Filed under: Ethics, Higher Education, Universities,

Comments

but, heres the thing.. as much as we try to abide with oaths, that merit todays morals and ethics and try to uphold a better world in our palms.. what good will it do, when societies change, human beings adapt and such morals and ethics become obsolete. once upon a time, the world believed the world was flat. As technology continually adapts, and global warming changes our climates across the world.. what can man do but watch and learn, understand, collaborate and move forward. To me, morals and ethics are boundaries, and not guidelines that determine our individual course of action. Was it morally right to create the atomic bomb, in which time, it has manifested itself, into a need, a necessity. Would it be right in saying that as an private institution, a univeristy fosters and nurtures people like myself, toward a better world? or is it better to say, as long as our ambitious, and intellectual minds correlate with the socio-dynamics of this world, thats all that matters ? i still believe, that universities exist, simply to broaden the minds of those who seek knowledge, and aspire to use it as a measure of ones own indivdual humility.

ben - June 25, 2009

Our flaws are what make us human. To live in a dynamic world. We need to live. We need to learn. Otherwise if we knew everything it would be our end. Our continued existence really's on flaws. We need adversity, we need to be challenged. Life is one giant contest we need to experience. Sometimes we need to trip in the dark to find the right path. Sometimes to trip in the dark makes us enjoy more of the finer details of life. Unless we create a failed economic model we have nothing to benchmark a prosperous one. Too climb the highest mountain one must fall down it first.

Al - June 25, 2009

Has anyone else realised the absurdity of modern society's search for absolute moral standards? Where all morality is relative and the decision of each individual, no redress is possible if one chooses to act in a way contrary to another's beliefs (provided the action is lawful or the agent doesn't get caught). In today's society oaths would appear to be a waste of breath. If someone can get away with profiting at another's/society's expense without getting caught that is both what has happened in the past and will no doubt continue to happen in future. The root cause of society's problems seems to lie within man himself.

Paul - June 25, 2009

Dear VC, I've been waiting for an opportunity to inject some Amartya Sen into this debate. While the following may better apply to your previous post "Higher Education: less Gekko, more Ghandi", it is still relevant here. My colleague (Valerie Harwood from Uni of Wollongong) and I have been gently pointing out through our research that the broader aim of social inclusion cannot be met through an education system based on increasingly narrow economic ideals of performance that systematically exclude students with diverse abilities. To make this point one has to consider what education is for: something that occurs less and less with the gutting of the foundations from education faculties. And so, we turned to Amartya Sen for Sen makes a critical distinction between means and ends which we think is important here. In his book "Development as Freedom", he argues: There is, in fact, a crucial valuational difference between the human-capital focus and the concentration on human capabilities – a difference that relates to some extent to the distinction between means and ends. The acknowledgment of the role of human qualities in promoting and sustaining economic growth – momentous as it is – tells us nothing about why economic growth is sought in the first place. If, instead, the focus is, ultimately, on the expansion of human freedom to live the kind of lives that people have reason to value, then the role of economic growth in expanding these opportunities has to be integrated into that more foundational understanding of the process of development as the expansion of human capability to lead more worthwhile and more free lives. (Sen, 1999, p. 295) This is what we argued in our recently submitted paper: In the above epigraph, Nobel Prize Laureate Amartya Sen describes how the goal of human flourishing becomes overwhelmed when our energies are restricted to the production of human-capital in the service of economic growth. His argument is simple: economic growth should be harnessed as a vehicle to human flourishing, not the other way around. Recent assessment of contemporary society by philosopher Clive Hamilton (2003; 2005) would suggest that we currently have these priorities in reverse order. Our motive in this paper is to make an analogous point with regard to the purposes of schooling. When the aims of education are hitched to economic growth, desirable “outcomes” become reduced to those which can be measured, and focus shifts from the development of means to ends (or the development of capabilities) to ends that are presumed to be self-fulfilling. This can be seen in the current preoccupation with “basic skills” and the methods through which we assess and compare them. In ignoring the foundational contribution that education can make to human flourishing however, such logic erodes the ability of schools to contribute to the development of human capabilities despite their inherent necessity for optimal student achievement. Too often, the system response is to identify students “at-risk” of not meeting the standards; however, there remains little understanding of the dangers that arise as a result: stigmatisation, disengagement, segregation and exclusion. While research has shown that it can be difficult for schools to negotiate away from the pressure to categorise or diagnose such students, in our paper, we highlight instances where some schools have responded by developing new cultural practices to engage both staff and students; in some cases, decreasing suspension while improving retention, behaviour and performance. ***** On the subject of an oath, yes I do believe an oath would serve a purpose - if it was firmly rooted in the foundations of education, not its potential material results. Regards, Dr Linda Graham Macquarie University Research Fellow Children and Families Research Centre

Dr Linda Graham - June 26, 2009

The one-dimensional, solely profit oriented, view of society that the business world justifies is in desperate need of such moral limitations and goals. Whilst such an oath would, of course, not do a whole lot by itself, it could signal a shift toward NOT conducting dishonest conduct. More importantly it could represent a shift away from such a limiting view on business conduct. In receiving their 2006 Nobel Peace Prize, Muhammed Tunus and Grameen Bank discussed this strict distinction between altruistic charitable actions and profit oriented business actions, and its debilitating effect on society. Bill Gates charitable foundation recently sent millions of dollars worth of mosquito nets over to Africa, only to run the mosquito net manufactureres out of business, Of course it would have been better to invest in cheap manufacturing of mosquito nets to make such protection maintainable. But no investor, with a solely profit driven motive would invest. By widening the boundaries of our goals and conduct in business, we can stop the destruction this charity-business dichotmy creates. As for the idea that all moral are relative and therefore we should not enshrine it in a set of rights. An search for a universal morality is not a recent phenomenon, but has defined human society throughout many times and cultures. To accept that there are mere 'guidelines' destroys much of what upholds socitey, our laws and rules of social conduct. As a society we prohibit and support certain actions and we should use these, rather than limit their effects.

Liam Meagher - June 26, 2009

In latest issue of HBR (June 2009) Joel Podolny (former Dean of Yale School of Management) has written an interesting piece on MBA students and the rebuilding of trust in the current climate (p.62). He makes specific mention of pledges or codes which is the reason I was reminded of it when reading this blog. I think these oaths or pledges have their place but in order for them to soar above the platitudinous hyopcrisy that they often embody, two conditions must be met. First, that somebody monitors the professional behaviour of the pledge takers, and second that transgression attracts some kind punitive consequence. Polodny on the same theme advocates that those schools who use the code/pledge/oath should withdraw the degrees of those errant MBAs and any other graduates who evidently broke the code. I havent seen Harvard, Columbia or Thunderbird lining up behind this idea. Before we go down this route, we as a university need to address whether we would be prepared (or even allowed) to do this. Personally I think it has merit if we really are intending to be taken seriously.

Mark Gabbott - June 26, 2009

Leave a comment

Name (required)

E-mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Submit