One Sentence Conundrums

Respond to a couple of these. Consider applying them to contemporary events.

Can a person make a conscious decision to deal with problems by relegating them to the subconscious?

When leaders say equitable, do they really mean redistribution of wealth?

Do you agree with the premise that the best way to prepare people for a specific profession lies in educating them broadly?

How can a show of force actually induce a meaningful peace?

How should institutions balance morality and efficacy?

Which seems more true: that discussions of controversial subjects should be avoided, or that most things worth discussing involve controversy?

This entry was posted in Education, Ethics, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to One Sentence Conundrums

  1. Elijah Camba says:

    I would say that institutions should balance efficacy and morality by finding a way to produce the best results while not risking or harming the physical or mental capabilities of others. Yet, depending on the situation and various factors, finding the balance can prove to be tough. This balance takes time to find. Examples of institutions that still deal with finding a balance would be the education system, Amazon facilities, Fast Food Restaurants, and many minimum wage jobs.

    I believe that most things worth discussing involve controversy. Controversy, in my eyes, is caused by a misunderstanding or a clash between two strong ideologies. However, despite the consequences of having these conversations, especially in the modern day, I still believe there could be some benefits as a discussion of these topics allow for a deeper understanding of current events and also allows for solutions to be formed.

  2. Bill Arnoldus says:

    Most things worth discussing involve controversy. Take Andrew Tate and Alex Jones as an example. Everything they say is controversial. Andrew Tate got taken off of social media, Alex Jones got taken to court and got charged $41 million dollars. If everyone avoided controversy then opinions would never develop and people would never change their minds on important topics. (please don’t take me as an Andrew Tate fan)

    A show of force can induce meaningful peace. During the era when the Soviet Union was in power, if there was an uprising or rebellion, the Soviets would roll in the tanks and crush it. This kept the Soviet Union in power and peace relatively in check. When Gorbachev came into power and refused to send it tanks, choosing peace, instead, revolutions happened left and right, state governments were toppled, dictators assassinated. The places that gained their independence were surely happy, but the Russians view this as an utter disaster and a time of chaos.

  3. Jacqueline Smith says:

    I think that people should receive a broad education at first, but when they are the appropriate age/grade to know what they want to do, there should be more of a focus on subjects that would be beneficial for that profession. At my home school we had career and technology courses such as culinary arts, health sciences, even teacher academy. Students should still take courses that teach essential skills such as algebra and English. On the other hand, I don’t think it’s necessary for a student who wants to be a pastry chef to be required to take calculus and philosophy courses.
    Secondly, I think that most things worth discussing involve controversy. No one would bother to go back and forward on accepted truths unless there was a facet to that subject that involved some sort of issue. People shouldn’t avoid controversial subjects, or else the issue at hand would be ignored. This can be applied to civil rights, women’s health, slurs and cultural unawareness, basically most things worth discussing.

  4. Nicolas Neal says:

    An implicit show of force has induced an era of unprecedented peace. Ever since the success of the Manhattan Project, nuclear weaponry has ensured some measure of international tranquility through the unwavering threat of mutually assured destruction. Nations are dissuaded from military offences due to to potential of nuclear retaliation, preventing expensive conflicts. The Cold War and its accompanying proxy wars are some exceptions, so the extent of protection guaranteed by MAD is limited.

    Morality as a concept plagues social institutions enough already. Either of its forms has little place in the functions they serve, as descriptive morality pertains only to observations of what happens to be the concerns of an individual or group at a particular place or time, and normative morality is a theoretical pursuit, whose compulsion escapes nearly all but those of religious persuasions. It boils down to what makes someone feel smiley or frowny, not some metatheory that wholly describes morality and defines all possible action into categories of “good” or “bad.” It’s not particularly meaningful to “balance morality with efficacy.”

    Controversial topics will be discussed whether you’d like them to be or not. Otherwise they wouldn’t be so controversial.

  5. Mira Patel says:

    Yes, a person can make a conscious decision to deal with problems by demoting them to their subconscious. Many people believe that the greatest ideas and best problem solving come from a conscious mind when in fact, the subconscious mind is able to make efficient decisions by thinking about them in detail. The conscious mind takes care of day to day tasks such as cooking dinner, working, and studying, while the subconscious mind is able focus on things that require extensive thought. The subconscious mind is also able to think creatively and provides the brain with thoughtful ideas.

    I believe that preparing people for specific professions requires courses related to their future field of study rather than a broad variety of courses. Of course some courses may be useful in some ways to the person’s future career and not useful in others. I believe that they should take these courses in addition to the specific courses because they can provide some background and useful development of skills. For example, all students should take a composition class no matter what field of study they plan to go in to because everyone should learn how to write in an effective manner. However, an English major should not be required to take higher math classes such as calculus.

