Replying to LO24070 --
On 25 Feb 00, at 20:11, Vana Prewitt wrote:
> 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.
I'm not in a position to know what At assumes, but even if that is what At
believes, it is not consistent with what we know about internalisation of
values, norms, etc.
> While
> Robert appears to have assumed that the law or explicit expectation for
> behavior is necessary for the behavioral objective to occur.
No, I'm not saying it is necessary, I'm saying that equating codifying
with dehumanizing is...well, I am trying to be polite, and can't find the
right word.
Do you believe that all the religions of the world, and every civilized
country of the world are dehumanizing people because of codifying some
aspects of conduct?
The KEY point I responded to was the one and simple statement equating
codification and dehumanization. It's false. And it raises so many more
questions regarding how values and behavior is learned, the role of
society and culture, etc.
> 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.
That's an interesting observation, but it doesn't apply to my point. I
suggest that we think about some of these statements as the float by the
list, and look at them through whatever knowledge we might have about
norms, sociieties, culture, and behavior, rather than attempting to
develop some philosophy our of nothing.
Visit the work911.com supersite at http://www.work911.com
for work related articles, or to find almost anything including
book reviews and suggestions, discussion lists and more.
--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.