Life is odd. A principal's 'advice' has become a debate about how one should better motivate students. The divisions appear neatly drawn. One might choose between the old school "wake-up" call or the more modern "positive" encouragement. I can imagine dinner tables marked by different schools of thought. Seen this way, the principal's 'advice' is at its worst, old school, and at best, solid advice. However, from the statistics, one can learn a lot more. Mobility between "streams" appear limited. There was no consideration that the students might end up in JCs, for example. I am sure there will be a few rare examples. Another rather Singaporean assumption - that polys are better than ITEs. And the list goes on. I feel that when one describes this as a "wake-up" call, you assume somehow that your station in life determines your "worth" - and the worth of you by family, state and society. Perhaps that is indeed the case in Singapore, we are that people who are people only in the eyes of others .
There is this philosopher - his name is Kant - whose idea of Categorical Imperative is often bandied around for a myriad of nefarious purposes - but it still is attractive. It is attractive because, let me quote Wiki,
"On this basis, Kant derives second formulation of the categorical imperative from the first.
"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means"[2]"
It is this regard for humanity that will make Kant (be likely) to refuse to turn the switch in any case in the runaway railway wagon paradox. Although I believe that a state must resort to 'logical' apparatus to shape policy (and turn the switch no matter what), there is this part of me that feel that we have come too far from the very attractive ideal that we should treat people as the ends and not the means. There is really nothing 'wrong' in going to ITE, or not desiring to study - if you think about it morally or from the 'humanistic' point of view - there is nothing that morally demands a "wake-up" call. I think Kant will think that our values and our regard for humanity should be far greater and far more nuance than this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Wow, interesting that Kant said that about humanity, considering that he seemed to hate gay people. I guess they don't count. (I learned that from Thio's parliament speech!)
Hey hey, first, i am not sure that anyone's interpretation of Kant is right or wrong ( and in no position/time to judge or reason out) and not sure whether that sort of formulation of "ethics" has any place in a legislative debate today. One thing i note, and this probably more psychology-intuition than philo/reasoning: moral absolutists no matter how nice they sound generally appeal to a particular type who tend to see the world in black and white, and believe that we are all going to be buried in a sea of sin and become absolutely and horribly corrupt and need to be saved/punished/cleansed. they also appear to be very afraid and fearful of many things. so, there is very little point in attempting to go say, hey but Kant's formulation of ethics could in fact promote the idea of gay marriages because X, Y, Z.
I think it should always be a balance between "wake-up" call and modern "positive encouragement." More inclined to positive encouragement and less to wake up calls.
Do you know about the Young Entrepreneur Society from the www.YoungEntrepreneurSociety.com? The site has many interesting stuff relating to self improvement and entrepreneurship.
Great post which summed up a lot of important points. Thank you.I just wanted to share my experience, hope it will help you. I also found a website that guides you on how to sky rocket your
Self Confidence & improve yourself.
Post a Comment