Is a sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong). A moral code is a system of morality (for example, according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. Immorality is the active opposition to morality, while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles.
miércoles, 8 de diciembre de 2010
Ethics
Is a branch of philosophy that addresses questions about morality—that is, concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice, etc.
Terms
1 Pronouncements- to declare something
2 Warnings- To tell a person that there will be consequences if he doesn’t do what has been asked.
3 Principles- Things that family has taught.
4 Model- A way to follow.
5 Parables- A story that uses a normal life example to illustrate a true.
6 Morals- Lessons.
2 Warnings- To tell a person that there will be consequences if he doesn’t do what has been asked.
3 Principles- Things that family has taught.
4 Model- A way to follow.
5 Parables- A story that uses a normal life example to illustrate a true.
6 Morals- Lessons.
Different ways of teaching values
1. Teaching values through pronouncements, rules and warnings
This happens most of the times. Children are used to be scolded by adults, or they only heard suggestions or beliefs with no foundation.
2. Teaching values through examples and models
Children see a person who does something impressive and they want to imitate it. By a good example a teacher can tell the child “This is how I want you to be”.
3. Teaching values through stories and lessons
These talk about particular values. They teach how the main character does the right or the wrong thing in a specific situation. They also involve culture, time and beliefs.
4. Teaching values through examining personal actions of self and others
Get the students to look into their own lives. In order to do it the teacher can start sharing something about him. Doing this, the students will feel motivated to do the same.
5. Teaching values through problem solving.
The teacher comes out with dilemmas or conflicts and asks the students to make a judgment and explain it.
This happens most of the times. Children are used to be scolded by adults, or they only heard suggestions or beliefs with no foundation.
2. Teaching values through examples and models
Children see a person who does something impressive and they want to imitate it. By a good example a teacher can tell the child “This is how I want you to be”.
3. Teaching values through stories and lessons
These talk about particular values. They teach how the main character does the right or the wrong thing in a specific situation. They also involve culture, time and beliefs.
4. Teaching values through examining personal actions of self and others
Get the students to look into their own lives. In order to do it the teacher can start sharing something about him. Doing this, the students will feel motivated to do the same.
5. Teaching values through problem solving.
The teacher comes out with dilemmas or conflicts and asks the students to make a judgment and explain it.
La espiritualidad en la educación
Para poder expresar de qué manera aplicar la espiritualidad con mi carrera (educación bilingüe), debo empezar explicando el concepto. Espiritualidad según los valores de la UMAD, significa “Nuestras palabras y acciones persiguen la expresión de trascendencia” Esta definición encaja con lo que creo, aunque le agregaría que además es un estado donde el hombre experimenta la plenitud máxima al tener una relación con Dios. Y ya que los seres humanos estamos formados de cuerpo, alma y espíritu, la espiritualidad estará relacionada con cualquier cosa que hagamos.
Dentro de la educación, considero que es muy importante que mis principios, creencias y convicciones se reflejen en mi enseñanza. Los alumnos, en especial los niños, tienden a darse cuenta si nuestro comportamiento es coherente con lo que enseñamos. De modo que al no tener un buen testimonio, es probable que mis alumnos no tomen en cuenta lo que enseñe.
Como maestra, pienso que no solo debe preocuparme el conocimiento, sino también la vida espiritual de los estudiantes. Muchas veces, existen alumnos que no rinden en la escuela y no siempre es debido a falta de conocimiento. En ocasiones, es debido a que sus vidas espirituales están desechas, ya sea por problemas en casa, falta de identidad o porque son esclavos de tal o cual ideología. Y es ahí donde puedo ayudar, al menos escuchando e interesándome. Si los alumnos ven en mi persona a alguien que es congruente en su manera de ser, actuar y enseñar, es probable que la semilla quede plantada, a la vez que lograré dejar la huella de la trascendencia.
Dentro de la educación, considero que es muy importante que mis principios, creencias y convicciones se reflejen en mi enseñanza. Los alumnos, en especial los niños, tienden a darse cuenta si nuestro comportamiento es coherente con lo que enseñamos. De modo que al no tener un buen testimonio, es probable que mis alumnos no tomen en cuenta lo que enseñe.
