students perform on tests.
But if the students are uninspired and bored, what good is it if we just force them "work hard" enough to pass those freakin' ...[text shortened]... education research. How can students of all ages be inspired to learn and achieve?
I think children move from one personal interest to another as they develop. It would be great if they could focus largely on that interest during their study time. For example, if a boy is obsessed with cars, you could teach him maths and science and history from a car perspective, such as, for example, the price of cars or how they work, comparison of performance, how they were developed through history, how this changed society, impact on environment, etc etc. As (if) he moves on to his next fascination in life, he can be educated from a new perspective based on his latest interest.
Actually this has been used as an argument for home education, but that's another discussion.
I suppose it all comes down to money in the end.