I have always been interested in internet enabled education and openly available education. I recently came across this course by Dr. David Wiley at Brigham Young University.
I think it is a very interesting concept, because the course is both open and a game.
It also requires to post a blog as assignments, and since I have always been meaning to blog but have never really kept up with it, I thought it would be good to join the course, although I am 2 weeks late already.
I also recently became aware of the fact that following NPTEL, IGNOU has also opened up its content, and that there is a wide variety of open (although restricted to derivatives) available. This will be the content of a future post though.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Ethics and relativism
We had a course on ethics, and I found it quite interesting. Interesting enough to make it my first post with 'content'.
Essentially, ethics is about right and wrong. People make judgments all the time about other people, themselves, situations. What is the basis for making these judgments. Are these just opinions, just a like and dislike, or are they justifiable and binding on everyone else? These are probably the most basic questions that pertain to ethical debates. I admit I don't know the answer. Let me however present a reasonable argument from both sides.
The relativist position is that right and wrong are just opinions. There are no moral absolutes and therefore, what is right for one person may be wrong for another. When practiced appropriately, this position is indeed consistent. However, the problem is that it is hardly ever practiced consistently, and in fact, when practiced consistently will lead to conclusions which seem to be absurd. For instance, would the actions of the Nazis under Hitler be 'right' in Germany because that was the practice in Germany at the time? Similarly, if what is practiced in a culture at a moment in time is the right thing to do, then there is no scope to argue against the correctness of practices, and Sati would never be abolished. People tend to use the relativist position for whenever it is convenient and refuse to apply it consistently. Hence it seems irrational.
On the other hand, it is hard to subscribe to absolute moral positions because it does seem that what is the right thing to do would depend on the situation. If there are indeed absolute moral rights and wrongs, what are they? We can probably build a moral code from basic fundamental principles, but the question remains, what are these principles? Why are they fundamental?
Pursuing this line of thought leads us to a comparison with mathematics. There are no proofs for the axioms. The axioms of morality are not well defined though. This would imply that right and wrong are essentially arbitrary!
Essentially, ethics is about right and wrong. People make judgments all the time about other people, themselves, situations. What is the basis for making these judgments. Are these just opinions, just a like and dislike, or are they justifiable and binding on everyone else? These are probably the most basic questions that pertain to ethical debates. I admit I don't know the answer. Let me however present a reasonable argument from both sides.
The relativist position is that right and wrong are just opinions. There are no moral absolutes and therefore, what is right for one person may be wrong for another. When practiced appropriately, this position is indeed consistent. However, the problem is that it is hardly ever practiced consistently, and in fact, when practiced consistently will lead to conclusions which seem to be absurd. For instance, would the actions of the Nazis under Hitler be 'right' in Germany because that was the practice in Germany at the time? Similarly, if what is practiced in a culture at a moment in time is the right thing to do, then there is no scope to argue against the correctness of practices, and Sati would never be abolished. People tend to use the relativist position for whenever it is convenient and refuse to apply it consistently. Hence it seems irrational.
On the other hand, it is hard to subscribe to absolute moral positions because it does seem that what is the right thing to do would depend on the situation. If there are indeed absolute moral rights and wrongs, what are they? We can probably build a moral code from basic fundamental principles, but the question remains, what are these principles? Why are they fundamental?
Pursuing this line of thought leads us to a comparison with mathematics. There are no proofs for the axioms. The axioms of morality are not well defined though. This would imply that right and wrong are essentially arbitrary!
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Merry Christmas
Its been a long time since I thought that I would maintain a blog. I haven't quite got to doing that well yet, but on the occasion of Christmas, thought I should at least wish those who by mistake land up on my blog (How that would happen beats me, but just in case!).
So Merry Christmas everybody. Have fun, but do remember the reason for the season!
So Merry Christmas everybody. Have fun, but do remember the reason for the season!
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Blogging begins!
So I finally decide to maintain a blog. What will this be about? Just my reflections on things as I see it or about how I think things should be!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