Como maestra, pienso que no solo debe preocuparme el conocimiento, sino también la vida espiritual de los estudiantes. Muchas veces, existen alumnos que no rinden en la escuela y no siempre es debido a falta de conocimiento. En ocasiones, es debido a que sus vidas espirituales están desechas, ya sea por problemas en casa, falta de identidad o porque son esclavos de tal o cual ideología. Y es ahí donde puedo ayudar, al menos escuchando e interesándome. Si los alumnos ven en mi persona a alguien que es congruente en su manera de ser, actuar y enseñar, es probable que la semilla quede plantada, a la vez que lograré dejar la huella de la trascendencia.
C. S. Lewis (One of the fave's authors)
Clive Staples Lewis (29 November 1898 – 22 November 1963), commonly referred to as C. S. Lewis and known to his friends and family as Jack, was an Irish-born British[1] novelist, academic, medievalist, literary critic, essayist, lay theologian and Christian apologist. He is also known for his fiction, especially The Screwtape Letters, Mere Christianity, The Chronicles of Narnia and The Space Trilogy.
Universal Morality
One of the main theses in Lewis's apologia is that there is a common morality known throughout humanity. In the first five chapters of Mere Christianity Lewis discusses the idea that people have a standard of behavior to which they expect other people to adhere. This standard has been called Universal Morality or Natural Law. Lewis claims that people all over the earth know what this law is and when they break it. He goes on to claim that there must be someone or something behind such a universal set of principles. (Lindskoog 2001b, p. 144)
These then are the two points that I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in. (Lewis 1952, p. 21) Lewis also portrays Universal Morality in his works of fiction. In The Chronicles of Narnia he describes Universal Morality as the "Deep magic" which everyone knew. (Lindskoog 2001b, p. 146)
In the second chapter of Mere Christianity Lewis recognizes that "many people find it difficult to understand what this Law of Human Nature [...] is". And he responds first to the idea "that the Moral Law is simply our herd instinct" and second to the idea "that the Moral Law is simply a social convention". In responding to the second idea Lewis notes that people often complain that one set of moral ideas is better than another, but that this actually argues for there existing some "Real Morality" to which they are comparing other moralities. Finally he notes that sometimes differences in moral codes are exaggerated by people who confuse differences in beliefs about morality with differences in beliefs about facts:
I have met people who exaggerate the differences, because they have not distinguished between differences of morality and differences of belief about facts. For example, one man said to me, "Three hundred years ago people in England were putting witches to death. Was that what you call the Rule of Human Nature or Right Conduct?" But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did — if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbors or drive them mad or bring bad weather, surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did. There is no difference of moral principle here: the difference is simply about matter of fact. It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are there. You would not call a man humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because he believed there were no mice in the house. (Lewis 1952, p. 26)
Universal Morality
One of the main theses in Lewis's apologia is that there is a common morality known throughout humanity. In the first five chapters of Mere Christianity Lewis discusses the idea that people have a standard of behavior to which they expect other people to adhere. This standard has been called Universal Morality or Natural Law. Lewis claims that people all over the earth know what this law is and when they break it. He goes on to claim that there must be someone or something behind such a universal set of principles. (Lindskoog 2001b, p. 144)
These then are the two points that I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in. (Lewis 1952, p. 21) Lewis also portrays Universal Morality in his works of fiction. In The Chronicles of Narnia he describes Universal Morality as the "Deep magic" which everyone knew. (Lindskoog 2001b, p. 146)
In the second chapter of Mere Christianity Lewis recognizes that "many people find it difficult to understand what this Law of Human Nature [...] is". And he responds first to the idea "that the Moral Law is simply our herd instinct" and second to the idea "that the Moral Law is simply a social convention". In responding to the second idea Lewis notes that people often complain that one set of moral ideas is better than another, but that this actually argues for there existing some "Real Morality" to which they are comparing other moralities. Finally he notes that sometimes differences in moral codes are exaggerated by people who confuse differences in beliefs about morality with differences in beliefs about facts:
I have met people who exaggerate the differences, because they have not distinguished between differences of morality and differences of belief about facts. For example, one man said to me, "Three hundred years ago people in England were putting witches to death. Was that what you call the Rule of Human Nature or Right Conduct?" But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did — if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbors or drive them mad or bring bad weather, surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did. There is no difference of moral principle here: the difference is simply about matter of fact. It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are there. You would not call a man humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because he believed there were no mice in the house. (Lewis 1952, p. 26)
