With that - I got to go to school today. I had an exam in my legal writing class (whiffle ball), so I decided to go to a review session for ethical theory, which preceeds it. Normally, I skip all review whatsoever conducted by people other than people of my choosing, since it tends not to be useful in the least to me, but I was feeling saucy. So out I went. I have to say - nothing could have vindicated my general dislike of review more completely.
This specific test is over Mill and Kant, and their respective moral philosophies (obviously). Normally, during a review you'd expect students to want the professor to explicate some of the more complex themes, and maybe ask methodological or structural questions about the exam itself. You'd be mistaken. As it turns out, the questions people had about the subject material were on a level of "So... could you define 'expediency'?" and the ever elusive, "What is an 'imperfect duty'?" While these may seem like sensible questions to people who have sustained some sort of blunt trauma, they were basically torture to sit through. On top of which, the professor, happy to fill the full time, answered every one of these tough questions. At great length.
Why do people feel it necessary to do that? They just seem either illiterate, in which case they should not be accorded the priviledge of schooling at the higher levels, or just lazy, which I can appreciate to some degree, but being lazy means you have to adhere to the lazy code - which is to say, you have to allow others to be lazy, as well, spreading lazy goodness throughout the land. You do not allow people to be lazy by forcing them to sit through your babbling about if duties can conflict, or by inciting me to punch you in the damn back when you walk out just to regain some sense of justice in the world.
cranked out at 1:53 PM | |
|template © elementopia 2003|