Hold on ...let's think LO11666

Richard K. Berger (rkberger@rkb.com)
Sun, 05 Jan 1997 10:53:03 -0500

Replying to LO11613 --

Whether it is Cant's categorical imperative, or Aristotles writings on
ethics, or the writings of Jaspers, the DISCUSSION of morality/ethics is
itself part of what makes up ourselves as a species. With that said, I
agree with what you said -- except to a dd that I do not find discussions
of morality difficult. I find these discussions very enjoyable.

But, with that said, do learning organizations need to be moral to be
effective? Is technology (artifical intelligence excluded) even capable
of being categorized as either moral or immoral?

-- rkb

At 11:58 PM 12/30/96 EST, you wrote:

>Ben asked at one point why we spend so much time talking about technology
>and so little time talking about morality.
>On this LO some time back, we came to the conclusion that there was no
>clear universal morality. There is a morality, but each individual holds
>their own. Even something as basic as the sacredness of life was not
>sustainable as a "universal truth" or a self-evident truth. This lack of
>universality makes it very difficult to have even a basic conversation
>about it.

> Rol Fessenden


"Richard K. Berger" <rkberger@rkb.com>

Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>