This is the first official blog posting. Please choose two ideas to write about, approximately one paragraph each. You can comment on something from the reading, lecture, discussions or bring in your personal experience, argue points, refer to other readings you've done -- just avoid summarizing things we've all read or experienced in class. Our goal is to continue the conversations and extend our learning.
Have a great long weekend!
I wanted to comment on one of the things I said last night. My group discussed the Dalai Lama and I said that when I found out he was misogynistic and homophobic it really annoyed me. To expand on this, what I meant is that for someone to be seen as an outstanding moral icon I think they should be moral in all parts of themselves. Knowing what I now know about the Dalia Lama, I doubt his judgment and methods of reasoning. It could be a slippery slope, and I think society is prone to turning a blind eye for public icons. It’s (perhaps to be extreme) like Michael Jackson. Sure he was an amazing performer and artist and is so imbedded in our culture and lives that he is almost inescapable. That said, he’s still a pedophile. Am I meant to look the other way because of the Thriller album? That seems utterly backwards to me.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing I’ve been thinking about after the reading and in relation to one of the questions from class is why people do good deeds. So, if someone does good deeds because they want to go to heaven, is that really good? Say someone donated loads of money to all sorts of causes and charities and was always doing good deeds solely for the recognition--what would we think of that person? What if Mother Teresa did it all for the fame? I think it can’t just be deeds: it must also be the person, which again links to my last pondering. Maybe the Dalia Lama is good but ignorant. I’m not sure if that works for me, though, but it will do for now.
The Dalai Lama has made many controversial statements on the issues of homosexuality, the position of women, and abortion. The Dalai Lama is an ethical person because he has continuously engaged in a process of self-evaluation—evaluations that have resulted in His Holiness adjusting and refining his ideas over time. As a gay Buddhist, I support the Dalai Lama’s progressive attitudes towards all of these issues. However, I believe it is unethical to dismiss the moral value of the entire individual without first knowing what those controversial opinions are.
ReplyDeleteTry these websites:
http://ilga.org/ilga/static/images/oldsite/HHDalaiLamastatement.jpg
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_budd.htm
http://dalailamacenter.org/blog-post/western-women-can-come-rescue-world
I work for rezlife at SFU currently, and have been a "Community Advisor" (sfu's fancy title for an RA) for the past 5 semesters. Living with the people I work with and supervise, and having to not only maintain community standards myself, but also enforce the community standards in all of residence is no easy feat. This semester I was promoted to the position of "Area Coordinator" (CA supervisor) and I'm now directly accountable to the Director of RezLife. I find myself constantly thinking about boundaries, censorship and the ethics of living in a private community. I find it very, very difficult to navigate dealing with the various rules and regulations we have here (no candles, no unattended cooking, no throwing things out of windows, etc.) especially since I have to discipline residents who break some of the rules that I find to be unnecessary or ridiculous to begin with.
ReplyDeleteOur discussion on Thursday revolved a significant amount around what it means to be a teacher. Our private vs. public lives, etc. Being raised in a strict and conservative home, and emerging as a liberal and mellow person, I find it challenging to understand why it's going to be frowned upon to listen to rap music as a high school English teacher (my parents swear that I won't be allowed to, given the abundance of profanity in most of the lyrics), among other things. It was a really rewarding experience to hear from my group members and their stance on the issue. Doug especially challenged my views, and I'm very appreciative of it. He's almost finished his PDP, therefore his view is far more legitimate in my mind than my parents who have never worked as teachers. I hope this class has further debates on this issue so that I can mold my current perception of the "teacher's private life" phenomenon into something less naïve than it currently is.
Looking back at Thursday's class I feel that there are so many things to be discussed and only about 2 paragraphs to do so....
ReplyDeleteFirst, I think that it is extremely interesting the discussion about the private vs. the public lives of teachers. I was one of the people who was expressing the fact that I purposely live far away from my school (Port Coquitlam vs. Surrey) in an attempt to ensure that my life away from school stays my own and that the students know only what I want them to know about it. I found it very interesting to hear that there were other people who are doing the exact opposite of me in that respect. I think that this begins to show us the difference in opinions and things that teachers bring to the table. This is one of the many reasons that I am enjoying this class so far as we are all able to discuss our outlook and philosophy of education in a setting that seems both safe and inviting, and I thank you all as colleagues for that opportunity.
Secondly, I am still thinking about the discussion that arose from those simple biographies that I read. In my group it lead to us discussing how someone actually is chosen as a Nobel Peace Prize recipient. This seemingly simple task seems to have been taken so many ways by all of the different groups and I think that it is interesting to see that. Furthermore, I think that this further inquiry into a certain aspect of the biography should be a goal for all of us as educators. In my opinion if we can touch even one student in our class to want to go further on a certain topic then we have done a significant part of our job as teachers.
As touched on in class, both Mother Theresa and the Dalai Lama have a less publicized side that conflicts with the more popular view (Christopher Hitchens has written a book on Mother Theresa for those that are interested - "The Missionary Position"). I think this ethical controversy mirrors the conflict that we experience in relating our community vision with the larger global viewpoint. If you are a liberal person living in Canada then you likely think that anti-abortion and homophobia fall somewhere between crazy and evil. However, if you’re a European Christian born a century ago, or a person born and raised in East Asia, you’ll have a very different foundation in these controversial topics. If ethics are based on morals, duties, beliefs and assumptions, then I think it makes sense that the duties, assumptions, and even beliefs to an extent, are very much dependent on a person’s community. Perhaps only morals are truly innate and global.
