Technical Morality

“Our technologies establish the truth of many of our scientific laws.” Is there any comparable means of establishing moral rules and norms?

Making a statement that science and technology are synonymous is fundamentally wrong as well. Science is a process and technology is a possible outcome of the process.

Technology should never define morality. It should not be a factor in what people decide is right and wrong. Instead, humanity should work to define what actions are right and wrong in respect to their morals. What we do with the technology we have is argued about frequently. This is a problem that has plagued the human race since the dawn of time. Just because a caveman CAN bash someone’s head in with a club doesn't mean SHOULD. Just because someone can point a gun and pull a trigger doesn't mean they should. Technology does however cause the norms of society to change. Technology can improve the standard of living and often does. If a family can afford the expense, it is unlikely that they will not have a cell phone. This is a phenomenon that is very heavily relied on in today's busy lifestyle. Not having a cell phone can be seen as a disadvantage in many cases. As a teenager it is socially crippling to not be able to be in direct contact with your friends. This may isolate you because you are not as easy to reach and make plans with. Many kids my age wouldn't know what to do if they didn't have a way to talk to their friends on a constant and regular basis. In business, there is a very big disadvantage to not being accessible at all times of the day. This can result in missed deals or less opportunity. Wireless technology has brought the world even closer. If you are not a phone call away, your success will be extremely limited if possible at all.

Although technology has changed the way we see the world there are still basic moral rules that should be followed. Does technology make the way we look at things change? Killing is seen as wrong in almost every culture around the world. However, throughout history there have been more attempts to create new ways to torture or kill another human being than any other focus. Why would there be so much effort put into something that the majority of the world sees as inherently wrong? It could be human nature to go against the social norm. It also may stem from our animal idea of survival of the fittest. This has changed from the smaller fight of who has the bigest stick to who has the biggest bomb. The ability to kill the most people in the quickest and easiest way has defined the world leaders since international trade began. Has the relative ease of murder changed the idea that it is morally wrong to take the life of a fellow human? I think the justice system has proven that this although there is a faster increase of the ways you can commit murder, that does not make it okay to do so. Can you blame someone for murder when there are so many means of doing so? Common law around the world has answered this with a YES.

Clearly, there are ways that technology can change teh ways in which people interact, but not the way in which they should act.

Evaluating Knowledge Through The Learning Process

“What distinguishes Areas of Knowledge from one another is not how ideas are generated, but how they are evaluated.” Do you agree? The general areas of knowledge--in a school setting--are Math, Science, Social Studies, and Reading and Writing. The last two are complimentary. They all coexist to give a broad area of common knowledge that society has decided is necessary to know before adulthood. This is why we study them for high school graduation requirements. If you've been to high school, it is evident that the approach to teaching each subject is different. Some subjects are better taught through hands on approach. In contrast, there are some concepts that are easier to grasp through visual means of learning. The five basic ways of learning are visual, verbal, kinesthetic, audio, and tactile (or hands-on). There has been more emphasis on the most efficient way of learning is different for each learner in a school setting, but many students have to adapt to the way that a subject is best taught. They also must adapt to the way the teacher prefers to teach their subject of choice. It is not hard to believe that the way a subject is evaluated has roots in the best way that it is taught. Because of this, looking at the end result of evaluation is not as important as the beginning when the knowledge is learned. Visual learners learn best from seeing the knowledge they are supposed to be learning. People with a more photographic memory are more likely to be visual learners because of their ability to remember the information they see. This is valuable in a math class if you can remember the process that a teacher shows you. Does this mean that Math is distinguished by the fact that it may be better learned by a visual learner? Verbal learners are more adaptable and prefer putting information into language. Taking notes and repeat the information that is given to them. This is the type of person that would excel in English classes. Putting information into their own language to better understand it is often the best way for them to learn. Taking notes is a skill that is very stressed in school, which may lead these students to succeed and get better grades. Verbal learning is at the core of English, which makes it reasonable that this is a defining factor of this subject. Kinesthetic learners are more independent learners. They have a need to see how something works first hand to understand it. Watching someone do something isn't helpful to these learners. They need to manipulate the situation themselves. These students aren't as active in school and tend to get bored. You see these kids really standing out in science experiments that they can participate in. Being able to see and be a part of a process is the best for kinesthetic learner. It is not logical to say that this means science can only be learned through kinesthetic, however. There are multiple approaches that can be taken to teach science which makes it impractical to label it based on the way a specific learner absorbs this information.

The ability to remember the things you hear makes you more of an audio learner. These are the types of people that can recall what someone told them years ago whenever something triggers that memory. This results in students that may need to study a lot or read something out loud to themselves. These learners strive in a setting where a lecture takes place. History is a great subject that can be greatly taught through speech. This is the way stories were passed down for hundreds of years before written language was developed. Once again, there are various ways that History can be taught which makes it indefinable by one style of learning.

Tactile learners relate closely to kinesthetic learners. These are logical thinkers that see things in a step by step manner. Tactiles learn to figure things out in their heads. They also tend to take apart something to see how it works. Like kinesthetics, they may lead towards the sciences, but especially engineering. They can also fall into the mathematician category because much of math is a step by step process. Cause and effect of historical events has its appeal as well because of the similiar cycles that have been seen in the past. The writing process can also be very methodical which can draw in a tactical learner. Since this kind of learner can find a way to strive in many settings, does it mean that there is a common basis among the Areas of Knowledge? I believe that areas of knowledge are defined based on the way individuals best learn the subject area. This is what has separated knowers since teaching began.