Great class today with lots of good discussion! There were good insights on how we develop moral awareness and what ethical conflicts might arise in the different professions. Our story, "Barn Burning" by William Faulkner, tied in themes of self-development through facing the dilemma of family vs. society's moral values. Please finish the story, jot down some thoughts around the questions and bring them to class. For those who signed up for narratives next week, please e-mail them to me by next Wed. They will not be graded, but I will give you detailed feedback through e-mail. Have a great weekend - stay warm!
20 comments:
Well, since no one else has posted yet, and this week blog directions weren’t real clear, I’m just going to take a stab at posting here…
This week’s readings, which pitted morality in society against morality in family, seemed to be a little over simplistic in the larger morality issue. The boy in the story, is torn between doing what his father has asked him to do, which is an immoral act, and doing what he “knows” is right, which is to confess his father’s actions. The question I’m left with in all of this is, how does the boy “know” what is right, or what is wrong? Seeing as how the story makes no explicit attempt to say that the boy attended school, we can assume that he would have limited existence in a learning environment. So then, all of his knowledge of what is right, or moral, would have to come from his family setting, and up bringing.
So then, isn’t the present dilemma one of loyalty vs. morality, rather than one of morality vs. morality? If it was truly a matter of morality of family vs. morality of society, where did the boy learn about societal morality? So then, would the family’s morality must, for the sake of the argument, not have to be near identical to that of society? So, to me it appears that the boy’s father is, or at least at one point was, a moral man (as per society) and had instilled his morals to his son. Or, can you argue that societal morality can be learned, without extensive interaction in society?
I really enjoyed the topic of Wednesday’s class. Morality is a very important issue in every career and aspect of life. I never thought about morality as a required course because I figured it is just something that comes through living life. I think it is very important to have strict guidelines for teachers to follow in extreme cases so that there is no question about what to do. When there is suspicion of abuse, no teacher should have to deal with a question of what they should do in such an extreme case. This also ensures that children aren’t punished for their teacher’s “lack of morality” or perhaps lack of involvement.
I also found the topic about teachers being moral educators very interesting. I, personally, don’t think that teachers should be put into a position where they are expected to teach “morality”. I find it very hard to believe that everyone could even agree on what morality is or how it should be taught! Teaching morality could ultimately cause major conflict for children because teachers and parents could be teaching contradictory ideas. Having said that, I think it is impossible for teachers to escape this role. Teachers (for young children especially) will always be put on a pedestal and held to higher moral standards.
Like Salima previously posted I too feel that teachers should not be in a position to teach morality to their students. However, I feel that they do have an obligation be aware of their influence on students. Morality is something that has to be discovered. I think teachers could aid in helping students learn morality by being ably to openly discuss opinions on situations in a safe environment. Just as we do in this class, students should be able to reflect, critically analyze and learn from their past experiences to discover what they would do differently.
I think morality is something that can be brought into a classroom; however, it is not something that should be “taught” since there are many different views on what is right or wrong, good or bad. If morality is brought into a classroom in needs to be discussed, not preached upon. As we see from William Faulkner’s “Barn Burning” it is a battle to learn morality as it is a large part of growing up. If morality can be openly discussed, reflected on and analyzed then we can hope that children will know to do what feels best for them when a situation arises.
To comment on what others have said earlier about the morality conflict in the story we read, maybe it’s trying to say that we are born with the ability to sense right and wrong. This is how the boy could tell that what his dad was doing was wrong. I'm not exactly sure though because I found the story somewhat confusing.
I actually have a baby story to reflect on that "sense". I moved to Canada from Macau when I was 1, and according to my parents, I was a very quiet baby who rarely ever cried. However, when we got on the plane to fly here, I started crying non-stop even before the plane started up (it was a 14 hour flight so I don't think I was a much liked baby on that plane). My parents said that it was as if I knew something was different or changing. My parents could have just been over thinking it, and I just didn't like planes or something but who really knows what goes on in a child's mind. But the point is that I believe that children have innate abilities to sense things and maybe morality is one of them.
On another note, I found it interesting how ethics isn't a required course in a lot of faculties that SFU offers. The most odd one I found was that if you're doing a joint major of economics and business administration, you are not required to take an ethics course, however if you're just majoring in business administration it is a requirement to take the course. Is ethics less important when you take economics?