    Many things that are discussed in our day and age often revolve around controversy. I think that things that are worth discussing often have some sort of controversy related to them. For example, important issues such as gun control, abortion rights, privacy rights, and animal rights. Although surrounded in controversy, they are important things to discuss about as a society. Almost anything in our world involves controversy, and I believe that people should not be afraid to speak up about these issues.

  6. Gracyn Young says:

    >How can a show of force actually induce meaningful peace?
    Just because something is meaningful, doesn’t mean that it is for the best. Taking into consideration the Holocaust, or any other major mass genocides, what was once a vicious fight, turned quickly into peace as the victims died off. Peace is meaningful, in this context, because it is a symbol of hatred, violence, and corruption of power.

    >How should institutions balance morality and efficacy?
    Larger institutions, that have the ability to provide more benefits to their workers, should consider doing so in order to balance out the morality of having someone work for their gain. Benefits include that of higher salaries, more/longer paid leave, vacation time, etc.

    >Which seems more true: that discussions of controversial subjects should be avoided, or that most things worth discussing involve controversy?
    Personally, I believe that most things that hold the most meaning and potential impact are those that invoke controversy. Controversy is stemmed from the difference of opinions and if everyone had the same opinion on topics, there would be no meaningful need to discuss them.

  7. Ava Wilson says:

    Which seems more true: that discussions of controversial subjects should be avoided, or that most things worth discussing involve controversy?

    Most things worth discussing involve controversy seems the most true to me because if we didn’t discuss controversial things then where would our society be today? Would I have the ability to vote as a woman? Would African-Americans still be in slavery? Our society would be completely rid of progress. Sure if we didn’t discuss controversial things we wouldn’t have to go through all the trouble of fixing those problems, but is that moral? To let people suffer simply because we don’t feel like helping them is worth it because it’s controversial? No.

    When leaders say equitable, do they really mean redistribution of wealth?

    In a capitalist society? No. Redistribution of wealth is the exact opposite of capitalism. The definition of equitable can be different for each person and their individual opinions, and (I’m pretty much just talking about America because it’s the most relevant to my life) the only situation where you would find somebody who did mean redistribution of wealth by equitable, is if they were socialist or communist, and have fun trying to do that.

  8. Max Feng says:

    I do believe that educating broadly will prepare people for a specific profession. In today’s world, with more complex research, many areas of study are needed to solve more problems. For example, while looking at research articles for one of my classes, I noticed that computer science is often mixed with other areas of study, like biology. Biology and computer science are not often taught together, but it has allowed researchers to find effective amino acid pairings and more. Having a basic understanding of different fields will allow researchers/students to create and solve new problems.

    I think that controversial topics are worth talking about. If done correctly, it allows people to look at a case in a new way and might lead to solutions being formed. People should not be forced to accept ideas, but instead, consider them.

  9. Alex White says:

    I believe that everyone should initially be educated broadly but as people begin to find their passions and become interested in specific professions, they should have the chance to be educated in those specific areas. This is where the grey area in education occurs. Most people do not get specialized education in their specific professions until their second year of college. Should people wait to get specialized education about their profession, or should they get it earlier on? I believe that people should get specialized education earlier, starting in 9th grade. This way it allows them to get acclimated to their chosen profession, learn the general aspects of their profession, and determine if that profession is something that will continue to interest them.

    Most things that are worth discussing are controversial. Ideas on gun law, abortion, systemic racism, etc. are some of the most controversial topics that one could mention in a conversation. But fear and avoidance has done nothing but created division, pain, and confusion. Although controversial topics may be uncomfortable, temporary unease is a small price to pay for healing, acceptance, and unity.

  10. James Talamo says:

    Can a person make a conscious decision to deal with problems by relegating them to the subconscious?

    It depends on what you define as dealing with problems. Sure, they can be shoved away and ignored until they either disappear or consequences arrive, but that isn’t really “dealing” with things. Someone can’t say they are trying to address something without actually taking actions to remedy the issue at hand. If someone is okay with dealing with the consequences of their decision, however, then it could be said that pushing a problem to the back of their head is possible. Once someone is at peace with a decision, only then can it be consciously pushed to the subconscious.

    Do you agree with the premise that the best way to prepare people for a specific profession lies in educating them broadly?

    No, I do not. I believe that this should be an option for students, but I also believe that there should be some higher level of specialty training available to high school and college students. For students that don’t know what they want to do, then the broad option is wonderful. But that doesn’t consider the large population of high school students who choose not to pursue a college degree. If people so chose, they should be able to take only specifics for what they want to become.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *