Grading Hell: Death to the Teachers!!!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Teaching ethics is not useful? Why not? Why is it pushing an agenda if ethics isn't really conducive to having an agenda.

Ethics isn't conducive to having an agenda?

eth·ic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (thk)
n.
1. A set of principles of right conduct.
2. A theory or a system of moral values: “An ethic of service is at war with a craving for gain” (Gregg Easterbrook).

How the hell is a set of morals not conducive to having an agenda? How the hell can you teach morals to people? What is this, sunday school?

But they haven't. Everything leads back to philosophy, because it is the study of knowledge. All sciences have philosophical bases behind them. And I'd think inquiring about knowledge and truth and good stuff like that is truly useful. Just because you are a neanderthal who thinks the only thing 'useful' has practical application doesn't mean we have to accept it .

Give me an example with my field. How does anything I do relate back to philosophy?

Just because you are a neanderthal who thinks the only thing 'useful' has practical application doesn't mean we have to accept it .

And why do I have to accept your position?

The word isn't neanderthal, I just don't like my money going to philosophy programs if they do no good. I've taken two Philosophy courses that are certainly and without a doubt a waste of my time or money, but are for some reason required. They taught remedial things that were already taught either by life experience or by my computer science courses dealing with logic. It was a joke.

You can tell me how useful Philosophy is in your perspective, but still doesn't jive with my experiences either with philosophers, or with philosophy classes.

I'm getting really tired of blanket statements like "everything relates back to Philosophy" because I just don't see it. Perhaps you could back it up.

[Spiffor]

You can tell me how useful Philosophy is in your perspective, but still doesn't jive with my experiences either with philosophers, or with philosophy classes.

Wow, you got to access real philosophers? Are you sure you don't mean philosophy teachers?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Agathon
Probably because she went to college back in the days when there were standards. This is a recent phenomenon. All the older teachers at my high school were good, it was the younger ones who weren't so hot.

There are specific schools for teachers in France, with specific courses not taken by anybody else. And the entrance exam is bloody difficult, because so many people are attracted with teaching (to be fair, the many vacations and job safety are very attractive as well ).

Teaching isn't taught at uni.

And younger teachers tend to be always worse than older ones, simply because they have much less field experience of dealing with a class.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Spiffor

There are specific schools for teachers in France, with specific courses not taken by anybody else. And the entrance exam is bloody difficult, because so many people are attracted with teaching (to be fair, the many vacations and job safety are very attractive as well ).

Teaching isn't taught at uni.

And younger teachers tend to be always worse than older ones, simply because they have much less field experience of dealing with a class.

Let me say here and now, that Continental Europe has much higher standards of tertiary education that English speaking countries. Probably because English peaking countries are run by people like Asher.

My comments in no way apply to non-English speaking countries.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

Ethics isn't conducive to having an agenda?

No - because ethics is divided into metaethics and normative ethics.


Metaethics is the study of questions pertaining to the nature of ethical statements.

For example, are they based on reason, emotion or something else? Or does out belief in ethics represent a fundamental error on our part.

What are the specific moral uses of words as opposed to prudential uses or other uses? Are these uses equivocal or related in some way?

Are they relative, objective, or intersubjective?

Are they descriptive or prescriptive or both?


Nothing in metaethics requires you to have a particular moral agenda. Two people can disagree about what ethical statements are based on, yet both have similar moral views. For example a relativist and an objectivist can agree that abortion is immoral. Even a moral sceptic might have other reasons to endorse certain moral statements.


Normative ethics concerns what is in fact right or wrong.

But you don't need to teach students what to think to teach them normative ethics. What we do is teach people how to formulate moral arguments in a logical fashion and what kinds of moral arguments are commonly used. We also teach them how to look philosophically at moral disputes.

For example, we spend some time discussing the concept of "personhood" which is important in debates about abortion and animal rights. What is it that divides things whose interests aren't ethically significant from those whose interests are? Is it consciousness, a self concept, membership of a particular species, or something else? Or is it a cluster of related concepts?

We don't teach the students the "right" one, we just examine the various arguments for and against - even if we think we have the right answer. That is because it is not our job to tell the students what to think, but teach them how to think philosophically about ethics.

[Ben Kenobi]

That is because it is not our job to tell the students what to think

Hopefully this will be the case. I've had profs go off on rants about how silly the prolife views on personhood are, and how an acorn could not possibly be an oak tree.

He still passed me though, but he gave me low marks for speaking out for like 2 classes, and rebutting his points. He ended up speaking his beliefs, and then closing the debate.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ethics isn't conducive to having an agenda?

Aggie got that.

Give me an example with my field. How does anything I do relate back to philosophy?

You are a computer scientist? You deal primarily with logic. The investigation of reality based on logic rather than simply empirical data is at the basis of philosophy (why do you think 'Logic' is a philosophy course?). Logic arose from philosophers, who were the first to craft their arguments from logic rather than emotion.

You can't divorce logic from philosophy.

I've taken two Philosophy courses that are certainly and without a doubt a waste of my time or money

And I've taken Computer science classes which were a waste of my time and money. So?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Hopefully this will be the case. I've had profs go off on rants about how silly the prolife views on personhood are, and how an acorn could not possibly be an oak tree.

I try not to do that. It alienates too many students, who then can't be bothered with the course.

In fact I usually keep my views close to the chest, and once I heard some students thought I was a gay, capitalist, fundamentalist Christian. So it must work.

He still passed me though, but he gave me low marks for speaking out for like 2 classes, and rebutting his points. He ended up speaking his beliefs, and then closing the debate.

Sometimes zealous students that speak out in class can be a pain. Docking them grades is a bit stiff though.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Agathon
I heard some students thought I was a gay, capitalist, fundamentalist Christian.

Are you?

[Ben Kenobi]

Aggie:

I only picked a fight because of his portrayal of prolifers. What was funny is that everyone else in the class could care less as to whether or not we actually covered all the material we needed to.

So basically, they just sat back and listened to both of us going at it for two classes.

Interestingly, his last argument, was that personhood depends upon the ability of someone to interact with their environment. Conveniently, he defined environment to be outside rather than inside the womb.

I ended up writing him an extra paper on how his viewpoint sucked, attached on top of the paper I had to submit.

So I think that put him off somewhat.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh

Are you?

That sucks Ben. I don't see why one has to present the issue confrontationally. His job isn't to tell you what to think, but to teach you how to express yourself more clearly and to evaluate you based on that.

[Ben Kenobi]

That sucks Ben.

Nah, I learned quite a bit in the class. One of my more useful classes. Moral Philosophy, to which your post in this thread on Metaethics and Normative ethics makes much more sense.

I did learn a lesson, though.

I had a biomedical ethics class, probably my favourite, last year, and I'll just say I brought along a few friends of mine.

Our prof liked us though. We made all her counterarguments for her, so that she did not have to present them herself. It would get that we could almost predict the order of the counterarguments before the class took place, and then rebut her arguments in the order that she listed the counterarguments.

Heck, she even shouted down a few blowhards in the back seats when one of us was trying to present.

So there can be good and bad philosophy profs. I've had both.