The story "Barn Burning" presented us with many themes. The most obvious and important of which is the boy's struggle to find peace between the battle of his loyalty and his moral. His blood on one hand binds him to his father, who Sarty believes is a hero and he must obey the decisions made. On the other hand his growing moral awareness tells him that what he's doing is wrong. The family is constantly on the move suggesting that the father had been burning barns as revenge to anyone who he thinks has wronged him. Yet from the encounter with de Spain we see that sometimes these confrontations were intentionally caused by the father. Sarty has been in a long dilemma from which he seemed deeply affected. His growing sense of right and wrong conflicts with what his father puts him through, the lying, the destroying of other people’s property, the neglect of the family. It is amazing that growing up under the influence of his father Sarty was still able to distinguish between the right and wrong, and that shows the deep down he is a good person which his father is trying to change, maybe out of spite for knowing that his son is better than him. In the end, Sarty did what is right and walks away, not looking back.
The loyalty by blood is something we all have, a loyalty based on our need of longing.
I think deeply within all of us we have a motivation which drives us towards our parents love. In Sarty's case its the affection from his insensible father. Which I believe makes the love ever more important to him. When this loyalty is confronted with moral the decision is even harder to make, since siding with moral will mostly likely distant one from his family or even lose them. But by making the decision Sarty has chosen the path in which his life will lead.
We chase happiness based on what society tells us is important, for example, we go to school and graduate with certificates and diplomas. We spend most of our lives looking for happiness and to impress others around us based on what others tell us will make us happy. However, society continually raises this bar higher and higher!
If I have everything I need to make me happy according to standards set by society does it make me happy? Nowadays, a post secondary Degree does not guarantee one a job anymore. You cannot be a specialist without a Master’s Degree. I am exhausted and stressed trying to impress others and make them happy. I have lived my life trying hard to do this instead of focusing on my own happiness and what really makes me happy. Do I ask for happiness? Where is happiness? Happiness is everywhere and it changes depending on how we look at things. Often things around us control us and we let this take our happiness away. I would like to try finding new ways to reach happiness instead of doing things for others most of the time. I want to live my own life and expect to be happy and ready to be happy. I believe it would bring a more positive outlook and excitement to my life. Life is for me and I am the one who can make it more interesting and happy.
I really enjoyed this week in class because we got time to write narratives of a personal experience. I chose to write about a previous summer job that I had that I did not think affected me as much as it did. I did not realize it until I wrote about it and then re-read it. I got the opportunity to share my story with two classmates and they really enjoyed it. I’m glad that I wasn’t too nervous to let them read it and they really gave me some good suggestions and told me where my paper needed some work. I also really liked reading their stories that I thought to be much more touching then mine just because of the seriousness of them. I am usually a pretty shy and quiet person in the classroom but the pairing up really helped me open up and be the person I usually am.
Also in class we read another the story “Barn Burning” which I found really confusing, but when we were separated into groups and one of my partners explained it to me very well I thought it to very interesting and moving. I am glad that our class offers potential for grouping; it makes things clearer for me and is a great way of meeting new people. I am starting to think I will really enjoy this class.
Like a few other people that have posted so far, I found this week’s group discussion really interesting. In our small “elementary teacher” group, we talked about the ethical issues that can arise for a teacher in the classroom and whether as teachers-to-be, we are ever given any formal teaching on this. We came to the conclusion that in our year of PDP we do receive some form, however, considering that it is such a huge issue…you would think that it would be required in a much larger sense. On a similar note, this semester I chose to take a Health Science Ethics course to try something different. Although it is interesting in a sense, it is wayyy far from what I usually take (Education and Psych courses). In 3-1/2 years as a student, I have never had a class that has talked about ethics or morality or anything like that, and honestly, I’m finding it extremely overwhelming. Does that not say something? Should an “intro” ethics course in our beginning years as university students possibly be required?
Personally, I have come across the question of “Is this ethical?” numerous times over the years I have been volunteering in elementary school classrooms. In my previous school, I requested to be a volunteer through the principal after which I was quickly assigned to a classroom…no criminal record/background check, no references, nothing. I didn’t think anything of it at the time, but come to think of it now…it’s actually quite shocking. Furthermore however, it came to be that every morning as I walked into the classroom, 5-6 students would come running up to me and wrap their arms around me. I gently pat their backs in response but I was unsure if I was allowed to do anything more. My teacher observed this each time and was always pleased with their eagerness to see me, but to think of it now, I think I would have been a lot more comfortable if someone (teacher, principal, etc) had of explained what I was and was not allowed to do, a set of “ethical guidelines” per say.
