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
Definition: using too many words to say something when it could have been said simpler and clearer.
Then, when the rhetorician is more persuasive than
the physician, the ignorant is more persuasive with the ignorant than he
who has knowledge?-is not that the inference?
gain the ears
of the multitude on any subject, and this not by instruction but by
persuasion?
does he really know anything of what is good and evil, base or honourable,
just or unjust
he rhetorician need not know the truth about things
You say that you can make any man, who will learn of you,
a rhetorician
rhetorician must either know the nature of the just and unjust
already, or he must be taught by you.
that is not to be laid to the charge of his teacher,
who is not to be banished, but the wrong-doer himself who made a bad use
of his rhetoric-he is to be banished-was not that said?
that
the rhetorician might make a bad use of rhetoric I noted with surprise
the inconsistency into which you had fallen;
this habit I sum up under the word "flattery"
Soc. Will you understand my answer? Rhetoric, according
to my view, is the ghost or counterfeit of a part of
politics
assume the
existence of bodies and of souls?
good condition
o
only
in appearance?
The soul and body being two,
art of politics attending on the soul; and another art
attending on the body,
hat there are these four arts, two attending on the body and two
on the soul for their highest good;
flattery knowing, or rather guessing
their natures, has distributed herself into four shams or simulations of
them; she puts on the likeness of some one or other of them, and pretends
to be that which she simulates, and having no regard for men's highest
interests, is ever making pleasure the bait of the unwary, and deceiving
them into the belief that she is of the highest value to them.
the physician would be starved to death.
s
the natural difference between the rhetorician and the sophist, but by
reason of their near connection, they are apt to be jumbled up together;
neither do they know what to make of themselves, nor do other men know
what to make of them
"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 very credible web page is rich in arguments and has many clear and simple points that are very direct. There are a few points that I thought were more important than others. The first point was that assisting suicide was goes against law and public morality, which means that it is against social values. Also, they mentioned that if someone really wants to die, it may be "due to depression or misapprehension of their prognosis". Euthanasia is also irreversible. Some people can act on things while going through a tough time in their lives. Not only that, but euthenasia would create social pressures on vulnerable people. Euthenasia would also ruin relationships between elders and their children. Often, elders are seen as a burden, and with the option of euthanasia, they will feel pressured not to be a burden anymore. Lastly, the relationship between the doctor and the patient would be ruined. Patients would be afraid that they would be euthanised against their will, which is a real situation in Holland.
This website is straight to the point, and I like that it gives the reasons in point form, making the reading easy to understand. Many reasons given in the website are justifiable. The first reason, for example, which was that legalizing killing undermines public morality, is a very strong point.
I think that this site is extremely easy to understand and makes some really good strong points against euthanasia that are not easily argued. it shows points from different aspects like health reasons, moral reasons, governmental reasons etc... all of these form a nice barrier that covers all of the possible argument that the other team will make.
This web site is very informative for my team and I because it explains many credible arguments against euthanasia. First of all, it explains in detail the terms "terminally ill", which is often used as a reason to help someone commit suicide. Secondly, they talk about euthanasia being a way for the government to save money. Physicians have been allowed cash bonuses if they do not provide care for patients in the United States. This means that doctors could influence patients to go through with the 'treatment' only because they get more money from it. Third point is that at one point, if we legalize euthanasia, they would be mesmerized by the idea of death and will be influenced by the outside world. The fourth and last point is that euthanasia is a rejection of the importance and value of human life. With euthanasia, no one's life is being saved. We are just taking people's lives away.
hat if you define wisdom as maintaining positive well-being and kindness in the face of challenges, it is one of the most important qualities one can possess to age successfully — and to face physical decline and death.
Vivian Clayton, a geriatric neuropsychologist in Orinda, Calif
she found that most people described as wise were decision makers.
but love is in a sense more fundamental, since it will lead intelligent people to seek knowledge in order to find out how to benefit those whom they love.
