I personally don't think you can have better workers without loyalty. You can teach them..sure..but what will end up happening is they're not encouraged enough to help the state with such skill.

are the hitler youth something the education system should aspire towards producing?

workers, as in people conditioned to be employees? or workers as in people with skills to do desired work?

Focus on neither?

Focus on providing a balanced education in all areas

rather than making drones

yeah

My impression is that we are currently suffering from this continual pattern of trying to turn students in to factory workers for factories that no longer exist

I'm not feeling this framing from the get-go, your really looking for your educational system to produce good citizens. That is people who can be part of society and bear the responsibilities that go along with that.

So you need to develop skills so they can be productive, and certainly school should lay the groundwork for that

You also need knowledge of how society is structured, so that needs to be taught.

i think the question is how you define better workers

if it's just more skilled workers then sure the schools should go for that

I will disagree with everyone based on the Aristotelian argument that a society is ultimately grounded in shared virtue and that virtue is the root of excellence, so that it's essential for the future citizens of a society to be taught moral values, such as being taught loyalty towards one's friends and neighbors.

but if a better worker is one who keeps their head down and works instead of questioning the system, that's not something the school should go for

I mean

whose morals?

morality is too vague of a term

A society requires that people have basic agreement on the ultimate goods and bads, otherwise they cannot create laws which are universally acceptable. So, the society's morals. It is only because some moral rules are unquestionably accepted that many others can be left up in the air.

which society?

and at what point in time?

Are these morals going to be stagnant, or are they going to develop over time?

Morals are relatively fluid and subjective

That is false

Do we teach stealing is always wrong, or only wrong in certain situations?

There's nuance there, after all

I mean, look at the Heinz dilemma

Also, morals heavily do vary

for example

I can't really, y'know

Own a person right now.

@Alice Redacted Aristotelian virtue isn't a list of rules, it's a list of qualities that a person has. In my view you teach children qualities like wisdom and courage - you don't for the most part tell them exactly what to think.

Slavery, as generally agreed upon, is bad

Today

what's wise? What's courageous?

@Alice Redacted I thought that's fluid and relative?

Wisdom to one might be foolish to another

A few hundred years ago its pretty much universally accepted

Courage to one might be idiocy to another

no a specific action might be courageous to one and idiotic to another

that's what I'm saying

the abstract concept of courage is agreed upon to be good

It's too abstract and has no applicable use

the question is how to apply that fact specifically

kind of like "virtue"

Don't confuse not being able to explain how bread is ultimately constituted with an inability to bake bread

Virtue is too vague of a term to have any real meaning

Also, why should we teach said subjects?

You can build virtue without having an atomic understanding of it in the way you suggest

What are you teaching then?

It seems to me as if you're merely just teaching a word

Praising a word

You teach virtue not through words, but by showing people how to muster their emotions to be disciplined

"muster their emotions to be disciplined"?

It's like strength training, there is a knowledge component in terms of skill, but they build that skill and they build their strength through practice

Are you implying that emotions must be cracked down upon?

That the very thing which separates man from beast must be destroyed

Animals most certainly have emotions

Oh, of course

they're certainly more fleshed out in humans, and we're able to express them to a greater degree

I'm talking in a more abstract sense, though

I suppose "beasts" or "monsters" would have been a more apt word

perhaps "machines", whatever word you care to use

Cracking down on emotions is a road to cruelty, to inexcusable behavior, not befitting of humankind

If you cannot control your emotions, you cannot keep promises, because you will only keep your promises until they become difficult and you no longer "feel" like it

I contend

That if one can "control" their emotions, they'd be more willing to break promises and oaths, as they'd feel no regret, no remorse, and no pity for having broken said agreement

Arguably, emotions reinforce oaths of loyalty and such

After all, it can be more pragmatic to backstab, lie, cheat, and steal

It's merely empathy keeping us in place

@Alice Redacted When you want to eat sugar and don't feel like exercising, your emotions are not a guide towards health. When you want to cheat on your spouse and then you feel guilty after cheating, the guilt wasn't an effective guide. Emotions are not rational. They don't plan ahead.

I'd argue that "love" is what prevents most from cheating on their spouse.

An emotion.

One major component of wisdom is developing the foresight to emotionally understand how acting poorly will effect you in the future at an emotional level

I'd argue that empathy is what prevents cruelty against other humans...

Hell, for instance,my current health eating habits aren't motivated by pragmatism, I'd just know I'd feel unhappy if I ate unhealthy foods and such

@Alice Redacted But when "love" wins out over lust, one emotion is winning out over another

@Alice Redacted no need to say "i'd argue" every time

Emotions are controlled

Odin.

What "pragmatic" reason is there to not cheat on your wife?

or to remain loyal to someone, despite a disadvantage?

Also, deal with it, 21.

Besides, we're ignoring the whole "humanitarian" angle

Shouldn't happiness be what all strive for?

Mind you, not recklessly so - but within reason

@Alice Redacted
You simply don't want the same thing all of the time. Wisdom in this case would be knowing that you need to muster your emotions so that you feel good in the future and that you act consistently with your greater emotional needs.

You cannot simply do whatever you feel like doing and act consistently with all emotions at all times. Some emotions are stronger at some times, and they contradict each other.

Are you talking about impulse control?

Impulses aren't emotions

Emotions aren't impulses

Anger is an emotion, and you may have to control it if you love your wife, for example.

That's fair

Impulse control is ONLY hard when there is a strong emotion under it

but you seem to be saying that emotions, in general, are bad

No, I am saying that they need to be structured rationally

and that we should rid ourselves of them

If you try to cover them up, they'll come out somewhere else

Everything we do is based in emotions

Of course, venting is useful at times