Grading Hell: Death to the Teachers!!!

[Boris Godunov]

"They believe that only what is useful has value. But if it does then the value it has must depend on something which is intrinsically, as opposed to instrumentally, valuable."

I don't follow this line of thought. If someone only belives that something has value if it has a utilitarian purpose, why "must" the value depend on something intrinsic? Their very belief is that there is no instrinsic value, only instrumental value.

[Az]

I'd like this person to see themselves as a failure.

you ****ing savage.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
"They believe that only what is useful has value. But if it does then the value it has must depend on something which is intrinsically, as opposed to instrumentally, valuable."

I don't follow this line of thought. If someone only belives that something has value if it has a utilitarian purpose, why "must" the value depend on something intrinsic? Their very belief is that there is no instrinsic value, only instrumental value.

NO!!!! YOU HEATHEN!!!!

They believe that either welfare or preference satisfaction has intrinsic value. That is why they advocate policies that maximize one or the other.

e.g. legal rights are valuable because they they serve the purpose of increasing welfare, and increasing welfare is good because....

...because welfare simply is good. Not good for something else, or useful, just good.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Agathon
NO!!!! YOU HEATHEN!!!!

They believe that either welfare or preference satisfaction has intrinsic value. That is why they advocate policies that maximize one or the other.

e.g. legal rights are valuable because they they serve the purpose of increasing welfare, and increasing welfare is good because....

...because welfare simply is good. Not good for something else, or useful, just good.

Not necessarily. They could believe welfare is good because it promotes social harmony, which is good because it allows for peaceful times in which an investment in education and science will be paramount, which in turn gives them jobs and keeps them fed.

Totally utilitarian circle there, no need for intrinsics.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher
So you disagree with her, so she gets poor marks.

You cretin.

This person is saying that school tests are bad because people might fail them.

But ask yourself what's the point of a school test unless it is possible for someone to fail it? The whole point of such tests is that they measure ability.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Not necessarily. They could believe welfare is good because it promotes social harmony, which is good because it allows for peaceful times in which an investment in education and science will be paramount, which in turn gives them jobs and keeps them fed.

Totally utilitarian circle there, no need for intrinsics.

No real utilitarian believes that. I'm no friend of them, but that is unfair. Funny, but unfair.

Utilitarianism proper rounds out to three things.

1) An account of the good.

2) An acceptance of consequentialism.

3) A principle of aggregation, whereby more of the good is better and less is worse.

Deontological ethics denies 2 and 3 (wrongly in my view).

[Nubclear]

Agathon, care to show us one of these papers?
I won't tell anyone

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
Agathon, care to show us one of these papers?
I won't tell anyone

Nope - not allowed. Even that quotation was not verbatim.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Agathon
No real utilitarian believes that. I'm no friend of them, but that is unfair. Funny, but unfair.

That wasn't my argument, I wasn't talking about Utilitarians with a capital U. If you don't think the above described belief system is real, I can introduce you to several people who have it. Not everyone has a belief system tied to a name-brand philosophy.

[Az]

Utilitarianism proper rounds out to three things.

1) An account of the good.

2) An acceptance of consequentialism.

3) A principle of aggregation, whereby more of the good is better and less is worse.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


That wasn't my argument, I wasn't talking about Utilitarians with a capital U. If you don't think the above described belief system is real, I can introduce you to several people who have it.

Are they teachers?

[monolith94]

"testing students is wrong because the students who fail the test will see themselves as failures"

Terribly, terribly written sentence.

You should come teach down at Grinnell, Ag! We write well.

Also, please never demand that your papers be written in 10 point font. God, I hate it so.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
You cretin.

This person is saying that school tests are bad because people might fail them.

But ask yourself what's the point of a school test unless it is possible for someone to fail it? The whole point of such tests is that they measure ability.

Maybe that was her point? There is actually an active movement in some areas of education to remove testing...

But of course, as a philosopher you should be able to see such things rather than to dismiss it superficially as you just did.

[Agathon]

10-12 is my limit. 8 is too small. Anything bigger just looks odd.

And people who write in colours or in one of the elaborate decorative fonts (usually women) deserve to die!!!

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

Maybe that was her point? There is actually an active movement in some areas of education to remove testing...

But of course, as a philosopher you should be able to see such things rather than to dismiss it superficially as you just did.

That's what the paper was about. But that sentence was the author's only argument for it.

I suppose in your neck of the woods, "we shouldn't have tests because people who fail will feel as if they failed" stands as a plausible supporting argument for a whole paper.