Max Scheler’s material value-ethics
1.Values of the holy vs. disvalues of the unholy
2. Values of the spirit (truth, beauty, vs. disvalues of their opposites)
3. Values of life and the noble vs. disvalues of the vulgar
4. Values of pleasure vs. disvalues of pain
5. Values of utility vs. disvalues of the useless.
Further essential interconnections apply with respect to a value's (disvalue's) existence or non-existence:
1. The existence of a positive value is itself a positive value.
2. The existence of a negative value (disvalue) is itself a negative value.
3. The non-existence of a positive value is itself a negative value.
4. The non-existence of a negative value is itself a positive value.]
And with respect to values of good and evil:
1. Good is the value that is attached to the realization of a positive value in the sphere of willing.
2. Evil is the value that is attached to the realization of a negative value in the sphere of willing.
3. Good is the value that is attached to the realization of a higher value in the sphere of willing.
4. Evil is the value that is attached to the realization of a lower value [at the expense of a higher one] in the sphere of willing.
Goodness, however, is not simply "attached" to an act of willing, but originates ultimately within the disposition (Gesinnung) or "basic moral tenor" of the acting person. Accordingly:
1. The criterion of 'good' consists in the agreement of a value intended, in the realization, with the value preferred, or in its disagreement with the value rejected.
2. The criterion of 'evil' consists in the disagreement of a value intended, in the realization, with the value preferred, or in its agreement with the value rejected.
My own hierarchy of values
Christian values: This according to my faith and for me the best way to live.
1. Love
- Holiness
- Justice (Rectitude)
- Humility
- Generosity
- Mercy
- Service
Moral values: Values that we all need to put in practice, everywhere everytime
- Integrity
- Honesty
- Loyalty
- Equality
Peace values: Values that you must have in order to get along with the people
- Respect
- Tolerance
My Scheler’s diagram
Spiritual-Moral-Religious-Vital-Sensitiviness
2. Values of the spirit (truth, beauty, vs. disvalues of their opposites)
3. Values of life and the noble vs. disvalues of the vulgar
4. Values of pleasure vs. disvalues of pain
5. Values of utility vs. disvalues of the useless.
Further essential interconnections apply with respect to a value's (disvalue's) existence or non-existence:
1. The existence of a positive value is itself a positive value.
2. The existence of a negative value (disvalue) is itself a negative value.
3. The non-existence of a positive value is itself a negative value.
4. The non-existence of a negative value is itself a positive value.]
And with respect to values of good and evil:
1. Good is the value that is attached to the realization of a positive value in the sphere of willing.
2. Evil is the value that is attached to the realization of a negative value in the sphere of willing.
3. Good is the value that is attached to the realization of a higher value in the sphere of willing.
4. Evil is the value that is attached to the realization of a lower value [at the expense of a higher one] in the sphere of willing.
Goodness, however, is not simply "attached" to an act of willing, but originates ultimately within the disposition (Gesinnung) or "basic moral tenor" of the acting person. Accordingly:
1. The criterion of 'good' consists in the agreement of a value intended, in the realization, with the value preferred, or in its disagreement with the value rejected.
2. The criterion of 'evil' consists in the disagreement of a value intended, in the realization, with the value preferred, or in its agreement with the value rejected.
My own hierarchy of values
Christian values: This according to my faith and for me the best way to live.
1. Love
- Holiness
- Justice (Rectitude)
- Humility
- Generosity
- Mercy
- Service
Moral values: Values that we all need to put in practice, everywhere everytime
- Integrity
- Honesty
- Loyalty
- Equality
Peace values: Values that you must have in order to get along with the people
- Respect
- Tolerance
My Scheler’s diagram
Spiritual-Moral-Religious-Vital-Sensitiviness
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)