ReplyDeleteIn class we were challenged to whether teachers should be held to a high moral standard all the time, or if we should have our own private lives. First of all, I find it interesting that so many people (not just our class) get worked up about this. I suspect that almost everyone subscribes to an ethical system that is in-line with what is accepted by the educational community. Secondly, I think there is a conflict in the question of being ethical full-time or part-time. A person’s ethics shouldn’t be something that are turned on and off. As a personal point of view, I think it is better for a person to follow their own ethics and live with the consequences. Lastly, I abhor the concept that teachers are held to a “higher standard.” To me, it is inconceivable that a teacher can be more ethical than the standards set and followed by the local community. It comes across to me as more of a political statement.
I work with teens. When they enter my school in Grade 8, they try to leave their childhoods behind. They want to be seen as “cool”. Parents, by definition, are not cool. They no longer wish to emulate the behaviour of their parents. Now, they must look to new role models for guidance.
ReplyDeleteMedia becomes an important source of information on conduct. Many are drawn to the allure of celebrities. For some, they believe that if they behave the same way as celebrities, they will get as much attention. All teens are looking for some sort of per acceptance.
Given the unwitting influence of celebrities, should celebrities be held to a higher moral code? The opposite seems to be the reality. Celebrities are in the business of getting attention, not providing moral framework for youth.
Some politicians build careers on a moral stance. My group looked at Mandela. He sought to bring equity to all people of South Africa. He became a role model for youth. His personal conduct didn’t really have to enter into his politics given that he was imprisoned for 27 years. His interactions would have been managed by others. Other politicians may also try to achieve moral things, but they face complex situations in which maintaining a moral compass may be difficult. Compromise keeps them in power.
Teachers play a role in shaping the conduct of our students. We form communities with rules of conduct. If we are seen breaking our own rules, then the students can’t trust our rules. For this reason, among others, we are held to a higher level of conduct.
Kahlyn
Chapter two of the text begins with a discussion of an individual’s “moral vision” and then examines the ways in which these “moral visions” are influenced by outside sources: religion, media, family, community, etc. No doubt that in our society for example that all of the outside sources mentioned above play some role in how our individual “moral vision” takes shape, for a moment lets perform a thought experiment. You have a newborn baby raised fully to adulthood by some sort of machine completely free from any of the contributing factors mentioned above in the development of his “moral vision.” Does a person develop a “moral vision” independent from society? I hypothesize that in a vacuum ethics do not exist, as there is no need to govern behavior other than avoiding actions that causes you pain. With no knowledge or interaction with other beings there would be no context for a “moral vision.” This line of thinking leads me to believe that cultural relativism plays a significant role in the development of a person’s “moral vision,” which in turn means that there are no universal morals when you remove the context that requires a person to develop a “moral vision.”
ReplyDeleteOn page 52 Socrates trails back his responsibility to the state and how his escaping his punishment however unjust it may be undermines everything he has agreed to by living in the state. I find this a very interesting argument, one that applies directly to our conversation from last class, and informs the question, does a teacher’s actions outside of the classroom need to reflect and uphold the ethical practices expected of a professional? And that brought up the question of whether or not we can pick and choose the laws we agree with and therefore ultimately obey. My argument was that simply by choosing to live in British Columbia you have agreed to abide by the law of the land as you have the choice of moving to a different province or country even. So forget ‘as a teacher,’ as a citizen you have the ethical duty to obey all laws, not just the ones you agree with because by living here you have given your word that you will obey the laws. As Socrates argues that by willingly breaking these agreed upon laws you are in effect trying to “destroy”(pg 53) the state. Which should in turn be in conflict with your personal “moral vision” if indeed you freely live and thrive in the state.
I’ve been reflecting on the discussion about a teacher who attended a pro-marijuana rally, and smokes cigarettes (presumably tobacco) with students at school while on break. I have no problem with the teacher attending a pro-pot rally on his own time, but I am concerned about that teacher openly expressing his pro-pot opinions to students while he is engaged in the role of teacher. I am actually more concerned that the teacher is smoking tobacco with his students. The difference for me centres on the issues of self-disclosure and dual-relationships. This teacher has a right to pursue his own life outside of school hours; he alone must deal with the consequences of those decisions. However, in sharing his opinions so openly with students and by smoking alongside his students during school hours, he is eroding the professional boundary between students and their teachers. I am concerned that this teacher might be attempting to get some of his social needs met through his students and this is of greater concern. He has a right to live his life but his boundaries are really loose.
ReplyDeleteTeachers at the very least should not endorse illegal practices with students, such as underage smoking and at best model ethical and healthy behavior. Students take cues from their teachers, its not what we say to them so much as what they see us do. Despite their family background as a teacher we are still held by students to a higher standard to some degree and for a teacher to send the message that smoking is fine is borderline criminal.
ReplyDeleteSomething that I read that has got me thinking is Plato’s idea that humans only act ethically in order to receive rewards. The concept that if we were capable of being invisible, then people would act unethically has really got me assessing why people act the way they do. I find it to be a pessimistic view. I don’t think that if a person’s only motivation to be ethical was to keep a good reputation that that would be enough. I think (or at least hope) there is some intrinsic thing that makes people want to be ethical.
ReplyDeleteTying in to the above is something that came up in regards to Mother Teresa (Allie also discussed this in her response). Does it matter why you are acting ethical? I automatically feel a person is less ethical if it is driven by reward (in this case afterlife), which brings me to the question, is it the person’s deeds or the reason they’re doing them that matters? I don’t want to take away from all of the wonderful things that Mother Teresa has done, but I can’t help to feel that if work was done solely to help the needy would outdo doing good deeds for the benefit of oneself.
Peace Prize:
ReplyDeleteIn our group, we talked about the incongruity of giving a Peace Prize to someone who used (or was willing to use) violence to achieve peace. Our discussions in class led me to take a closer look at the Nobel Peace Prize and, more specifically, Nelson Mandela as a winner of the Peace Prize.