Going back to what Juliano said earlier, I also find it strange that an ethics class is required for a business degree but not a joint major in business and econ. I would think that an ethics class would be good for any student to take, no matter what field of study. Learning about ethical debates in your field is a great way to learn what is considered right and wrong and gives real life examples of people who have tried to cheat the system. One reason that I can think of for why econ students don’t need an ethics class though could just be the nature of economics itself. I think the very first thing my microeconomics professor said to our class on the first day of university was along the lines of “If you ask an economist a yes or no question, their answer will always be ‘It depends.’” So if there is no right or wrong in economics, then an ethics class might not be as informative as learning about business ethics and scandals like Bre-X and Enron.
Going along with the topic of ethics, I would have to agree with Shawn and I also think ethics should be a class required for every degree. This being simply because, its about what is right and wrong! There shouldn't be any middle ground, however the economists would disagree with me. Like Shawn had said what his teacher told his class "...it depends;" economists always like to think about both sides of the story.
Personally, I'm going to go into business and ethics is a very important topic. When entering the business field, you can't do things that are wrong, and if you did, you can lose your job and possibly any future plans you have regarding business. For example, I am looking to become a Chartered Accountant and I will have access to very personal information of people or of a companies financial standings. With this information, I would be obligated to keep it secret and make sure no-one will get access to this.
This week's topic about morality and ethics was a subject that I have never really thought about prior to this class. It was very interesting to see how many of us come from different backgrounds and cultures and how we all came to learn and/or perceive from what is considered wrong or right. I personally believe that when it come to one's morals, I do not think there is really a manual where you can learn about morals. I would rather say that it really depends on the type of environment one grows up in and from that, you can perceive what you discover as a guide or a "code of conduct" in one's life. I mean thinking about my own personal background, my parents were religious so growing up in this environment, I learned about morals and ethics through a religious environment. Of course there was also other things such as school and the environment outside of my household (my neighborhood) that also came into play with morality and ethics. In contrast to what others may think, I believe it is important to let teachers be a positive guide to their students in regard to morals and ethics. I mean for a child that grows up in a household where it is not a healthy environment or even a bad neighborhood needs to learn about ethics and morals from somewhere. And I feel that many of us in this country spend a big part of our life at school and I feel that having a positive guide of some sort in life gives one purpose and really see life as a journey especially when your a child. Of course it should not be taught like a manual or no such thing, but like mentioned above, having an open discussion about life and letting children see and learn for themselves to what they believe is morally wrong and right would be an excellent way to guide students.
In addition, I really enjoyed writing about our narratives this week. I really connected with some people in my group as we all had some what similar stories. I do not really want to give to much away since I plan to present this narrative to the class next week but talking about our first days at work and all the crazy things that happened at work (ie: employees stealing from the work place), it was really comforting to see that there were other people in my group that feel the same way I did. For me this was an excellent way to reflect on my life as an employee as well as learn about others around me. In addition discussing this issue amongst one another let us build more upon each others ideas and receiving feedback from everyone gave me new ideas of how to improve and build more on my own writing.
In our groups we discussed the topic of ethics.
We all talked about how it applies to being a teacher
as well as what ethics we are bound to.
I was very interested in discussing this topic because
for my other classes, although not built around ethics,
we have discussed it. In Research, ethic is a crucial
part of the process and must be examined. It was
also in a way funny because that very day, in an earlier class
we were talking about business ethics, and a fellow classmate
commented on how business and ethics should be two different
topics and not combined together.
Personally, I don't think that Ethics should be taught by a
teacher. I feel this way because there are too many aspects
and things that can affect whether something is "ethical"
It is also important to note that the cultural norms and
experiences that one grows up with will affect what the preceive
as ethical.
Last week in class we also read the story "Barn Burning" I am
very interested in listening to what thoughts people have on this
story. While I have already tried to understand it, I am not sure
that I understand the whole meaning of the story. From my own understanding
While facing the dilemma of Family VS. society's moral values, it takes
a lot for a person go grow. "Blood is thicker than water" means that family bonds are
stronger than bonds that are between unrelated people. What about when it's
against your own moral views? The young boy in the story, Sarty is
faced with this dilemma. His father burns down other people barns.
His morals tell him that this is a wrong thing to do, however he is unsure
what he should do, because the person who is doing wrong, is his father after all.
I feel that most people love their family a lot, and it confuses us,
thus the dilemma, when they are doing something that we feel is something
negative in society.
I really did not like the story “Barn Burning” by William Faulkner. I found it hard to follow and irritating. After re reading it, I still didn’t like it but I do appreciate some of the themes that Faulkner presents. I think that part of the reason that the story irritates me is that I really don’t like that a child is put into such an ugly position. I know that this happens in life but I am not interested in reading fiction about it. In reality the boy is going to grow up/ if he grows up, with major problems more than learning to be moral or making ethical choices.
