What has been said (was Re: respect)
Nora or Devereaux Cannon
"What has been said, repeatedly, patiently, and obviously
uselessly, is that
a child's right to living without pain supercedes an adult's
right to cause
the child pain."
I think the problem here is that, except for matters of faith and
personal opinion, essentially every blanket statement is open to
debate and contrary examples. I'll be it is possible to come up
with a scenario in which even this truism is subject to
exception - and is clearly subject to reframing along ethical
standards of the principle of double effect.
uselessly, is that
a child's right to living without pain supercedes an adult's
right to cause
the child pain."
I think the problem here is that, except for matters of faith and
personal opinion, essentially every blanket statement is open to
debate and contrary examples. I'll be it is possible to come up
with a scenario in which even this truism is subject to
exception - and is clearly subject to reframing along ethical
standards of the principle of double effect.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pam Hartley" <pamhartley@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 7:40 PM
Subject: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re: respect
|
|
| ----------
| >From: [email protected]
| >To: [email protected]
| >Subject: [Unschooling-dotcom] Digest Number 2542
| >Date: Thu, Oct 24, 2002, 12:10 PM
| >
|
| > I'm curious, what do you think my definition of respect is?
The only
| > difference I can see with my definition and most of you all's
definition is
| > you think children should be respected over and above adults,
while I think
| > everyone should be respected equally.
|
|
| This is wrong. I don't even have to say "I think it's wrong"
because it's
| just plain wrong.
|
| What has been said, repeatedly, patiently, and obviously
uselessly, is that
| a child's right to living without pain supercedes an adult's
right to cause
| the child pain.
|
| Are we about at the stage where the list moderator should
consider this
| intentional disruption of the list's purpose with appropriate
action, or am
| I over-reactive?
|
| Pam
|
| ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
| Sell a Home with Ease!
| http://us.click.yahoo.com/SrPZMC/kTmEAA/jd3IAA/0xXolB/TM
| ---------------------------------------------------------------
------~->
|
| ~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject
line! ~~~~
|
| If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list,
please email the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll
(fetteroll@...), or the list owner, Helen Hegener
(HEM-Editor@...).
|
| To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or
address an email to:
| [email protected]
|
| Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com
|
| Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
|
|
[email protected]
In a message dated 10/25/02 9:22:11 AM, dcannon@... writes:
<< and is clearly subject to reframing along ethical
standards of the principle of double effect.
The supposition in any statement here when an experienced unschooler is
talking about unschooling is: FOR UNSCHOOLING TO WORK WELL...
And in any family in which the parents feel their rights are greater than the
rights of their children, unschooling isn't going to work as well as if the
parents see their children as full human beings with a full range of
feelings, memory, needs, and rights.
Someone wrote this:
-=-[plural]you think children should be respected over and above adults,
while I think everyone should be respected equally.-=-
So Pam H. wrote this:
-=-What has been said, repeatedly, patiently, and obviously
uselessly, is that a child's right to living without pain supercedes an
adult's
right to cause the child pain.-=-
And now we get gobbledy-gook intended to defend what? Intended to intimidate
who?
Helps unschoolers how?
<< and is clearly subject to reframing along ethical
standards of the principle of double effect.
Sandra
<< and is clearly subject to reframing along ethical
standards of the principle of double effect.
>>Does that mean anything real?
The supposition in any statement here when an experienced unschooler is
talking about unschooling is: FOR UNSCHOOLING TO WORK WELL...
And in any family in which the parents feel their rights are greater than the
rights of their children, unschooling isn't going to work as well as if the
parents see their children as full human beings with a full range of
feelings, memory, needs, and rights.
Someone wrote this:
-=-[plural]you think children should be respected over and above adults,
while I think everyone should be respected equally.-=-
So Pam H. wrote this:
-=-What has been said, repeatedly, patiently, and obviously
uselessly, is that a child's right to living without pain supercedes an
adult's
right to cause the child pain.-=-
And now we get gobbledy-gook intended to defend what? Intended to intimidate
who?
Helps unschoolers how?
<< and is clearly subject to reframing along ethical
standards of the principle of double effect.
>>Can you say that in plain useful words?
Sandra
Nora or Devereaux Cannon
Absolutely it is real - and will get the same injured howls of
"That's not what I meant" that Myranda has been posting.