I went to the Nobel Prize web site http://nobelprize.org and discovered that the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded jointly to Nelson Mandela and President Frederik Willem de Klerk.
This is an excerpt from the presentation speech:
"The two Prize-Winners, from their highly disparate points of departure, the one from the side of the oppressors and the other from the side of the oppressed, have taken initiatives to break the vicious circle that their country was caught up in... Mandela and de Klerk have chosen reconciliation rather than the alternative, which would inevitably have been an ever more bitter and bloodier conflict. Another aspect of the policy of reconciliation is compromise and the recognition that one must give in order to be able to take. Political action on this basis reflects the highest political virtue. But in order to attain success, all parties must be willing to sacrifice."
After reading this speech, it made me think that the award was not so much awarded to two individuals on opposite sides of a conflict, but rather to the coming together of the two groups symbolized by these two men. This thought was reinforced when I read this excerpt from Mandela’s acceptance speech:
"We stand here today as nothing more than a representative of the millions of our people who dared to rise up against a social system whose very essence is war, violence, racism, oppression, repression and the impoverishment of an entire people."
My reading has led me to believe that the Peace Prize is weighted more heavily on the ends rather than the means. It would also appear to focus more on the utilitarian view of ethics (greatest good for the greatest number).
Teacher ethics:
ReplyDeleteThe BC College of Teachers Standards state: “Educators are role models who act ethically and honestly. Educators act with integrity, maintaining the dignity and credibility of the profession. They understand that their individual conduct contributes to the perception of the profession as a whole. Educators are accountable for their conduct while on duty, as well as off duty, where that conduct has an effect on the education system. Educators have an understanding of the education system in BC and the law as it relates to their duties.”
I found the class discussion on teachers being held to a higher moral standard to be very interesting. I believe that teachers are held to a higher standard than people in other jobs. I know that some would say that we are all held to the same standard, but I would argue that there are things a teacher could do in their private lives that they would be disciplined or fired for that others, an electrician for example, would not.
I agree with Sue’s statement in class, that there are higher expectations for people who work in positions dealing with vulnerable populations. As educators, we are expected to demonstrate good judgment in all aspects of our lives. This higher expectation ties in with the section on social culture in our text that states “we tend to view those who break the law as generally having low moral standards” (p. 21). Would you want someone you perceive to have low moral standards teaching your children?
On the other hand, I think that as educators, many of us hold ourselves to an even higher standard (and are encouraged to do so during our teacher education programs). This is shown in the examples of our classmates’ discomfort being seen by clientele purchasing alcohol or being in public in casual clothing. I know that I have felt this way. In fact, I have even told my husband not to road rage on other drivers because they might be the parents of one of my students. Are we being realistic in our expectations of ourselves as educators in our public lives? Probably not. Would our clientele care if they saw us in sweats and no makeup buying alcohol? Probably not.
I found the discussion in last week’s class regarding what standards a teacher can be held to on their own time very interesting. In particular, I was drawn to the debate surrounding those teachers who may wish to smoke marijuana on their time away from work. The debate is so intriguing perhaps because in the province in which we live, while technically illegal, marijuana consumption is regarded by many as benign.
ReplyDeleteI believe that since part of being a teacher involves role modeling ethical behaviour to students, there are times in which we may properly be held to higher standards even when off work. If we happen upon a student on our non-teaching time (perhaps we live near the school), then we ought to still be held to a higher standard of behaviour. On the other hand, if we are in no danger of encountering a student, I don’t believe it to be fair to hold a teacher to higher expectations than you would a doctor or lawyer on their vacation time. To illustrate, if I had the desire to light up a joint while away camping on summer vacation, I feel that this would be alright so long as it fits with my own personal morals. However, if I discovered that some of my students were in the campsite next to me, then even though I am on vacation, I still ought to model ethical behaviour and therefore should refrain from the reefer.
Whether or not a teacher agrees with the current marijuana laws, I believe they still must model to students how to operate as a functioning member of society, and part of this involves obeying the law. If they want to ‘break the law’ and inhale on their own time when not being observed by their students, then so be it.
In last week’s lecture it was mentioned how fewer modern day children attend religious institutions than may have in the past. As a result, a significant amount of the moral instruction of our young people has fallen on the public school system. Therefore, in addition to providing instruction, counseling hardships, solving disputes, coaching teams, and wiping noses, teachers are also handed the role of moral guide for their students.
ReplyDeleteAs teachers hold varying beliefs and faiths, it is problematic to expect teachers as a whole to morally instruct children on any objective level. Subjective opinions on what one holds as moral truths certainly would seep into any explicit ethical instruction that takes place. As such, I think that role modeling behaviour that displays the general ethical values of the country in which we teach is about all that can realistically be expected of teachers in this regard. This would involve modeling respect, using proper manners, obeying laws, and treating others with dignity. Most of the major belief systems can agree on these basics, and for any more in-depth moral instruction, parents may want to either enroll their kids in a specific religious school or take the time to bring them to church, mosque, temple, etc. It’s unfair to expect objective and comprehensive moral teaching by adding this role to an already overburdened teacher workload.
Good point, Sean. I suppose I should have done some research myself other than just going on what was said in class.
ReplyDeleteSome things in the articles you sent me confused me, though. Are there any other articles or readings you could recommend? I suppose what isn't sitting right mostly resides in the Religious Tolerance article. For example, it seems to say that the second of eight steps says, "You shouldn't have sex...but if you do..." Doesn't this seem kind of odd? Don't do this, but if you decide to anyway, make sure you go about it properly.
The Dalai Lama Centre article does seem to definitely disprove notions of his misogyny. I suppose one could argue that it's anti-male, but I really don't think that was his intention. It's hard to say what someone else's intentions are, though, which perhaps I should be more sensitive to.
