these are the kind of words i always find unsettling....garyb wrote:true morality is not subjective.
Making the world a better place
Re: Making the world a better place
Re: Making the world a better place
yet, there IS right and wrong.
Re: Making the world a better place
of-course there is right and wrong, but these vary according to culture, education, experiences and personality.
there are allot of things i think are wrong, and others would disagree and vise versa.
there are many people out there that are sure evolution is wrong, and even evil.
i feel its a nice solid theory...
there are allot of things i think are wrong, and others would disagree and vise versa.
there are many people out there that are sure evolution is wrong, and even evil.
i feel its a nice solid theory...
Last edited by ReD_MuZe on Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Making the world a better place
There is a right and a wrong for many issues that we agree on fortunately, but there are some things that people don't agree on such as abortion, illegal drug use, prostitution and homosexuality. There are different degrees of wrongness as well. Not all crimes are equally wrong. Its not just black and white, good versus evil as you suggest Gary. That is simplistic, bombastic, conservative thinking and I for one am sick and tired of this mentality.
Re: Making the world a better place
nope, it is simple.
it's the application that gets complicated. culture is artificial and phony, though it can be interesting and fun. it's the imaginary world that is subjective.
braincell, i'm not suggesting anything like you think i am. what you like, don't like or are tired of has no bearing on right and wrong, though you might think it so...
it's the application that gets complicated. culture is artificial and phony, though it can be interesting and fun. it's the imaginary world that is subjective.
braincell, i'm not suggesting anything like you think i am. what you like, don't like or are tired of has no bearing on right and wrong, though you might think it so...
Re: Making the world a better place
Now this is interesting.ReD_MuZe wrote:these are the kind of words i always find unsettling....garyb wrote:true morality is not subjective.
Many people think that the world would be a better place without guns while many (particularly in the US) who want to carry them disagree, but if a woman is walking home from work one night (in say LA) and 2 or 3 guys grab her from behind & drag her into an alley where they beat her up then rape her, would it be right or wrong for her to take her gun out as they walk away laughing & shoot all of them twice in the head each? I'm really not so sure about things like this & doubt very much that there's anything worth considering as 'true morality'. Morality is definitely very subjective indeed, or at least it should be. A guy walks in his front door to find some well known local junkie lowlife bashing his wife's head in because she won't give him cash to go buy cr*ck or something. What's the right or wrong thing for the guy to do? Come on. Even people that have what they consider to be high moral values will lose those values in a split second if faced with certain circumstances. Does the fact that the moral values they thought they had vanished for a particular reason make them bad? If the woman that's just been raped doesn't shoot the rapists when she's got the chance to, does that make her good? I'm not sure...
-
kensuguro
- Posts: 4434
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: BPM 60 to somewhere around 150
- Contact:
Re: Making the world a better place
hmm... I gave morality being subjective/objective a little thought... my take on this is that it is better of being defined as objective. The fact is, an objective morality does not exist, or it may exist in theory, but it is something we cannot attain using our relative / contextual value system. But, by understanding it as something objective... a place we can arrive to, a definite goal, we gain direction. An objective morality is whatever the person may think it is, so by definition, that makes it subjective.
But by defining it as the "ultimate" state of morality, where "ultimate" is an abstract form defined in every culture and tradition, it does become objective. Objective in that it is the "ultimate" that is common throughout all cultures. The best that every culture has to offer.
I think it is the act of persuing an ideal. Ideals may be different, but while a subjective definition of morality may be fabricated for one's good or benefit, if one is asked for an ideal, it is usually different. All in all, if one creates an image of an "objective" morality, which transends his subjective morality, learns to differentiate between the two, and learns to create an "objective" morality through hightening his ideals, refining it... then that will ultimately make the world a better place.. or atleast in theory. I'm sure there will be extremists and strange peopl who will throw the system off somewhat, but in general.
