mardi, octobre 02, 2007
remember when I was so strange and likeable
My prof for the Politics of Law & Morality class leads a good lecture. She's knowledgeable, informal, and welcomes participation, so the classroom is full of pretty intelligent opinions (no noticeable idiots yet) and we cover some very heavy topics, so it makes for some very thought-provoking lectures.
We've covering more theoretical stuff for the first few weeks (who defines what morality is and is there a universal agreement on right and wrong, that kind of stuff) before we get down to specific topics like environment or terrorism. The following is an excerpt from one of our readings about "student relativism" ("SR") that I found to contain some particularly good points. The article introduces the topic of SR thus: "Many, if not most, college students say the believe that morality is all relative. In this article on student relativism, Stephen Satris suggests that the relativism of college students is not a genuine philosophical position but a way of avoiding analysis of one's opinions". Right there, I'm already interested. Here is an excerpt:
We've covering more theoretical stuff for the first few weeks (who defines what morality is and is there a universal agreement on right and wrong, that kind of stuff) before we get down to specific topics like environment or terrorism. The following is an excerpt from one of our readings about "student relativism" ("SR") that I found to contain some particularly good points. The article introduces the topic of SR thus: "Many, if not most, college students say the believe that morality is all relative. In this article on student relativism, Stephen Satris suggests that the relativism of college students is not a genuine philosophical position but a way of avoiding analysis of one's opinions". Right there, I'm already interested. Here is an excerpt:
"...SR is primarily a method of protection, a suit of armor, which can be applied to one's own opinions, whatever they may be - but not necessarily to the opinions of others. "Who's to say?" is not an expression of one's own intellectual humility, broadmindedness, or unwillingness to condemn others. Rather, it is an expression of the idea that no one step forward and judge (and possibly criticize) one's own opinions. One would not like that. One says it is impossible. One's own opinions are proper and acceptable just by virtue of their being "felt" as one's own. No further scrutiny, judgment, or improvement is to be allowed or tolerated...See what I mean? | ¶ 9:24 p.m.
It is my belief then, and the argument of this paper, that SR is fundamentally misdiagnosed when it is viewed as a philosophical position, and that it is no position at all but rather a powerful, elaborate, and at times devious defense mechanism for protection against having to maintain any position or make any serious critical (reflective) effort...
One must be brought to realize that one is in a real world, not a fantasyland of platitudes and complacency."