Anyway, thanks for your comments! (I'm glad we're not all just blogging in a void.) Maybe I could talk to you more about this in class sometime?
When looking back to Thursday night’s class, many intriguing and relevant points were discussed about the issue of teachers being moral educators. The discussion that particularly sticks out for me is the one about the public vs. private life of teachers. The topic of teachers being moral educators can be quite debatable for the general public as many presume educators to be “perfect”. In my opinion, and some may agree, teachers should not refrain from going about their activities or unacceptable habits in their private lives. However, I do believe that in the eyes of the students, teachers should attempt to be suitable role models since many children do aspire to be like them. For this reason, I would agree that purposely living away from the school where one teaches may be an appropriate decision. By doing so, teachers are still able to go about their daily lives and not expose their students to their private lives. Although I believe teachers should be able to live their private lives as they choose, teachers should not be engaging in such illegal activities making them susceptible to being noticed in the public eye.
ReplyDeleteI also think it is important to consider the element of religion. As discussed in my group, many educators and students come from varying backgrounds, so, it becomes difficult to determine what exactly one defines to be moral. As a result, what one religion finds to be moral may not be to another. Just like everyone else, teachers too come from backgrounds and hold beliefs of their own and the beliefs these teachers hold may not be acceptable for others. Many systems of belief would agree that teachers should and can model respect, dignity, kindness, proper manners, and following the rules and law. However, teachers should not be instilling their own beliefs upon their students. By discussing the various individuals who have received the Nobel Peace Prize award, it becomes quite clear that these individuals to have their own opinions about such issues as homosexuality. For instance, the Dalai Lama has made many controversial remarks about homosexuality. This week’s class raised many interesting points about morality and it was really intriguing to hear everyone’s own opinions.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the discussion regarding the high moral standards which teachers are placed under. I think that it is asking too much and that it is unrealistic for teachers to be moral role models all the time outside of school: teachers are only human, after all. However, I think that if one works in the same city (especially, small cities or towns) that they live in, they have to be more careful in terms of the moral behavior that they illustrate outside of school. If students see their teacher acting in a way that the teacher would deem morally unacceptable at school, students will see their teacher as being a hypocrite and will lose respect for them. I have friends who grew up in small towns, with only one school and their teachers were big figures in the community because the community was centered around the school; thus, the teachers were expected to be moral role models even in their private lives. In these small towns, where everyone knows everyone, teachers' private lives are not so private. I think that most people know the high standards that are placed on teachers before they decide to become teachers and thus they must decide if they are willing to be placed under these standards. Having attended private and public schools, I think that teachers in private schools are held to higher moral standards than those in public schools. However, I do not think that teachers in private schools should be disciplined for their lifestyle, as was the case regarding a lesbian teacher in a Vancouver private school. Her lifestyle was not harming the students or interfering with her ability to teach. She was not doing anything illegal. I also think that the type of moral behavior that a teacher is seen engaging in outside of school is really important to consider because as Jane Ann McLachlan (2010) illustrates in her text, “external forces [,such as family, religion, education and friends]…shape our ethics” (p. 14). Thus, based on the beliefs and values embedded in one’s family, religion, education and friends, people can have different opinions regarding what type of behavior is morally acceptable or not. In addition to the high moral standards which others place on us, I think that we hold ourselves to even higher standards. For example, I still make sure that when I go to the store I am not dressed casually (ex. jeans) even though I would not care if I saw my teacher dressed casually.
ReplyDeleteOne question that I am a little bit conflicted about is “what’s more important: who you are or what you do?” During the last class, I initially thought that what you do is more important than who you are. My reasons for believing the latter can be summarized in the following clichés: “you have to walk the talk” and “actions speak louder than words.” However, the more I thought about the question, the more I considered the fact that what one does is usually shaped by who they are. Who we are is based on what we value and believe. Moreover, in her text, McLachlan (2010) mentions that “[a] person’s character…will largely determine which choice he or she makes when faced with a moral decision” (p.6). McLachlan (2010) provides examples where people act based on their morals, what they believe is right or wrong (p. 8). On the other hand, though, there are situations where one does not act according to their values and beliefs. For example, the latter is true during adolescence where some teenagers realize that in order to “fit in” they need to act in opposition to their values. As McLachlan (2010) illustrates, during adolescence, teenagers can experience peer pressure in order to act in opposition to their morals (p.19-20)
Week 2 (Chapter Two, 28-41 & 51-57)
ReplyDelete1.) When reading about Socrates I think about my favourite book by Plato, The Symposium. The Symposium concerns a drinking party. The philosophers gathered at the party discourse about the nature of love. At turns poetic, comic and (almost) religious—the work is fascinating. In general (from what I have read) I enjoy the earlier Plato more than the later Plato. The Republic is obviously a very important work—however, I’ve always disliked the part where Plato argues that poets should be forced to leave an ideal republic. However, in the same work, I liked Socrates’ refutation of Thrasymachus’ assertion (paraphrased) that “might makes right”.
2.) Socrates’ posited that “the unexamined life is not worth living.” I very much agree with this principle. As an aside, my friend David (who teaches philosophy at a U.S. university) quipped that “the unlived life is not worth examining.”
Socrates is a kind of permanent companion—and critic—for those interested in ethics (as a subject) and ethics (as a way of life).
I particularly liked the following passage from The Republic: Book IV (in Ethics in Action): “And it will be the business of reason to rule with wisdom and forethought on behalf of the entire soul; while the spirited element ought to act as its subordinate and ally. The two will be brought into accord, as we said earlier, by that combination of mental and bodily training which will tune up one string of the instrument and relax the other, nourishing the reasoning part on the study of noble literature and allaying the other’s wildness by harmony and rhythm.” (56)
Oddly, when "cutting/pasting" the blog gets rid of italics. Does anybody know how to prevent this?