The importance it seems to me, is less about whether an "objective" morality exists or not. It's not even a question of whether any "objective" thing exists or not. It seems it's more about searching for one, and in the process, learning to distance ourselves from the subjective one, and learning to tweak the subjective one from a third person point of view. (whatever the "objective" one happens to be) A third person point of view doesn't have to be from a specifc perspective, it only has to be outside of the context.
It's all quite simple within the realms of meta cognition. A system that is able to cognitively process itself as a system within a system. Like a world with in a world. Being within a culture and outside at the same time. It is a longer linkage of concepts... and it seems a bit convoluted, but it does make sense. Did that sort of outline your thoughts gary?
But by defining it as the "ultimate" state of morality, where "ultimate" is an abstract form defined in every culture and tradition, it does become objective. Objective in that it is the "ultimate" that is common throughout all cultures. The best that every culture has to offer.
I think it is the act of persuing an ideal. Ideals may be different, but while a subjective definition of morality may be fabricated for one's good or benefit, if one is asked for an ideal, it is usually different. All in all, if one creates an image of an "objective" morality, which transends his subjective morality, learns to differentiate between the two, and learns to create an "objective" morality through hightening his ideals, refining it... then that will ultimately make the world a better place.. or atleast in theory. I'm sure there will be extremists and strange peopl who will throw the system off somewhat, but in general.
The importance it seems to me, is less about whether an "objective" morality exists or not. It's not even a question of whether any "objective" thing exists or not. It seems it's more about searching for one, and in the process, learning to distance ourselves from the subjective one, and learning to tweak the subjective one from a third person point of view. (whatever the "objective" one happens to be) A third person point of view doesn't have to be from a specifc perspective, it only has to be outside of the context.
It's all quite simple within the realms of meta cognition. A system that is able to cognitively process itself as a system within a system. Like a world with in a world. Being within a culture and outside at the same time. It is a longer linkage of concepts... and it seems a bit convoluted, but it does make sense. Did that sort of outline your thoughts gary?
Re: Making the world a better place
that'll do, thanks!
i was going to post earlier:
"one has to know what the symbol "morality" actually stood in place of(as the vicar of a thing if you will), to know if such a thing were even possible.
morality is a specific, real thing. the actual thing is not an abstraction, but a reality."
the way you expressed it though, is a better communication for the time being...words are troublesome, abstractions of real things...
i was going to post earlier:
"one has to know what the symbol "morality" actually stood in place of(as the vicar of a thing if you will), to know if such a thing were even possible.
morality is a specific, real thing. the actual thing is not an abstraction, but a reality."
the way you expressed it though, is a better communication for the time being...words are troublesome, abstractions of real things...
-
kensuguro
- Posts: 4434
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: BPM 60 to somewhere around 150
- Contact:
Re: Making the world a better place
well, I think "morality" that I was talking about, and I think gary is referring it to is a little different from what you guys are bringing up, wich seems more concerned with the law, or proper code of conduct as defined by society. Maybe that's where the confusion is.
It's kind of like programming.. so let's say there is a "morality" as a concept. The root, the base, the back end. Then there is the implementation of it. The end result, the front end. The back end, may be common while having different front ends that match specific cultures, contexts, etc. If "morality" as a concept is based on "good will", or maybe "love", as concepts, then those concepts could be a common back end for many different contexts. (just as an example) But the result will be different because the front end will be different. So, that's probably the difference between the objective (or more like "platform independent") backend concept (what gary and I are talking about), vs the different implementations of it (stardust and brain).
Going back to "morality" as concept, I think that although we can theoretically deem it as "can be possibly objective", I don't think it's attainable. I also agree with the implementation of the concept being very context sensitive, and extremely subjective. And if used correctly, that's better because the base concept can be adapted to suite many situations. But obviously, the process of coming up with an implementation (as a society) brings up all sorts of problems, and it's really no miracle that most implementations are chronically broken. Of course, that's not to say that your own personal implementation also has to be broken. That's where I think the improvement can take place.
