I think that overtime, we become influenced by certain attributes, or things throughout the day which makes us perceive certain things as entertaining... With new technology, and the way our world changes, we could view different things as pleasure in contrast of what people thought of as appealing way back when.
turning in American culture, and one that has influenced the world. It is a turning away from an arguably aristocratic idea of the intrinsic worth of things: from pleasure, with its sense of an internal condition of mind, to fun, so closely affiliated with outward activities; from excellence, an inner trait whose attainment is its own reward, to achievement, which comes through slogging and recognition.
Merriam-Webster defines “pleasure” as “a state of gratification
fun is “what provides amusement or enjoyment;
excellence” as “the quality of being excellent,” which in turn means “very good of its kind: eminently good.” “Achievement,” meanwhile, is “a result gained by effort.”
“Pleasure” carries a hint of the sublime; it speaks of a state of mind that comes organically, that need not be artificially induced.
un,” though almost synonymous with “pleasure” for contemporary speakers, often involves artificial inducement
If “pleasure” comes from being and from talking through ideas, “fun” comes from doing and, often, switching off the brain.
Ours is an entertainment-seeking nation, but not necessarily a pleasure-seeking one.”
“Excellence” evokes Aristotle with its overtones of virtue. Anyone can achieve
but how many can truly be excellent?
“Achievement” is a word more likely to come from American leaders today, and, like “fun,” it is outward in nature. It comes in doing specific things. It is more about checking boxes than fulfilling inner potentialities.
The achievement culture permeates life today
n American culture of instantaneous celebrity teaches young people that fame is an end in itself rather than an incidental symptom of excellence in craft.
But with that change has come another: what would seem to be a growing intolerance for merely being, and an anguished insistence on doing, doing, doing.
Achievement is simply something we check off on our to-do list. It's not something we take great value in. As in pleasure, it's something that we treasure because it's something we don't get too often, because we're too busy being blinded by the 'fun' aspects of life. I agree with the author because I believe that many people today believe that they find pleasure in doing absolutely nothing, and to shut off their brains completely. I believe that discovering new things and letting your mind wander just enough is pleasurable.
Today, pleasure is something that is very rare to find, since it is overshadowed by "fun". However, achievement is simply something that can be checked off a list, and is very easy to accomplish. Anyone can achieve something; they just may have a harder time being excellent at something. We take great value in pleasure, but not in achievements. I agree with the author because I believe that our generation is so caught up in technology, and entertainment, that we sometimes forget to seek for pleasure in our lives. I also agree that shutting off our brains does not give us pleasure; it just shuts away all the problems that will resurface. It's okay to have fun, but finding pleasure is something that is much more valuable, in my opinion.
ointing out but wrongly calling “subjectivity”.To say that not only do moralities change but that they should and that even good moralities may not be permanently and at all times good is not to say that morality is subjective
Morality, even if mutable, need not be just a matter of arbitrary feelings or tastes that admit of no argument for persuading those who happen to feel differently.
ocial organization and cohesion, artistic prowess, physical health, athletic prowess, aesthetic sensitivity and complexity, technological capability, technological achievement, emotional satisfaction, pleasure, political efficiency, virtues,
moral pluralism, not relativism.
Moral pluralism acknowledges that differing moralities, which in particulars may formally contradict each other, can each be ethically approvable given variations in circumstances or given their respective abilities to meet certain thresholds of valuable contribution to life.
Moral pluralism allows for cross cultural (different) standards of morality.
Moral relativism would allow for no cross-cultural assessments but would say that the only standard a morality has or needs is the endorsement of a particular individual or culture
ocial scientist’s perspecti
hilosophical,
hat values are best and what moral codes best realize them.
onstitute human flourishing and happiness.
if we have enough historical understandin
Old Testament morality
as in its own time the best and most progressive advance for the people who adopted it
ays it failed a
dismiss the Old Testament as irrelevant to a contemporary context.
t is also wholly unpersuasive to claim, as some try, that God’s values have always been the same even as he has given his people moral codes that fit their times or their understanding at each of their stages
"Who knows why people do what they do? The point is they do it, and we can track and measure it with unprecedented fidelity. With enough data, the numbers speak for themselves."
"The learning of a dead subject requires a technical act of carving the knowledge into teachable bites so that they can be fed to the students one at a time by a teacher, and this leads straight into the traditional paraphernalia of curriculum, hierarchy, and control." The standards movement also narrows the curriculum immensely and in its comprehensive inclusion of benchmarks that need to be taught eliminates an infinite number of types of learning to occur or subjects to be examined.
I simply cannot escape the question: Why that millionth in particular?" Seymour Papert (1993)
"The planning of new educational systems...must not start with the question, 'What should someone learn,' but the question, 'What kind of things and people might learners want to be in contact with in order to learn?'" Ivan Illich (1970)
"The capability of banking education to minimize or annul the students' creative power and to stimulate their credulity serves the interests of the oppressors, who care neither to have the world revealed nor to see it transformed." Paulo Freire (1970)
The truth is we have internalized this struggle between subjective values and objective assessment.
This website is a description written by Jim Manzi one the utilitarians point of view as to why torture is wrong. This man is currently the chairman and managing director of Applied Predictive Technologies (a business analytics software company which is a contributing editor at the National Review), a senior worker at the Manhattan Institute, and a continuous blogger. In his writing based on a utilitarian case against torture, he describes how in no matter what was a person looks at torture, you will always be dehumanizing a human being.
This website just talks our two main principle life and liberty. This website also says that since we have been sharing the earth with all these creatures over many years then they have the right to live also. This is actually an argumentitive essay and if you sign up to the website you will bbe able to see teh whole essay and all his points
What the website fails to mention is that nature is composed of food chains. The top of the food chain are smart/stronger and therefore are superior. We are also part of a food chain. Thanks to our superior intelligence and technology, we are therefore superior.