Message from @oscar
Discord ID: 486209741794836522
In fact, it usually comes hand in hand
The most disciplined and skilled children are also usually the most loyal.
For example, the Hitler Youth.
😬
Well, there's no denying the Hitler Youth were skilled as well as loyal.
No matter how messed up the whole thing was
workers, no matter how loyal they are, no country lasts forever, but contrributions do
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