Stivers+(WK7)

Here's your wiki for WK7. Have fun!

here are some thoughts I gleaned from the article on moral collectivism and ethical individualism:

in popular culture, we see different definitions of the autonomous individual: one is a rebel against the system; another is the self centered consumer.

we receive a moral education through the public education system, which reinforces these in 3 ways: neo-classical, communitarian, and psychological.

neo-classical system is composed of universal set of moral virtues or values; they can be natural or historical communitarian is a form of democratic consensus of moral or immoral values where the needs of the community take precedence over the individual. psychological is the dominant one where education ‘feels good’ and self esteem is derived from learning. morals become values.

all 3 of these are similar because each one takes morality out of its cultural context and renders it abstract and subjective. moral education programs are not successful because morality is seen as centered in organizations and not in individuals...

in this way, we become interested in a social policy of private and public organizations to “solve” problems in organizations but lack personal responsibility.

Wow! I really enjoyed this article and look forward to discussing it. I don't know that I can contribute much on here at this point. It's a lot to take in and expound upon right now. A lot of food for thought.

-Note to group, I decided to edit a bit by putting quotes from the article in italics just to add a bit of organization, I hope that's okay with whoever posted them!

//"The way ethics is taught in the public schools in the United States does little to dispel this idea that individualism is the hallmark of American culture. -This was surprising to me. I thought public was trying to teach all are one "group". The purpose of education is as much to make the student feel good about himself as to educate him."// -Sounds ideal...I don't see it happening though. //"They are not able to counter what Christina Sommers calls the basic assumptions of students entering college: psychological egoism (motivation is invariably selfish), moral relativism, radical tolerance, and moral responsibility centered in organizations not individuals."// -Now this I see. Not just in College but in general. I wonder is this surfacing from schooling? I would guess societal influence in general, which they do address with media influence. // "The decline of personal and cultural authority makes people think “no one can tell me what to do, for we are equal.” At the same time, however, we cannot rely on others for assistance; they are not morally bound to us in a reciprocal relationship. Moreover, our relationships to others become more competitive, more dangerous. This leads to what Tocqueville terms “**psychological weakness.”** We live in tacit fear of others, not s o much of their potential for physical violence as of their ability to manipulate us."//--This is interesting. I have been thinking about this a bit lately. Not that I am in fear but how much I see it happening. --I'm not sure I buy what this quote is communicating entirely. Perhaps in a professional or competitive environment these sentiments reign, but in our personal relationships we are free to seek help, support, and love from each other. Maybe we are more scared to ask for help from our friends (or especially colleagues), since we are taught to rely on ourselves, “pull yourself up by your boot straps.” It could just be a case of how we each personally relate to others, and since our overall environment is quite competitive I see how that could impact how we treat each other. Maybe this "tacit fear of others... of their ability to manipulate us" is our fear of being judged and then shunned for the social group? If that is what he is referring to I don't think it is a recent phenomena, just a part of being social creatures. //"Fragmentation involves the splitting of the self in a variety of ways, including that between the public and private spheres of life and between thought and action."// -This is a deep issue.The more technology objectifies human ability and intelligence,