ReplyDeleteI am interested in further exploring Carol Gilligan’s study results from the 1980’s where she used Kohlberg’s tests on females rather than only focusing on males. She found that females base their moral decisions on how those decisions affect their relationships with other people. This could be interpreted that females are rather co-dependent and too concerned with what others think. Or Gilligan’s findings could also highlight that females are more altruistic – primarily concerning themselves about the greater good for all involved. Kohlberg found that the males in his study became more independent in making moral decisions as they matured. Does this lead us to conclude that the males are rather self-centered, and only concerned with ensuring that the outcomes to their moral decisions are favourable to themselves? Or perhaps it highlights the fact that males may be more confident in making a moral decision without getting wrapped up in how other’s may perceive their decision. I just didn’t find enough data in the textbook to draw my own conclusions. I was left pondering a notion if we are to feel that Gilligan’s studies accurately portrayed the moral decision making of women in our society. That is, if women are more concerned with making moral decisions based on outcomes that positively affect more people than just themselves, why is it that there are more males in leadership roles? I would like to further explore whether the findings of Kohlberg and Gilligan would change based on study groups from different cultures, socio-economic levels, religions, and in different generations.
ReplyDeleteI too was interested in the question about teachers being held to a higher ethical and moral standard. In my opinion teachers are held to a higher standard whether at school or not. Teachers are in a position of trust. We abide by a code of ethics and must set a standard of moral behaviour in school and out of it. When a teacher steps over this line you can guarantee it will be all over the media. Anybody hear about the two teachers in Winnipeg (I believe) who emulated a lap dance in the school gym (in front of grade 12s) at a school event recently? If you didn’t, check it out. It’s all over the internet! The students knew the teachers had crossed a line and recorded them on their cell phones. Both teachers lost their jobs. How about the police officers who are caught over the alcohol limit whilst driving? There are certain professions that come with moral codes of behaviour and ours is one of those professions.
ReplyDeleteIt is difficult to separate who we are and what we do. Our actions inform our behaviour. Our public and private actions might be different sometimes, but they still tell an awful lot about who we are. Psychology has proven that people rarely act totally altruistically. There’s usually some pay off for us on some level when we do something good. I can’t speak to the motivations of the Nobel winners we looked at in class, but do the reasons behind the actions really matter? The actions were good. They helped people. What could be wrong with that, and who am I to judge?
The discussion concerning how teachers need to behave I think is very important not only to moral obligations to society, but also to union and contractual language. If I was not a parent then I would be able to question the validity of how a teachers private lives should affect their careers as role models. I think that kids are so impressionable that if they have a belief about a person they will want to be like that person. Which means that they will be looking to copy many of your behaviors not only your "in class" ones.
ReplyDeleteFirst I would like to say that the Dalai Lama is a person who was forced to learn a very strict lifestyle from a young age. During his upbringing he was denied many personal gains in favor of a divine belief. He did not have his parents to guide him as a person. Being brought up by a sect of people who have followed a religous code for a very long time would make him admirable to alot of people. Since he has dedicated his life to a belief about a divinity it shows that he has a very strong mind. Being the leader for a world wide religous system means that he has to respect and is respected by a large number of people throughout the world. Having this lens on a person means they cannot make moral or ethical mistakes in their daily lives. Another aspect of being a leader means that your friends and colleagues are going to be powerful leaders of the worlds top nations. A person like this can have a large effect on how nations treat their own citizens and neighbours. I remember when I saw Pope John Paul II at BC Place. Something about his dedication to his beliefs was so great that there was a certain calmness I felt from the crowd. It really sticks out in my mind from the huge crowd that was inside the dome on that day.
Second I always thought that Mother Theresa was good example of a moral figure. Someone who puts the benefit of many people above her own. I do not know much about her achievements but I do know that she put herself in hostile conditions doing work that not many people would like to do. She would be a moral figure to people who spend much of their lives on trivial activities that are more for self gratification than helping those in need around you. Dealing with moral issues and putting your neck on the line for your beliefs usually comes with some kind of political price. I remember she died shortly after Princess Diana died who was also a giving and affectionate moral figure.
I am finding it difficult to discuss if they were ethical without a working definition of what is moral. If we are using a societal norm definition of what is moral then the average person, if they consider themselves as being average is moral and acts in an ethical way. This seems to be a very convenient definition for us because it allows us to say, "I'm a good person". Then morality instead of a societal norm becomes a personal definition which falls into category of relativism. If everyone is good then no one is bad, except for perhaps Hitler, and he thought he was doing a good thing too. I believe morality shouldn't be within a comfortable's arms reach. I believe it requires effort and challenge because only difficult things are worth aspiring to. The arguments I'm trying to make is I think it is a mistake to consider ourselves or any other person a beacon of morality. Instead I thing we should consider ourselves on a journey towards morality. Perhaps this end goal is unattainable but it is definitely worth it. It would be interesting to hear if all these Nobel Prize winners considered themselves moral. Maybe we are defining them according to a standard they weren't aiming for.
ReplyDeleteJust as these Nobel Prizer winners, I feel sometimes teachers are elevated to status they have not signed up for. As a teacher, I don't think I should be the standard of morality to my students. Doing that would be setting the bar far too low. I do think I can point my students to greater examples of people who have acted ethically in the face of great adversity. This gives me the freedom to make mistakes in front of my students which I think is important as well. Doing so models what it is like to fall short and learn from it.
In response to the "italics" question... blogger only allows users to format their text with "html". If you're not versed in the programming code, i'd suggest googling it. basically you need to "code" your entries to include things like bold and italics.