It's kind of like programming.. so let's say there is a "morality" as a concept. The root, the base, the back end. Then there is the implementation of it. The end result, the front end. The back end, may be common while having different front ends that match specific cultures, contexts, etc. If "morality" as a concept is based on "good will", or maybe "love", as concepts, then those concepts could be a common back end for many different contexts. (just as an example) But the result will be different because the front end will be different. So, that's probably the difference between the objective (or more like "platform independent") backend concept (what gary and I are talking about), vs the different implementations of it (stardust and brain).
Going back to "morality" as concept, I think that although we can theoretically deem it as "can be possibly objective", I don't think it's attainable. I also agree with the implementation of the concept being very context sensitive, and extremely subjective. And if used correctly, that's better because the base concept can be adapted to suite many situations. But obviously, the process of coming up with an implementation (as a society) brings up all sorts of problems, and it's really no miracle that most implementations are chronically broken. Of course, that's not to say that your own personal implementation also has to be broken. That's where I think the improvement can take place.
Re: Making the world a better place
it can be attained, because it's always with you if you've learned to seek it. it is in the nature of things, but not necessarily the thing we call "nature"(the Sphynx ).
i have met moral people. being moral doesn't mean being non-human and a moral person will usually make stardust happy in that he will usually be "responsible", making stardust happy....
Ken is right. laws and customs are not morals, neither are they necessarily moral nor are they necessarily based on any kind of morality, or if they are, the morality they are based on may or may not be very moral. to say the morality is subjective is not true. if there is a human being, there is morality, period, just like if there is a human being, there is poop. poop is not subjective, it is always poop no matter which ass it comes out of, just like there is music. we may not all agree upon what music is or whether it is good or bad, but there is still, bewilderingly at times, but still something that is music everywhere, regardless of artifices such as "culture" and that is the truth about music and the true measuring stick for whether or not it even is music. the thing is, for the most part, sounds can be easily sorted by what is music and what is something else, as easily as apples can be sorted from pineapples.
music is real, even though you don't understand why.
morality is real, ditto.
you are real, but now what? and so what?
art is phony and false, a magic trick.
art has the root of "artifice" and "artificial". see? it is something made by man.
this romance we live is tricky. the language shows it to be false by definition, and yet somehow we continue to mistake the fake world in our minds for the real one.
well, that's enough of making clean minds dirtier(or more truthfully vice versa)....
). i have met moral people. being moral doesn't mean being non-human and a moral person will usually make stardust happy in that he will usually be "responsible", making stardust happy....
Ken is right. laws and customs are not morals, neither are they necessarily moral nor are they necessarily based on any kind of morality, or if they are, the morality they are based on may or may not be very moral. to say the morality is subjective is not true. if there is a human being, there is morality, period, just like if there is a human being, there is poop. poop is not subjective, it is always poop no matter which ass it comes out of, just like there is music. we may not all agree upon what music is or whether it is good or bad, but there is still, bewilderingly at times, but still something that is music everywhere, regardless of artifices such as "culture" and that is the truth about music and the true measuring stick for whether or not it even is music. the thing is, for the most part, sounds can be easily sorted by what is music and what is something else, as easily as apples can be sorted from pineapples.
music is real, even though you don't understand why.
morality is real, ditto.
you are real, but now what? and so what?
art is phony and false, a magic trick.
art has the root of "artifice" and "artificial". see? it is something made by man.
this romance we live is tricky. the language shows it to be false by definition, and yet somehow we continue to mistake the fake world in our minds for the real one.
well, that's enough of making clean minds dirtier(or more truthfully vice versa)....
Re: Making the world a better place
What is moral? Upon which is it based? What is its ultimate aim?
And then, what's its role in the world improvement course?
I need myself trying to find these answers before going on. I need to redefine.
Moral is a non exactly defined behavioural code, a whole of non coercive social norms.
The second answer ain't an easy one to find for me: moral is a wide concept...
It should be based on principles addressed to the construction of a good future at individual and social level.
