Replying to LO24044 --
Hello all:
I am going to try and sum up what I believe I have read in Robert's email
on this topic. He appears to be replying to At, who said that "Humane
conduct is something which can only emerge from within a human. It can be
codified so that others can recognise it. But it can never be transfered."
Robert expressed fear to this statement. He provided some examples that
he believed exhibited a transfer of humane conduct through codification,
among them...laws against driving while intoxicated, moral codes of
conduct such as the Bible or Torah, and laws against sexual harassment or
murder. He summarized by saying...
> If we are to believe that codification is not part of transfering (or
> creating norms for humane treatment, then we'd have to turf out every
> major religion, crack the tablet with the ten commandments, etc.
It appears to this observer that the two parties are focused on different
processes to a common goal. At appears to have assumed that a rule / law
will not create humane behavior WITHOUT an inner reflection / acceptance
of those social mores / standards / norms / laws / expectations. While
Robert appears to have assumed that the law or explicit expectation for
behavior is necessary for the behavioral objective to occur. The one
focus is on INTRApersonal knowledge, communication, and intelligence while
the second focus in on EXTERNAL stimuli. The first argument seems to
advocate for a strong locus of control, while the latter position
advocates for a weak locus of control.
I would welcome your thoughts on my observation of this dialogue. As
always, I enjoy and respect the opinions of this group.
kind regards,
Vana Prewitt
Praxis Learning Systems
www.PraxisLearning.com
--Vana Prewitt <Vana@PraxisLearning.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.