ReplyDeleteI found Thursday’s discussion to be very informative and interesting. Many subjects were bought up that I previously knew little about. My group worked on the bibliography of Mother Theresa. Although I do not know too much about Mother Theresa, I assumed that she was viewed by all as an excellent example of a moral figure. I was surprised and throw off by the mention that there were criticisms that exist against Mother Theresa.
ReplyDeleteAfter some research, it appears as if her main critic was Christopher Hithens who was a British journalist, he publicly attacked Mother Theresa multiple times. He accused her of accepting money from unclean sources, such as Charles Keating. Keating’s was a central figure in the U.S savings and loan scandal and Mother Theresa accepted $1.25 million from him to use to help the poor. Hithens even went to the extreme lengths of producing the film “Hell’s Angel: Mother Theresa of Calcutta” to acknowledge the public of Mother Theresa’s “evils”. Other criticism involved many people being unhappy with how Mother Theresa ran her hospitals. It was claimed that there was a lack of care and interested in medical treatment.
However, even after finding out the different criticism existing against Mother Theresa, it made no difference to how I viewed Mother Theresa, as an excellent moral figure. She willingly put herself in many hostile situations in order to attempt to save and rescue people in need. She touched the lives of many people and I believe that she made a positive difference in the world.
I'm intrigued by the question of conforming to the social expectations of what a teacher as a role model should be. There is some sort of need in society to place a set of moral expectations on people who occupy an important role in that society, such as on individuals who are teachers. And it seems that the moment one becomes a teacher, one has to face a choice of whether to keep those social and/or communal expectations and standards in mind when making personal decisions in our lives or whether to follow our own belief and value systems, regardless of our ‘audience’. I think either choice is too extreme when taken alone: we are human beings who have a right to live our lives and make mistakes (and learn from them), while at the same time as teachers we need to maintain the integrity of our role and profession. The discussion in class on this topic and on the Dalai Lama made me think back to my short practicum that I completed by working with the exiled Tibetan community in India. The perception of some travelers is generally that, just like the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan community represents an idealistic, moral, calm, compassionate and peaceful group composed of perfect individuals. The moral goodness of the Dalai Lama is expected to be transferred to and present in his own people. But the reality is that not all Tibetans agree with these perceptions and expectations that others have placed on them. In truth, though many do, not all Tibetans meet that standard: the Tibetans want to be seen as human beings who are prone to making mistakes; parts of the exiled communities have pockets where drug and alcohol abuse happen, and not all Tibetans exude the godly-like qualities that are embedded in the Dalai Lama. This reality surprises some travelers when they visit exiled Tibetan communities. And I think it’s important for society to remember that, like the Tibetans living in India and around the world, teachers are also human beings rather than perfect role models who can do no wrong. I think we need to be realistic about putting people up against certain standards.
ReplyDeleteDuring class, I pondered to myself about the (ethical?) practices of the Nobel Peace Prize committee itself. I discussed with my group how interesting it was that very shortly after assuming his presidency, Barack Obama became awarded with the Nobel Peace Prize, for reasons that we couldn’t easily point out. The Nobel Peace Prize website writes that Mr. Obama received the Prize "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". In his acceptance speech of the Nobel Prize, the President admitted that, “Still, we are at war, and I'm responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land.” Did the committee believe that the idea of war or deploying troops to Iraq and Afghanistan is a move to “strengthen diplomacy and cooperation between peoples”? We spoke in class about the controversies surrounding some of the Nobel Peace Prize laureates and President Obama could likely be included in that circle. It makes me wonder whether the Nobel Peace Prize committee makes its choice of candidates based on who one is or based on what one does. But, in all fairness, is it possible for any one human being to be without some contradictions?
As a philosophy student, I found Socrates’ view of ethics to be frustrating and deeply intuitive all at once. I was so happy to see this in our readings this week! On the one hand, I would argue that, on some level, we do know what is right and wrong; in most obvious cases, there would be little debate. It is when we enter into grey area that we run into problems. For example, I had a conversation earlier today about whether a pharmacist should hand out an Epi. pen if one were to rush into a drugstore, claiming emergency. Although saving someone’s life is the right thing to do, giving out prescription medication in the absence of a prescription is illegal and thus the wrong thing to do. Would we expect a unanimous decision in terms of what’s right in this case? Would intuitive yet generalised ethics show us the way? Greatest good and slippery slope arguments spring to mind…
ReplyDeleteThe moral standards that we as teachers can be held to can be overwhelming, especially when it intrudes on our personal lives. I shudder to think of my life being inspected; a student came into class one morning proudly announcing that she had seen me driving and I ran a yellow light the evening before. Although I consider myself to be someone with a strong moral compass, here was a student who had caught me in a (debatable!) moral transgression. The moral standard felt too high. It seems that nothing is always completely right or always completely wrong, and in that foggy light, how are we as educators even supposed to know whose moral standards we are being held up against? I have a feeling that this discussion may be one we revisit throughout the course of the semester….
~b
May 26th, 2010
ReplyDeleteHi, This is my blog after the second class.
1) I have been thinking about my own values and how I see my class in terms of ethics.
I teach Kindergarten which is, I think, one of the first arenas for most children where they encounter the idea of prevailing societal morals and values. It is part of the prescribed learning outcomes to inculcate children in their early years with the general values held by society as being valuable for a person’s future participation in our community. Foremost among these values are sharing, taking turns and co-operation. Much of Kindergarten is spent fostering these ideas before learning in academic areas can take place in a harmonious setting.
Although these are often adhered to in order to avoid ‘punishment’ there is much conversation around the umbrella terms of Respect, Responsibility and Safety and even Kindergarten children can learn to recognize when they have caused hurt to others through lack of consideration.