Agreeing this, it has an important role making the world a better place.
Yes, basical principles of morality are common to many cultures.
These basical principles are elaborated to many directions; often distorted, arranged in ways that end betraying the ultimate aim.
Nevertheless moral is widely despised at all by many people.
And how can a message of morality be spread?
The first means is the example, but I think it also need interpretative keys nowadays..
And then, what's its role in the world improvement course?
I need myself trying to find these answers before going on. I need to redefine.
Moral is a non exactly defined behavioural code, a whole of non coercive social norms.
The second answer ain't an easy one to find for me: moral is a wide concept...
It should be based on principles addressed to the construction of a good future at individual and social level.
Agreeing this, it has an important role making the world a better place.
Yes, basical principles of morality are common to many cultures.
These basical principles are elaborated to many directions; often distorted, arranged in ways that end betraying the ultimate aim.
Nevertheless moral is widely despised at all by many people.
And how can a message of morality be spread?
The first means is the example, but I think it also need interpretative keys nowadays..
Last edited by Cochise on Sat Oct 25, 2008 12:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Making the world a better place
i like this yin yang of destruction and creation.
this is the motivator of change.
this is the motivator of change.
Re: Making the world a better place
Talking of subjective vs. objective only misses the point. It reduces the issue to an individual one, while it is social, instead. I'd say "conventional", in the sense that some rules are considered the right ones for a community and someone has to observe them to be accepted.
The word "morality" comes from the latin "mos" (genitive=moris), which means exactly "custom", "usage" or "way of life". Let's stick to the correct meaning, otherwise use a different word if you mean anything different.
One real difference is in the source. For someone is God, for others is Nature, both of those ideas have produced very different moralities because many are the religions and the experiences of Nature. Given that history and anthropology show very noticeable differences in morality conceptions, their "relativity" is a fact.
Relativity doesn't mean subjectivity, that is a very common error between the absolutists. Relativity means "connection", "interdependence" with the changing reality.
Another real difference is in the procedures followed to determine morality. Being morality a social phenomenon, the procedures reflect the social dynamics. No need to explain the difference between Taliban morality and Zen morality as it is enormous and evident. Nevertheless they both express a form of morality. The fact that one comes from an absolutist theistic philosophy and the other one is the idea that only a mind free from any conditioning is morally elevated, doesn't change their respective nature of "moralities", as both of them imply some quite tough discipline to be accomplished. But you're not equally free in one context or another. Christian morality is not different at all from the Taliban morality, it is just tamed (fortunately) by the different social and political conditions of the western countries where it is more spread, but if you have a look at its history you'll see a history of horrors and violence and, still now, it has the same absolutist attitude to try forcing everyone to its rules (which, like the Taliban ones, are based on the mortification of Nature), even if non believers or believers in something else.
The word "morality" comes from the latin "mos" (genitive=moris), which means exactly "custom", "usage" or "way of life". Let's stick to the correct meaning, otherwise use a different word if you mean anything different.
One real difference is in the source. For someone is God, for others is Nature, both of those ideas have produced very different moralities because many are the religions and the experiences of Nature. Given that history and anthropology show very noticeable differences in morality conceptions, their "relativity" is a fact.
Relativity doesn't mean subjectivity, that is a very common error between the absolutists. Relativity means "connection", "interdependence" with the changing reality.
Another real difference is in the procedures followed to determine morality. Being morality a social phenomenon, the procedures reflect the social dynamics. No need to explain the difference between Taliban morality and Zen morality as it is enormous and evident. Nevertheless they both express a form of morality. The fact that one comes from an absolutist theistic philosophy and the other one is the idea that only a mind free from any conditioning is morally elevated, doesn't change their respective nature of "moralities", as both of them imply some quite tough discipline to be accomplished. But you're not equally free in one context or another. Christian morality is not different at all from the Taliban morality, it is just tamed (fortunately) by the different social and political conditions of the western countries where it is more spread, but if you have a look at its history you'll see a history of horrors and violence and, still now, it has the same absolutist attitude to try forcing everyone to its rules (which, like the Taliban ones, are based on the mortification of Nature), even if non believers or believers in something else.