If you Google "ethics double effect" you get this as the first
result - there may be better ones further down, but this is good
enough and demonstrates how easy it is to find real word
meanings:
The Doctrine of Double Effect
This doctrine says that if doing something morally good has a
morally bad side-effect it's ethically OK to do it providing the
bad side-effect wasn't intended. This is true even if you foresaw
that the bad effect would probably happen.
The principle is used to justify the case where a doctor gives
drugs to a patient to relieve distressing symptoms even though he
knows doing this may shorten the patient's life.
... .
"Feelings" about rights were not part of my comments - I was
commenting on the absolutism of the statement that a child's
right not to be hurt is at least as great as the adult's right to
hurt. Here is the statement that I was discussing::
"What has been said, repeatedly, patiently, and obviously
uselessly, is that a child's right to living without pain
supercedes an adult's right to cause the child pain."
Now consider a child who needs chemotherapy to survive cancer - a
painful and miserable experience for most kids. Pain is not the
intended effect - cure is. Pain is an unavoidable consequence -
at least for some.
The point is not that I understood anyone to be talking about
chemotherapy, but that the blanket, "listen to what I mean, not
what I am saying" is not valid for either side of a meaningful
discussion.
"That's not what I meant" that Myranda has been posting.
If you Google "ethics double effect" you get this as the first
result - there may be better ones further down, but this is good
enough and demonstrates how easy it is to find real word
meanings:
The Doctrine of Double Effect
This doctrine says that if doing something morally good has a
morally bad side-effect it's ethically OK to do it providing the
bad side-effect wasn't intended. This is true even if you foresaw
that the bad effect would probably happen.
The principle is used to justify the case where a doctor gives
drugs to a patient to relieve distressing symptoms even though he
knows doing this may shorten the patient's life.
... .
"Feelings" about rights were not part of my comments - I was
commenting on the absolutism of the statement that a child's
right not to be hurt is at least as great as the adult's right to
hurt. Here is the statement that I was discussing::
"What has been said, repeatedly, patiently, and obviously
uselessly, is that a child's right to living without pain
supercedes an adult's right to cause the child pain."
Now consider a child who needs chemotherapy to survive cancer - a
painful and miserable experience for most kids. Pain is not the
intended effect - cure is. Pain is an unavoidable consequence -
at least for some.
The point is not that I understood anyone to be talking about
chemotherapy, but that the blanket, "listen to what I mean, not
what I am saying" is not valid for either side of a meaningful
discussion.
----- Original Message -----
From: <SandraDodd@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 10:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] What has been said (was Re:
respect)
|
| In a message dated 10/25/02 9:22:11 AM, dcannon@...
writes:
|
| << and is clearly subject to reframing along ethical
| standards of the principle of double effect.
| >>
|
| Does that mean anything real?
|
| The supposition in any statement here when an experienced
unschooler is
| talking about unschooling is: FOR UNSCHOOLING TO WORK WELL...
|
| And in any family in which the parents feel their rights are
greater than the
| rights of their children, unschooling isn't going to work as
well as if the
| parents see their children as full human beings with a full
range of
| feelings, memory, needs, and rights.
|
|
| Someone wrote this:
| -=-[plural]you think children should be respected over and
above adults,
| while I think everyone should be respected equally.-=-
|
| So Pam H. wrote this:
| -=-What has been said, repeatedly, patiently, and obviously
| uselessly, is that a child's right to living without pain
supercedes an
| adult's
| right to cause the child pain.-=-
|
| And now we get gobbledy-gook intended to defend what? Intended
to intimidate
| who?
| Helps unschoolers how?
|
| << and is clearly subject to reframing along ethical
| standards of the principle of double effect.
| >>
|
| Can you say that in plain useful words?
|
| Sandra
|
| ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
| Home Selling? Try Us!
| http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/jd3IAA/0xXolB/TM
| ---------------------------------------------------------------
------~->
|
| ~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject
line! ~~~~
|
| If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list,
please email the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll
(fetteroll@...), or the list owner, Helen Hegener
(HEM-Editor@...).
|
| To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or
address an email to:
| [email protected]
|
| Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com
|
| Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
|
|
Mike Ebbers
> Does that mean anything real? And now we get gobbledy-gook.When I read the response above, I was surprised so I went back and
>Intended to defend what? Intended to intimidate who? Helps
>unschoolers how? Can you say that in plain useful words?
copied the post that triggered it (see below the line).