I am not sure that I agree with Kohlberg’s stages. Based on my observations, there are some children who seem to be genuinely empathetic and considerate of other people from the first day of class. Whether this is nature or nurture is up for debate. I do think that Carol Gilligan has a point when she perceives a gender difference as (again using my own observations) it seems that girls value connections with others at an earlier age than boys and therefore make more of an effort to co-operate and compromise. Again, whether this is nature or nurture is a matter of conjecture.
For my own part, while trying to teach small children the value of co-operation etc., I myself must be, and seem to be, kind, fair, respectful and non-judgmental. As an adult one knows that not all children should be treated equally in order to be fair and that different children have different needs. However, children are quick to report perceived inequities and it is always a balancing act.
2)
In our group we had Nelson Mandela as a topic of discussion. This leads inevitably to a consideration of the apartheid system. In Chapter One there was also a brief discussion of the injustices perpetrated upon the First Nations people of Canada. I was drawn to this as I recently took a course on First Nations History and Culture. As an Australian I also made comparisons with the abuse and near-genocide of various Aboriginal populations in Australia.
I have found myself pondering these three instances of colonial injustice and reflecting on the guilt that we feel by association and our responsibility for reparation long afterwards. I have been interested to note that I feel far more uncomfortable about the injustices done to Australian Aboriginals and take my responsibility more personally. I can only think that this is the thought of my own ancestors’ complicity, whether direct or indirect, in this unhappy history. Even though many of my ancestors were not in Australia of their own volition, they probably subscribed to the prevailing views of the time.
I am still wondering what responsibility we should hold for the actions of those who came before us.
I think people need to decide on a definition of morality before we can decide whether we want to commit ourselves to being moral or not. The professor I had for my Introduction to Philosophy of Education class believed that the important moral limits placed on behaviour are set by five basic principles. In other words, these principles more or less define morality. They are: freedom, fairness, respect for persons, truth, and human well-being.
ReplyDeleteMy very basic explanation of what I think he was saying is that people should be granted free agency, and, not be coerced by others to do things. Also, people’s conduct should be conducive to the general and individual wellbeing. People should show respect for others by treating them as ends unto themselves and not as means to an end, and that we should commit ourselves to being truthful and fair. I was particularly impressed by and agreed with the notions that we are all equally deserving of freedom and fairness and that we must be prepared to universalize a moral claim. Morality is about all persons, and all people have the same moral stature.
I don’t make a distinction between being a citizen and a teacher when it comes to morality. As our text points out we all play various roles but we are in essence the same person no matter what role we play. In other words, I think the role shouldn’t define the person I think the person should define the role. I like to think of teachers as more than just the keepers of knowledge; I like to think of teachers as leaders. And, because morality is so vital to our understanding of what it is to be human and to the quality of life for all people, I think that educating people to become teachers should involve a thorough grounding in moral knowledge and that that knowledge should then become an integral part of how and what they teach their students.
Today in class we learn about how to become aware of our personal ethics through religion, friends, family, school, and media. I agree with Sue and the textbook on how we must first understand ourselves and how we have developed moral values in order to be able to consider other people and their values. This will also help us to be able to articulate our reasons. For example, I believe that it is moral to keep my eyes on my own paper during exams. On the other hand, it is not moral to fail to give credit to people in class working on an assignment or at work doing a good job. I believe we need to recognize our students and employees for their credit and hard work. After the class, I have identified to myself many obligations in my life through ethics that I consider to be the most important. One of them would be learning to do my job at work and school, and do it well. Another one would be to cultivate good relationships with the gatekeepers at work. Personally I think the cleaners, custodians, and bookkeepers are all important in an organization and should be treated with respect and courtesy. By identifying my own views on ethics will not only reinforce my moral actions but also helping me to take a step forward on determining moral conduct through reflection and analysis.
ReplyDeleteWe also have many good debates and discussions on the questions in class. It is often hard to say in an ethical situation what is solemnly right or wrong. Here I have gathered some reasoning from my Business Ethics course to help us determine moral standards in difficult situations. Firstly, causing a great harm for a lesser benefit, even to a great number of people, cannot be morally justified. I think most people would even consider it wrong to incur a great harm to a few in order to produce a great benefit to the many. Secondly, many people believe that no amount of harm to an individual can be justified on grounds that will benefit others, since harms and benefits are incommensurable commodities. These two arguments can often be use in many ethical cases and situations. I am looking forward to reading and discussing more ethical dilemma cases in education during the upcoming classes.
It seems as though every time the topic of “teachers as role models” comes up the discussion gets pushed into what the teacher is wearing. I do recall seeing one of my teachers at the symphony of fire with a very tight and very short black leather miniskirt. This to me seemed inappropriate even as a teenager. However, I do not understand the controversy surrounding sweat pants, t-shirts and no makeup. I have to wonder if being seen in public in a not so put together fashion while running errands would actually make you a better role model. We often talk about society’s obsession with image, material things, and how people are judged by the way they look. We all seem to agree that it’s wrong. Could walking around in a more casual attire be seen as a statement against that superficial way of living? If so, isn’t that a good thing?
ReplyDeleteI wanted to comment on one of things that was mentioned in the chapter and talk about the question of whether teachers should be required to uphold high moral standards in their private lives. Firstly, the chapter states in the very first paragraph, we have to live with the decisions that we make...we must first know ourselves and who we want to be in order for us to make these decisions. I strongly believe in this. Take education out of the equation, and just based on our morals and our values this is a strong belief of mine. You must know who you are and who you want to be in order to make decisions about your life. When you add education back into the equation, who you are and what you believe in, you bring into the classroom and you show your students who you are. Students spend numerous hours and days with the teacher and being who you are, and showing the right morals and values reflects onto the children in the class.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if your personal/private moral standards are different than the norm, it is your responsibility as a teacher to ensure that there is an unbiased classroom. Students don’t know and understand the difference between what is right and wrong. The teachers right and wrong can be different than societies right and wrong. I believe that being an educator brings responsibilities, however this does not mean a teacher/educator should compromise their own beliefs. Many educators have different moral standards and I do not necessarily believe that in their private lives they have to change who they are in order to fit into society. But, in the classroom their, different, private moral standards should be left at the door and teachers to provide a classroom for development, creation and understanding of different ideas and thoughts.