Re: Making the world a better place
i love the breakdown into latin, good job!
the only thing is, all this brainwork and moral relativism just makes excuse for bad behavior. i'll happily use another word, but cultural bias and point of veiw don't even enter into it. i don't care what people think. there's a true reality that is unaffected by opinions and this is the only one worth respecting, and my opinion on the matter is irrelevant. if i come over and kick you in the balls, we'll find out more about it...
the only thing is, all this brainwork and moral relativism just makes excuse for bad behavior. i'll happily use another word, but cultural bias and point of veiw don't even enter into it. i don't care what people think. there's a true reality that is unaffected by opinions and this is the only one worth respecting, and my opinion on the matter is irrelevant. if i come over and kick you in the balls, we'll find out more about it...
Re: Making the world a better place
Many different moralities are built having common atoms, apart from the different modalities by which they manifest themselves.
Considering the talibans issue I can say extreme (and bloody) banning of (relative) immorality is considered immoral by western morality.
Ok, now I'm really going very confused!
My personal morality makes me consider the extreme ( even unbloody ) banning of immorality as an immorality. This should has to be a certainty.
And it should be useless to say crimes of course are another issue; they're not just immoral, they're crimes...
Other considerations I'm gonna make at now concern the individual/social issue:
Till which point some moral principles (yes I prefer to consider moral PRINCIPLES and not RULES) affect the individual sphere only and not the social?
Considering the talibans issue I can say extreme (and bloody) banning of (relative) immorality is considered immoral by western morality.
Ok, now I'm really going very confused!
My personal morality makes me consider the extreme ( even unbloody ) banning of immorality as an immorality. This should has to be a certainty.
And it should be useless to say crimes of course are another issue; they're not just immoral, they're crimes...
Other considerations I'm gonna make at now concern the individual/social issue:
Till which point some moral principles (yes I prefer to consider moral PRINCIPLES and not RULES) affect the individual sphere only and not the social?
Last edited by Cochise on Sat Oct 25, 2008 7:29 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Re: Making the world a better place
The opposite. The worst behaviors come from absolutism, like history demonstrates. If you try to hurt me I'm not reacting because your behavior is immoral, but because I must defend myself. That comes before morality. Then, the optimization of our reciprocal advantage puts us in "society" and we agree on rules whose purpose is an easier life for both.garyb wrote:i love the breakdown into latin, good job!
the only thing is, all this brainwork and moral relativism just makes excuse for bad behavior.
But if one of us has got more power he can impose his own set of rules....elites try to impose their own set of rules for their advantage, usually claiming some superior truth or being of sort. The concept of absolute truth comes to play only when the rules are not really convincing and convenient for everyone and the fear of earthly or supernatural punishments keeps the sheep silent.
The fact is that even admitting an absolute truth, and i don't, the simple fact that almost no one agrees on it makes it useless.
It's much easier to agree on relative truths for a better life in a certain context, you are even happier to settle somewhere in between and concede something as this is not going to prove you wrong but just clever.
Re: Making the world a better place
If there always is a right and a wrong then who gets to decide what it is? Why can't something be both right and wrong at the same time? It's interesting to me that people try to simplify everything. It's not always like picking which team to bet on at a football game. Life is often much more complicated than that. I guess people are just too stupid to consider the intricate details of things.
Last edited by braincell on Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
kensuguro
- Posts: 4434
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: BPM 60 to somewhere around 150
- Contact:
Re: Making the world a better place
well, I would have to say that if the issue of morality, and all the burden it carries with it, gives rise to such controversy, then the concept itself is of no value to me. The word itself is pretty much useless. Perhaps we can call it "jello putty" or whatever. I seriously doubt that doing good, and having good will requires such scrutiny. At least I don't see it happen when someone chooses to do evil. Besides, I've already defined my share of making the world a better place, and it doesn't really involve messing with people's morals. (directly) So, the issue of morality just happened to pop up in the process.