“scientific knowledge and knowledge of particular facts.”
All moral rules must be tested by examining whether they tend to realize ends that we desire.”(374)
In his youth, Russell took the utilitarian view that the “happiness of mankind should be the aim of all actions”
dignity of which human existence is capable is not attainable by “devotion to the mechanism of life”, and that unless the contemplation of “eternal things” is preserved, humankind will become “no better than well-fed pigs.”
He believed that (1) “good” is the most fundamental ethical concept and (2) that “good” is indefinable
a priori certain propositions about the kind of things that are good on their own account.
A priori meaning without empirical evidence, from reason and logic.
Russell, on the other hand, gives no such list of things which are good in themselves,
regard consequences or results as of vital importance for judging an action as right or wrong. In other words both are teleologists or consequentialists, like the utilitarians.
mpact of the First World War, which Russell passionately opposed
of human passions similar to that of psychoanalysts. Russell started believing that fundamental facts “in all ethical questions are feelings”, (Russell 1917, 19) and that impulse has more effect in moulding human lives than conscious purpose.
d we ought to act so as to maximize the balance of happiness over unhappiness in the world, and says: “I should not myself regard happiness as an adequate definition of the good, but I should agree that conduct ought to be judged by its consequences.”
According to him, once “good” is defined, the rest of ethics follows:
According to Russell, when we assert that this or that has value, we are giving expression to our emotions, not to a fact which would still be true if our personal feelings were different.
he first of these sentences, which may be true or false, does not, says Russell, belong to ethics but to psychology or biography
he second sentence which does belong to ethics, expresses a desire for something, but asserts nothing; and since it asserts nothing it is logically impossible that there should be evidence for or against it, or for it to possess either truth or falsehood.
Russell adopts as his guiding principle David Hume’s maxim that “Reason is, and ought, only to be the slave of the passions.
esires, emotions or passions
nly possible causes of action. Reason is not a cause of action but only a regulator.
The world that I should wish to see,” says Russell, ‘is one where emotions are strong but not destructive, and where, because they are acknowledged, they lead to no deception either of oneself or of others. Such a world would include love and friendship and the pursuit of art and knowledge.” (11)
esires are not “irrational” just because we cannot give any reason for them.
wondering once again whether there is such a thing as ethical knowledge.
ncreased experience in meditation is related to increased cognitive, affective, and reflective wisdom
increased ballet experience is related to increased cognitive, affective, and reflective wisdom
self regulation and self control, which are important in maintaining such practices over long periods of time may be important for the development of wisdom
grit,
Daniel Kahneman
decision biases
istort some aspects of rational economic decision-making.
endowment effect,
hinking in a second language reduces economic biases
increase creativity
insight in problem solving.
antecedents of wisdom.
emotional distance fr
What needs to be true about a person in order to develop wisdom or to take advantage of experiences that can lead to the development of wisdom?
Epistemic humility - a great descriptor for Socrates. To be humble about what one knows or does not know. Socrates famously said that he knew only that he knew little or nothing.
importance of humility in terms of recognizing how much there is to know and to learn about people.
wisdom depends in part on understanding that the values and perspectives of other people are important in solving human problems -- we all must be open to learning more.
other virtues may serve as guidance in the use and development of wisdom.
willingness to engage in intellectual struggle,
Wisdom may also depend on a propensity to engage in divergent thinking, creativity, and the insight that comes from a diversity of experiences, and from forming new concepts and associations among concepts.
In a democratic, market-oriented society, public culture is hugely important. It guides our collective ideas about what is admirable or shocking, what counts as normal or weird.
In the history of censorship, it always seems as if it is something of real value – profound, earnest and true – that is condemned and someone vile, corrupt and absurd who is trying to do the censoring.
real threat nowadays
we will drown in chaos
unable to concentrate on what is genuinely important and good.
key argument of those who attack ‘censorship’ today is to claim that we all need to hear all the messages all the time. But do we?