I found last class to be very interesting. But I left with more questions, than answers. I had never heard anything negative about the Dalia Lama and Mother Teresa until last class. I am tore between what I thought, what I think I should truly think and somewhere in the middle where i would be more neutral in saying no one is “perfect” and we all have differing opinions, even if I don’t agree with them, that does not make them wrong. The fact that I was never taught the negative aspects of these significant people makes me think about indoctrination and about teachers moulding their students to what they want children to believe.
ReplyDeleteTo the discussion about teachers as role models: I think its a very heavy obligation. When I went into my short practicum I thought about how I was to look and how I would talk to students in the hallway. I didn’t want to be fake, but I felt very fake. It wasn’t until I spoke to them “normal” not as an authority figure, I felt comfortable and they could know me for me and not what they see in the classroom, “do this, now do that.” And as for outside the classroom, I do fear I will be picked apart for my past but I really try to be “good”. I find my family constantly commenting on things I say and do. “Well, what if a student saw or heard you do that?” and I mean these are just mionor things that some may not agree with.
Reading page 30 in the textbook about Robert Latimer killing his daughter brought up a lot of powerful emotions for me. When Robert Latimer was being tried in Supreme Court, I was very active in the field of Community Living. My job was to support marginalized children and adults to be active and valued in their community. The brief snapshot of Tracy Latimer given in the textbook does not give the full picture of who she was. Talking to people who knew her, I learned that she did connect meaningfully to people. Yes she could not talk, but she did have an effective augmentative method of communication. She had times of pain and sadness in her life, but she also had great joy and pleasure too. Mr. Latimer had a lot of supports and resources that he could have used if he felt he could not cope. It was not his right to decide what constitutes a quality life, even for his own daughter. I do feel that each person should have the right to end their own life due to a terminal illness. Tracy was not given the dignity and basic right of making this choice for herself. If the Supreme Court did not uphold their original conviction and sentence, I fear where the line would be drawn. Thankfully it was upheld, and will help safeguard the rights of all Canadians.
ReplyDeleteBeliefs on Education
ReplyDeleteFrom the last class discussion about how far we can go morally as professionals and what we should practice in the classroom and in our life outside the classroom. According to what we learned from Plato that is the virtue ethics is to focus on individual moral characters and as a good person is to develop good morals. As I understand that virtue morals are not sold in the market and not taught in ideal schools. So here as a teacher I have to keep my good characters always connected to my professional performance. From the experience I got from different classrooms from elementary school students to college students, I can say that students can tell in the first few minutes in the classroom that I am real in acting internally or just pretending. If I pretend, it means that I am missing the right connection between my internal beliefs and external acting. When I pretend it will be clearly exposed at the first problem I face in the classroom because dealing with the student's problem in the classroom needs my reality and if I do not have it, how would I take it through and help my students. It could be difficult to be in that container as a teacher always but this is what a teacher's life is about. As a teacher I have to keep that always in the classroom and outside of the classroom because outside the classroom I will deal with people who already parents and they are sending their children to school or new parents whom they are thinking in sending their children in the future to schools. In addition to that I have to reflect good manners between other professionals. So as teacher, I will suffer a lot because of this symbolic title if my personal integrity and good characters are not connected. But if they are connected it will be smooth and natural for me to live my personal and professional life.
If we accept that teachers have a moral responsibility to be, at all times, a role model for their students but , at the same time, teachers hide their alcohol or marijuana consumption or live where their students and their parents can’t witness them living their real lives – how are the teachers being good role models? The truth is that legal and illegal drugs exist, there are many different lifestyles, teachers are human, and children are eventually going to have to make their own decisions about how they will live their lives. Surely it is better to be open and honest with students and to share our reasoning as to why we do or don’t do certain things. If aspects such as morality, safety, age appropriateness, and timing are addressed, students would develop a firm foundation from which to begin understanding the theory behind ethical practices in general, and their own practices in particular. This type of self-examination would also be invaluable to the teachers as they, too, would have to understand the theory behind their practices and account for themselves time and time again.
ReplyDeleteConsider this scenario - a teacher loses her job because she was tagged in a photo on Facebook and one of her student’s parents saw it. Now, two pertinent facts:
ReplyDelete- While photo depicted a stagette and the male stripper hired for entertainment. The teacher was just one of many women in the background of the shot. She had nothing to do with organizing the party or hiring the stripper.
- A third party posted the picture on Facebook.
So, not only is this teacher’s professional conduct being judged on the basis of one photo depicting a social event, she has no control over where that picture shows up -- or whether it is photo-shopped for that matter. The evolution of social media has made the concept of a private life almost obsolete, even if an individual has no online presence. So how does a teacher, or anyone who is held to higher moral standards than most of us, protect themselves? Or do they? Perhaps the evolution is in the commitment made at the beginning of a teaching career. How many of us would still be teachers if we knew it meant taking some sort of oath of morality or pre-thinking every social move? Wedding receptions can get rowdy, showing affection in public can be misconstrued. I know someone who was making underage students pour out their cans of beer at a house party and, just as he picked up an empty, someone took a picture. The resulting photo on Face book showed a neighbourhood father drinking beer with his daughter’s underage friends and the phone began to ring.
It seems we need new rules and ways of thinking/operating if those of us who are deemed role models don’t want to end up socially celibate for fear of losing our jobs or our reputations.