A private university in Georgia is forcing its roughly 278 employees to sign a statement that rejects pre-marital sex, homosexuality, and drinking in public — or risk termination. Shorter University’s “personal lifestyle statement” says that the school will only employ Christians who closely follow the Bible and regularly attend church.
And I suppose dogging is out of the question …
But seriously, here’s a case of a private institution being able to legislate morality in a way that the state finds much more difficult. And as more and more of our common lives are moving way from the public (state) sphere towards the private (education is very much part of this trend) we’re likely to see an increasing shift towards this ‘privatised morality’. I wonder: will companies dictate our moral behaviour in return for a pay check?
This is a very intersting topic to choose as this will effect a good number of people on the Social Change course.
when entering a private corporation people are already being dictated by the code of conduct people have to read when signing documents which- in generalisation dictate the meaning of signing your life away.
I assume the decision to have made the choice to follow this corporation already eliminates the freedom of how much moral practice people can make. I guess what i am trying to say is that the compnay already owns you. But I think the real question that needs to be asked here is by how much can they dictate on people moral behaviours?
add_theme_support( 'post-formats', array( 'aside', 'chat', 'gallery', 'image', 'link', 'quote', 'status', 'video', 'audio' ) );privatisation of anything simutaenously gives that something a fence. It is only then people who have the right to either drive that fence down or simply go through it that can have say to how that fence stays for and for how long of a time. The notion of power highlights that people will then have to buy the rights to what they already have. people say will it be stealing if it is already stolen?
This is one expression to explain the that people do not have that much right to begin with and that to live morally is to then give the rights to people to ‘own you’.
add_theme_support( 'post-formats', array( 'aside', 'chat', 'gallery', 'image', 'link', 'quote', 'status', 'video', 'audio' ) );Libertarians fight for the right of freedom. when people enter a private organisation how much freedom will you have? Well if you think about going into a box by choice then you will only have the amount of freedom the box allows. so when there are many boxes there is the illusion that people have much freedom to choose any box, but in hindsight they only have a few boxes to choose from. It would be another story if those people could decide what boxes people can choose from which changes the dynamics of freedom and the notion of control.
Can control be an essence of freedom and does freedom then predict control? I think this pattern of thinking can certainly state how much people can morally behave in any organisation they enter into. As Kant would say there is no point in lying how much freedom you have, when you don’t have it in the first place.
add_theme_support( 'post-formats', array( 'aside', 'chat', 'gallery', 'image', 'link', 'quote', 'status', 'video', 'audio' ) );