I think the poster who included the "gobbleddy-gook" was, first,
trying to explain how such round-and-round posting can occur between
two or more thinking, caring individuals. She stated (her opinion)
that any statement can be argued with and examples to the contrary
can be found. I agree with this, since I've seen it happen on this
list - examples have been cited to support and oppose various blanket
statements.
Second, she was (the way I read it) using tongue-in-cheek to state
that even her blanket statement could be argued with, using a
philosophical principle that probably few of us (certainly not me)
have ever heard of.
I think moderator Joyce F. explained it similarly in a few recent
posts, saying different meanings had been read into the same phrases
(or something like that -- it was very well put).
When I first read it, I laughed because it really seemed to sum up
the round of postings we have been seeing. Perhaps the poster below
(if she is still around) can confirm my interpretation.
Mike
still laughing, but had to stop and think in the middle
-------------------------
<<"What has been said, repeatedly, patiently, and obviously
uselessly, is that a child's right to living without pain supercedes
an adult's right to cause the child pain.">>
<I think the problem here is that, except for matters of faith and
personal opinion, essentially every blanket statement is open to
debate and contrary examples. I'll be it is possible to come up
with a scenario in which even this truism is subject to
exception - and is clearly subject to reframing along ethical
standards of the principle of double effect.>
Nora or Devereaux Cannon
She's around - I just had no idea that ethics was that esoteric a
topic.
topic.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Ebbers" <mikeebb@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 3:51 PM
Subject: [Unschooling-dotcom] What has been said (was Re:
respect)
| > Does that mean anything real? And now we get gobbledy-gook.
| >Intended to defend what? Intended to intimidate who? Helps
| >unschoolers how? Can you say that in plain useful words?
|
| When I read the response above, I was surprised so I went back
and
| copied the post that triggered it (see below the line).
|
| I think the poster who included the "gobbleddy-gook" was,
first,
| trying to explain how such round-and-round posting can occur
between
| two or more thinking, caring individuals. She stated (her
opinion)
| that any statement can be argued with and examples to the
contrary
| can be found. I agree with this, since I've seen it happen on
this
| list - examples have been cited to support and oppose various
blanket
| statements.
|
| Second, she was (the way I read it) using tongue-in-cheek to
state
| that even her blanket statement could be argued with, using a
| philosophical principle that probably few of us (certainly not
me)
| have ever heard of.
|
| I think moderator Joyce F. explained it similarly in a few
recent
| posts, saying different meanings had been read into the same
phrases
| (or something like that -- it was very well put).
|
| When I first read it, I laughed because it really seemed to sum
up
| the round of postings we have been seeing. Perhaps the poster
below
| (if she is still around) can confirm my interpretation.
|
| Mike
| still laughing, but had to stop and think in the middle
|
| -------------------------
| <<"What has been said, repeatedly, patiently, and obviously
| uselessly, is that a child's right to living without pain
supercedes
| an adult's right to cause the child pain.">>
|
| <I think the problem here is that, except for matters of faith
and
| personal opinion, essentially every blanket statement is open
to
| debate and contrary examples. I'll be it is possible to come up
| with a scenario in which even this truism is subject to
| exception - and is clearly subject to reframing along ethical
| standards of the principle of double effect.>
|
|
| ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
Sponsor ---------------------~-->
| Home Selling? Try Us!
| http://us.click.yahoo.com/QrPZMC/iTmEAA/jd3IAA/0xXolB/TM
| ---------------------------------------------------------------
------~->
|
| ~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject
line! ~~~~
|
| If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list,
please email the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll
(fetteroll@...), or the list owner, Helen Hegener
(HEM-Editor@...).
|
| To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or
address an email to:
| [email protected]
|
| Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com
|
| Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
|
|
Mike Ebbers
--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., "Nora or Devereaux Cannon"
<dcannon@n...> wrote:
that sounded esoteric to me (and perhaps to others).
Can you explain it?
Send it to me offline if you don't think it would help the list.
Mike, still thinking your post was a very good way to explain the
complexities of list discussion
mikeebb@...
<dcannon@n...> wrote:
> She's around - I just had no idea that ethics was that esoteric aI understood the ethics part. It was the principle of double effect
> topic.
that sounded esoteric to me (and perhaps to others).
Can you explain it?
Send it to me offline if you don't think it would help the list.
Mike, still thinking your post was a very good way to explain the
complexities of list discussion
mikeebb@...