//"The less one needs to rely on personal experience and tradition."// -This one gets my goat; so true. Our own thoughts are increasingly irrelevant and, in compensation, turn toward fantasy and illusion.-This happens with email correspondence. One may fill in the "gaps" of what a person on the other end of the email may or may not be thinking.The computer encourages the most irresponsible discourse yet known. -Indeed In effect, it teaches the tacit lesson that freedom exists without responsibility. -Now that I don't agree 100% on. I think it's relative. //"Discourse provided the context within which visual images assumed meaning. Today the opposite is becoming true. For increasing numbers of people, the images of the media furnish the context within which words take their meaning. Hence the visual images of the media, which are increasingly first related to one another before they are related to language, serve as “operational indications” of words."// //-//media images take their own meanings. It takes a critical mind to deconstruct what these images are actually communicating to us, and what meanings they are connecting. To deconstruct these things we translate them into language. unfortunately to translate them into language we have to be competent at literacy and that ability is suffering because of our school systems and too much t.v.!!! //"The reification of language results, for example,in the meaning of love being reduced to the image of an embrace or a kiss."// -Fascinating, never thought about this concept before.The ethical is concerned with responsibility toward and limits in our relationship to others. //"The main, if not exclusive, impact of the visual image is emotional. Emotional experiences are principally aesthetical, and as such leave us oriented to the moment of pleasure or pain. By itself emotion does not allow us to transcend the immediate present. **Television creates an eternal present.** To live exclusively in the moment, to live from moment to moment, is to live a fragmented existence." //  //- // "Television creates an eternal present" is an epic statement. And it is funny to grapple with this paragraph after being taught mindfulness, riding the waves of the present, but I guess it's main point is that we have to use our brains to reflect upon our experiences, which occur moment to moment, and to not get so caught up in emotions...   // "Our increased visual sophistication lowers our threshold for boredom; we require ever more spectacular experiences." //  // - // With the TV comments. "ever more spectacular experiences" brings to mind when people talk about chasing other addictions. //"An ethical approach to life provides a moral unity to the self; one is the same person, no matter what the circumstances."// -Amen! //"Poems, novels, and stories, by contrast, provide shared symbolic experiences to listeners and readers, which have to be filtered through the reader’s own meaningful experiences."// -Yes! //"The media objectify our experiences and thus control them."// -Yes //"Manifestations of fragmentation in the modern world include technical and bureaucratic specialization and professionalization. Personal responsibility is narrowly limited to one’s specialized function. No one person is responsible for a decision in the modern bureaucracy. Our responsibility is further diminished by our dependence upon specialized experts who have invaded all spheres of life."// - THIS is so enfuriating and true. Trying to work out a problem with Comcast, for example, makes me so incredibly angry- no enraged. Being bounced from one line to the next, having to restate your problem, being bounced over again, yearning to talk to a human instead of a computerized voice. No one is accountable. And you can't (or shouldn't if you can help it) lash out at the person on the other side of the phone, because they are being just a manipulated by this bureaucratic company and have little control over the larger system, and most likely are being even more screwed then you are. When service becomes computerized something big and meaningful is lost, the human connection. //"The computer encourages the most irresponsible discourse yet known. In effect, it teaches the tacit lesson that freedom exists without responsibility. Psychological weakness warrants such depersonalized discourse."// - it also works to dehumanize the audience of whatever discourse a person puts out on the internet. They can’t see the other person’s reaction to their hurtful comments, and thus they can say the most hurtful and destructive things completely freely. Parts of the internet pride themselves on creating such destructive and hurtful commentary, as if in a contest to see who can be the most awful. It shows a complete disregard for others and it disgusts me. The story (p. 65) about a man who had a special song with his girlfriend and lost the special-ness when he replaced the images he had created with images others created affected me. It's like the images I've created when reading a fiction novel that is then made into a movie. There are times when I specifically avoid the movie to maintain the world I've created. This article seemed to reduce the human race to a bunch of selfish TV-addicts living a nihilistic life without a sense of normal or ideal. With a "pseudo-morality that reinforces the meaninglessness of modern life." It seems a pretty pessimistic view. I do agree that there is a lack of responsibility-taking in large businesses and government, but not that there is no connection between morality and ethics or that most people live by a moral code that isn't focused on personal happiness but takes others into consideration. I hope I just read it wrong.

Although Stivers boiled peoples' relationship with media down to moral confusion, which I don't thoroughly agree with, he had a very important message to send to his readers: are we taking control of our own lives? "I become what I see and become what I consume" (Pg. 64). That's what advertisers want us to believe right.. Capitalism is what boggles me here. Without it, there is no incentive to do anything new, there wouldn't be many new innovations because there would be no profit to chase. And with capitalism everyone is on an island out to maximize their own life instead of bettering the lives in their community. It makes for self-interested people and consumers. Consumerism that is based on, "freedom without responsibility" (Pg. 69). I think that he is saying that propaganda and advertising leads people to be irrational and then unwilling to fix any mistakes, such as maxing out a credit card knowing it couldn't be paid off. So where is the happy medium?