The fact that we are sitting here getting all technical about this stuff proves that without agreeing that there is something we must all accomplish ("good", or "make the world better") at some sort of conceptual, common level, shows that comparing interpretations only can get you so far. You can call the "common" part whatever you wish, just label it, and get on to acting on it.
Frankly, all the details of the conceptual build of doing good, has no effect on my, or your capability to do good and to contribute to society. It isn't such a technical task. Or, at least I think there isn't enough of it to the point that the technical issues come into play. As I've already said before, what I want to do is to help people develop or obtain the facilities to think about such things. If one does not have the facilities to question and think about morality (or any issue), what things should be like, ability to gather information, etc, then there is no doubt a moral breakdown will occur. (which we are already in) And that probably doesn't even require a technical breakdown of what morality is.
If we can carry out a conversation about meaning within context, relative values, etc. we are all fortunate. There are so many people out there who do not own the conceptual framework to deal with such abstract matters, or matters that require manipulating huge chunks of concepts at a time. There are many people who have a hard time even thinking ahead of time, planning for the benefit of perhaps themselves or their familiy. It is because they do not know how to drive their brains very well, most likely resulting from extremely poor education. And again, I do not know what it is I can do through music, but I wish that I can do something about it. The implementation is certainly up in the air, but the act of trying to change this, to me, is not very technical at all.
The fact that we are sitting here getting all technical about this stuff proves that without agreeing that there is something we must all accomplish ("good", or "make the world better") at some sort of conceptual, common level, shows that comparing interpretations only can get you so far. You can call the "common" part whatever you wish, just label it, and get on to acting on it.
Frankly, all the details of the conceptual build of doing good, has no effect on my, or your capability to do good and to contribute to society. It isn't such a technical task. Or, at least I think there isn't enough of it to the point that the technical issues come into play. As I've already said before, what I want to do is to help people develop or obtain the facilities to think about such things. If one does not have the facilities to question and think about morality (or any issue), what things should be like, ability to gather information, etc, then there is no doubt a moral breakdown will occur. (which we are already in) And that probably doesn't even require a technical breakdown of what morality is.
If we can carry out a conversation about meaning within context, relative values, etc. we are all fortunate. There are so many people out there who do not own the conceptual framework to deal with such abstract matters, or matters that require manipulating huge chunks of concepts at a time. There are many people who have a hard time even thinking ahead of time, planning for the benefit of perhaps themselves or their familiy. It is because they do not know how to drive their brains very well, most likely resulting from extremely poor education. And again, I do not know what it is I can do through music, but I wish that I can do something about it. The implementation is certainly up in the air, but the act of trying to change this, to me, is not very technical at all.
Re: Making the world a better place
Everyone likes to think that what they are doing is helping people but are they? Say you are a music teacher for instance; you may think you are making the world a better place by teaching people to make music but what if I think your music style is horrible and you are spreading and perpetuating this awful sound to future generations. I would say you are making the world a worse place.
-
kensuguro
- Posts: 4434
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: BPM 60 to somewhere around 150
- Contact:
Re: Making the world a better place
improving one's FACILITY to think has nothing to do with whatever the person chooses to do with it. There really is no value associated with it that gets transfered in the process. Or at least that isn't the point of it.
In your example, it is free for you to say whether the process was futile, harmful, or good. That really makes no difference to the fact that a future generation of musicians was born. Those who are free to use what they've learned, and break / improve things that they felt were not to their likings. Whether it is a step back or not, is up to how the students put the knowledge into practice.
Contrary to popular belief, I think education does not mame people, regardless of what is taught (unless it is intentionally done to misinform). The only difference is, if the people have the capability to question, take apart, and re-process the information, then something new can be created from even the most broken things. Without that ability, then education is merely a form of lossy copy. And fortunately, it doesn't have to be that way.