The theme of ethics is interesting and the story does link into this week’s idea. Our group discussed fairly large ethical dilemmas. I know that when asked to write about moral conflict I jumped to the large dramatic incidents. When giving it more thought I think that we make ethical choices everyday that seem to go unnoticed however those everyday choices are what form your ideas to help with the big moral and ethical dilemmas. An example of this is lying. Who made the rule not to lie? If a person does not formulate when they are young that lying is not a good moral choice then lying will become a part of something that they do. This would make a difference when put into a position at work to lie and cover something up or to expose something that could have some negative impacts. A person who practices lying would perhaps be more likely to lie than the person who practices the truth on a daily basis.
The dilemma of loyalty to family versus a more general morality was an interesting one in “Barn Burning.” Interesting as well as extreme. It seemed near the end of the book like that Dad was having a full on mental break down. He provoked a rich farmer and then “retaliated” (though I do not really think you can call it that given how much baiting went on). The way the story is presented, it seems like the boy’s final decision has more to do with the realization that his Dad is a lunatic and an arsonist rather than finally deciding that the barn-burning-retaliation was, morally, too wrong to let happen anymore. Still a hard situation to be in, but it seemed to me like the moral code which the boy had picked up somewhere along the way made ratting his family out a non-decision. The question for me is, given that he is surrounded by lunatics and enablers, where did he pick up this moral code? Stories of the civil war?
The discussion of the need for moral education for teachers brought up some pretty icky subjects in our group. Even acting morally, because of the public perception that many teachers/adults do not, teaching seems to be a profession rather prone to accusations of inappropriate behavior. The consensus in our group was that one has to simply act as best they can and reconcile themselves to the fact that, at some point in their career, accusations will probably pop up no matter what you do.
As we learned in classroom discussion Morality is an aspect of personality and behaviour that is acquired from many sources. Some of the obvious include parents, role models, religion, peers, television, movies, etc. It is not one person/medium teaching children these morals, however a combination of all of them.
Barn Burning, the excerpt distributed in class last week provides an excellent example of this idea of numerous mediums in shaping ones morals. The story begins with Sarty in a courtroom where his father is on trial for the alleged burning of another mans barn. Sarty’s moral dilemma, which involves the repercussion of his father’s actions who was accused of burning the barn of another man. The story proceeds until ultimately Sarty revolts against his own father and refuses to continue to take orders from Abner. This moment is a sort of coming of age realiziation, in reflecting back to last week, where Sarty questions the morals of his own dad. This point makes evident that Sarty’s moral code has been influenced by more people/mediums than just his father. Likely areas could possibly be Sarty’s interactions with classmates at school, or if he doesn’t attend school even interacting with neighbourhood kids in passing or simple games. Sarty also sat in a court and watched his father’s trial; this had to have some influence on him as breaking the law is one of the best ways to measure immorality. One final area Sarty would have received moral guidance is religion. He grew up in the south where religion is as huge part of the culture. By ten years of age Sarty would have experienced a large amount of religious exposure, at church and also from his parents. The point I wanted to make was that the acquiring of morality cannot be pinpointed to one source, it takes a combination of mediums/sources to produce a morally acceptable human being.
As I was thinking and rereading the story from class today I thought about how family loyalties can be a great thing and also a very detrimental thing. As in the story Barn Burning the main character is consistently asked to choose between his family and what he thinks is right. In our current society children in abusive homes are asked to make the same decisions on a daily basis. A child must decide whether to go against his or her family or suffer in silence. The interesting part of this story is at first it seems really out of date and old fashion but when looking beyond the setting the underlying message of the pull between family loyalty and the expectations of society is prevalent even today.
What I found the most disturbing is that the whole family was really powerless under the control of the father. He ultimately decided the actions of the family and how they were going to live their lives. He was so controlled by his anger towards other humans that were better off that he sacrificed his family’s livelihood on a consistent basis. Which means with each whim or argument the family was uprooted and displaced. In abusive households children may be forced to move from town to town or school to school as people become suspicious or begin to ask questions. It made me realize how defenseless small children are and that household realities vary quite significantly.
I have tried to write this reflection many different times, and a few different ways. I have been stumped for most of the week, but I peeked on the blog and found inspiration in Kerri and Salima’s postings. I both agree and disagree with their comments. I believe that it is mainly up to the parents to teach morality to their children. They are responsible for instilling values into their children so they can function in society, and moral conduct is an important aspect of this. However, as the child grows up a majority of their time is spent in school and with his or her teachers; this responsibility transfers to the teacher. The teacher creates their own environment where moral and ethical conduct of the student is reinforced. Teachers ensure that their students do not cheat, steal, or lie, and this is expected from their behaviour every day.
