all the news that print will fit.
|
|
| notes from underground - societal whispers all the news that print will fit. |
|
|
Friday, March 25, 2005 np: jay farrar - sebastopol workdays this time of year are a bit of a conundrum. i can't afford to stay at home since, as a new teacher, i don't have days to take off. yet, i don't really have much work to do as the first nine weeks just ended so major grading is done for the time being. so i'm sitting here listening to music, doing a few things here and there but mostly not much at all. i'd meant to link to this a few weeks ago, but ted rall puts forth one of the more clear and logical arguments about why the death penalty needs to go that i've heard in some time. One of the most famous Taliban executions was one they didn't carry out. it's a sound argument which rall goes on to cap by saying, sure, maybe some criminals deserve to die, but can we really judge when there's no way to know that the courts are always correct? that the accused always receive fair representation? that DNA testing is always 100% accurate? no. he finally pins it down with this: Law should strive for rationality, a goal largely realized through consistency. The death penalty is inherently inconsistent and therefore intrinsically irrational. thank you, ted. -- ever since i first learned of it, i've been really intrigued by lawrence kohlberg's theory of moral development. i use it in correspondance with my 10th graders' reading of henrik ibsen's a doll's house. the choices and decisions made by characters in the play are given to my students to judge by using kohlberg's theory. it creates some interesting debates. so, i thought i'd approach the terry schiavo case in the same way. i've been following the whole thing rather intently for the past couple of weeks. there's really nothing i can say that isn't being covered more eloquently and more frequently by other bloggers. so why not take the psychological/analytical approach? on what stage, according to kohlberg, are all the participants in this drama operating? michael schiavo, the parents, congress, the court systems, etc. certainly it seems that there are those acting, purely, in their own self-interest (stage 2) and trying to get something for themselves, whatever that is. there are those who are reacting simply because they think that's the way the people they are beholden to want them to act (stage 3). there are those who are acting according to the laws of our land (stage 4). even some who are ignoring law and opinion to ask the question 'what's best for the people involved? how can we make things better?' (stage 5). now, to whom each of these apply and in what way they apply is up to y'all to decide. so i'd love to see your comments in the comment box. and go heels. and just to bug sara: go wolfpack. eat them badgers. posted by J. Neas | 3/25/2005 11:50:00 AM
Comments:
So, I have some beefs with this whole Kohlberg thing, although it is interesting. First of all, I feel like the scale assumes that we are innately purely self-interested and with primitive moral reasoning, and that the development of our moral reasoning has to be learned. I disagree with this, because I feel that some sort of moral reasoning is innate. To me, the Kohlberg model looks at human beings as completely individualistic, but humans are creatures of complex relationships, such as family, that exist from birth. Human children need parental care for a very long time, and therefore we are by nature social, and I feel like those relationships automatically trigger a concern for others, or a Kohlberg "Social Contract" level of thinking. I disagree with Kohlberg's feeling that not many people reach that level. I think pretty much everyone does. I think to some degree, we are biologically programmed for empathy with people like ourselves - our families, people of our religion, people of our nationality, people of our language, people of our race. The real moral challenge is developing that same empathy you automatically have for the "like" and applying it to the "unlike." This is where most of us fail, and this is where we allow the Rwandan genocide to happen, or the Holocaust (where the Jews were systematically deGermanized, dehumanized, made to be other).
I don't know if I'm making any sense. I'll think about it some more and maybe write more later. If you have any challenges, that might help me refine what I'm saying, so I'd welcome that.
So apparently the new atrocious bankruptcy legislation gives credit card companies equal standing with child support and alimony payments in the order you are to pay off debts. So whereas before, you couldn't get out of your child support, now you are allowed to pay off the credit cards first, while you miss child support and alimony payments. Argh. Where's the outrage? Although I wouldn't blame you if you don't have the energy for it anymore. I know I don't.
Post a Comment
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