I do see the point you are trying to bring up through the example though. Basically I understand it as "doing good can backfire if you don't know what you're doing". And that is very true I think. It's like DDT, which killed mosquitos that caused malaria, but was later found to have cause all sorts of other problems. So, sure, a certain amount of thought has to go in before one runs out to cause an impact on the world. But that isn't to say that all impact on the world will go wrong. With the right amount of thought, I think we are capable of making change in the right direction. Or at the very least, we can correct the many wrongs that have already been done. But the process will never start if you do not give thought to what should be done, or how something could be done with best long term results. That is apathy, and the overabundance of it is what brings us deeper into... uhm, crap.
It is true that many "good" things have dual messaging, and usually carry with it some sort of commercial benefit, or perhaps benefits some organization specifically, while silently paralizing another. It is true that at certain times, something we don't know about very well, but seems "good" can backfire in the long run. It's also true that at times, what is presented as "good" is completely evil in the first place. There is so much of this stuff, that I can understand people becoming extremely skeptical of anything "good". Never take anything for face value, always watch out for the catch, always read the fine print, etc. etc.
But if that causes us to just give up and accept all the saccharin goodness, then who will question the clever tactics? Who will help the farmed consumers in figuring out just what it is their live's purpose is? (I think a large part of a country just farms consumers like farm animal) Keeping the dumb, dumb, and keeping the smart separate works very well economically.. but that doesn't click very well with me. I doubt it requires my personal opinion to show that there is something significantly wrong with the structure. All in all though, I do want to empower the dumb, and somehow put a brake on this continuously uni-directional parasitic relationship. I know it's even stupid to be wishing for such a thing. But that is what I wish my productions to work towards.
In your example, it is free for you to say whether the process was futile, harmful, or good. That really makes no difference to the fact that a future generation of musicians was born. Those who are free to use what they've learned, and break / improve things that they felt were not to their likings. Whether it is a step back or not, is up to how the students put the knowledge into practice.
Contrary to popular belief, I think education does not mame people, regardless of what is taught (unless it is intentionally done to misinform). The only difference is, if the people have the capability to question, take apart, and re-process the information, then something new can be created from even the most broken things. Without that ability, then education is merely a form of lossy copy. And fortunately, it doesn't have to be that way.
I do see the point you are trying to bring up through the example though. Basically I understand it as "doing good can backfire if you don't know what you're doing". And that is very true I think. It's like DDT, which killed mosquitos that caused malaria, but was later found to have cause all sorts of other problems. So, sure, a certain amount of thought has to go in before one runs out to cause an impact on the world. But that isn't to say that all impact on the world will go wrong. With the right amount of thought, I think we are capable of making change in the right direction. Or at the very least, we can correct the many wrongs that have already been done. But the process will never start if you do not give thought to what should be done, or how something could be done with best long term results. That is apathy, and the overabundance of it is what brings us deeper into... uhm, crap.
It is true that many "good" things have dual messaging, and usually carry with it some sort of commercial benefit, or perhaps benefits some organization specifically, while silently paralizing another. It is true that at certain times, something we don't know about very well, but seems "good" can backfire in the long run. It's also true that at times, what is presented as "good" is completely evil in the first place. There is so much of this stuff, that I can understand people becoming extremely skeptical of anything "good". Never take anything for face value, always watch out for the catch, always read the fine print, etc. etc.
But if that causes us to just give up and accept all the saccharin goodness, then who will question the clever tactics? Who will help the farmed consumers in figuring out just what it is their live's purpose is? (I think a large part of a country just farms consumers like farm animal) Keeping the dumb, dumb, and keeping the smart separate works very well economically.. but that doesn't click very well with me. I doubt it requires my personal opinion to show that there is something significantly wrong with the structure. All in all though, I do want to empower the dumb, and somehow put a brake on this continuously uni-directional parasitic relationship. I know it's even stupid to be wishing for such a thing. But that is what I wish my productions to work towards.