Sometimes children come to school without appropriate moral conduct, and although it should be up to the parents, I feel that the teacher has an obligation to enforce this. School is about education and socialization, and to neglect moral conduct because it is up to the parents seems wrong. In the kindergarten class that I volunteer there is a boy who has difficulty with these classroom rules, and although the parents do not seem to be reinforcing appropriate morals, the teacher takes over and makes sure that he knows this is not an appropriate way to act. Although it is difficult, he is slowly learning. Without the teacher’s intervention, it is possible that these standards of behavior will never be learnt, or at least, will never be valued.
As this is my first comment on this blogsite, I would just like to quickly say something about the class as a whole. I am really enjoying the method in which the course is delivered, that is a small setting, encouraging discussion and participation. I am rarely one who participates in class and can see that the individuals in the class make it a safe environment to allow the shyer individuals to express themselves.
Much like Salima, I found Wednesdays topic of morality very interesting as well as thought provoking. With my group memebers we discussed how we as individuals "learned" - for lack of a better word- the morals which guide our lives. I say " for lack of a better word" as we also discussed how individuals come to understand and acquire mmorals into their being. I think a very vaild question is " are morals learned or are they innate predispositions coded within individuals? I think that morals are learned, much like lessons any child learns (for example a child touching a hot stove element quickly learns that it is hot). a sociologist would attribute learning morals to the agents of socialization; parents, schooling, peer groups/friends and mass media. I really like the discussion this past week about the involvment of the parent in a childs life, and if a lack of involovement by the parent leads to a child turning to other role-models and potentially negative role-models.
I shared with my group as a lifeguard and swimming instructor, I am very cautious of what my boundries are with children. As I see and handle young vulnerable children in swimsuits, I am in a position where if i had no morals, exploitation of these children would be easily done. If a child were to accuse me of touching them inappropriatly and told their parents, whether the accusation is true or false, I would find myself with a problem. I could not call the child a liar, as they would have a benefit of the doubt, and after an investigation by my supervisor I would be either constantly under supervision or fired. Also parents would not want me to teach their children if rumor were out I was touching children.
With reference to "barn burning," Faulkner alludes to a coming of age theme illustrated by a child becoming old enough to understand morals in life. On the surface of the story, Faulkner depicts a family constantly moving as the head of the family, father Abner sets fire to barns belonging to individuals who he feels has angered him. However, to analyse deeper, we can see that there is also a theme of generation gap ideals depicted by Abner and his son Sarty. It is Sarty's coming of age that illustrates the diferent ideas of justice between the generations.
I really enjoyed class today. We had a really good discussion in my groups. We all are studying to become teacher and discussed how there is a code of ethics for teachers. There are rules that a teacher must follow and they are in place to protect the teacher and the students. The guide lines for rules go a bit over top like how a teacher may not hug a child but at the same time I agree with Sue. There really is not anything you can if a child throws themselves into your arms. They may be used to showing their compassion in that way.
I found the reading for this week difficult. I was really lost when reading the article in class and my group members were uncertain what happened as well. So I found a plot summary online that helped me really clear up what happened. I found that this was a really good story showing how the main character understands what is right and wrong, even though it is against what his father believes. I found this story to be very interesting and have a better understanding how hard it is for some children deciding what is right and wrong when they do not have the right role models in there life.
When I read "Barn Burning" I was incredibly confused by this story. The author, William Faulkner, portrays his characters is a different way that made understanding the story a little more difficult than any other story I have read. Once we broke into our small groups and I asked everyone what they thought about the stroy, it was evident that I was not the only one confused! Aside from not completely understanding the story, there was a huge emphasis on Sarty's moral delima between knowing what to do when something he knows if wrong. Sarty's father, Snopes, has been burning down barns to who ever he feels did him wrong which Faulkner then places Sarty on the verge of moral awareness. For a child to be invloved or around this kind of hatred that his father has for society obviously affected Sarty's struggle to figure out right and wrong. It is amazing that he does know the difference and choses not to return home at the end and continue his life on his own. This struggle would be extremely difficult for a young child to expereience as family is mostly the backbone of support for children. And when your father and older brother are creating havoc in a "wrong" way, what else can you do? Sarty, I fell, handled his situation very well and I am amazed that he knew the moral difference between what is right and wrong.
Post a Comment