Ethical neutrality Essay Example

believe is significant.The proponents of practical ratings in education are advocating for clear distinction between empirical facts and subjective evaluations. This is important to avoid confusion among the audience regarding the different types of propositions. The first perspective, (a), is acceptable and can be supported by its own advocates. However, it is crucial for the instructor to take on the responsibility of clearly indicating which statements are based on logical deduction or empirical observation, and which ones are statements of practical evaluation. While this may make the lecture less stimulating, it is necessary for rational honesty. This requirement is the bare minimum in this case. On the other hand, the question of whether or not to assert practical evaluations in education, with this reservation, is a matter of practical university policy. Ultimately, it should be decided based on the tasks that individuals assign to universities according to their own values.Those who assign the role of organizing character, instilling beliefs, and achieving valuable effects through specialized preparation by university instructors take a different position from those who believe that intellectual integrity is the sole virtue that universities should seek to instill. Both perspectives can be defended from different viewpoints. The second perspective, which I personally accept, can be derived from a modest estimation of the significance of specialized training. One may adopt this position because they do not want to treat personal decisions the same as specialized preparation. This position can be taken regardless of one's assessment of the significance of specialized preparation for general intellectual preparation and ethical attitudes of young individuals.Another reason for choosing this place is that one does not want the student

to be influenced by the teacher's suggestions to the point where they are unable to solve their own problems according to their own conscience. Personally, I understand Professor von Schmoller's positive attitude towards the teacher's statement of their own ratings in the lecture room as a reflection of a significant era that he and his friends helped create. However, he cannot deny the fact that for the younger generation, the objective situation has changed significantly in one important aspect. Forty years ago, there was a widespread belief among scholars in our field that only one of the various possible perspectives in practical-political assessments was ethically correct (although Schmoller himself only partially held this position). Today, this is no longer the case among proponents of professorial ratings, as can be easily observed. The legitimacy of professorial ratings is no longer defended in the name of an ethical imperative based on a relatively simple notion of justice, which was partly clear and objective due to its trans-personal nature. Instead, it has evolved as a result of inevitable development.The text argues against the practice of professors expressing their subjective cultural evaluations and alleged rights of personality under the guise of practical evaluations. It criticizes this personally tinted type of professorial prognostication as the most abhorrent form of prediction. The text questions why a large number of officially appointed prophets feel entitled to pronounce their judgments on ultimate questions under the name of science in governmentally privileged talk halls where they cannot be challenged or contradicted. It refers to an old maxim that what is discussed in the lecture hall should remain confidential and not be subjected to public

discussion. The author believes that a lecture should be distinct from a speech, emphasizing the importance of unrestricted validity for academic purposes.The matter-of-factness and soberness of the talk declines, resulting in definite pedagogical losses. Once it becomes the object of promotion through events like the imperative, the university instructor is entitled to freedom from outside surveillance or promotion only in their specialized domain. However, personal prognostication does not have specialized making and should not be granted the privilege of freedom from contradiction and public examination for this reason. Additionally, it should not be developed that students must attend certain educational establishments and take classes with specific instructors to succeed in life. Alongside the necessary stimulation, cultivation of understanding and reasoning, and factual information, students also receive the teacher's personal attitude towards the world, which may be interesting but often unimportant and cannot be challenged. Like anyone else, professors have opportunities to extend their ideals. When these opportunities are lacking, they can easily create them in a suitable form, as previous experiences have demonstrated in every sincere effort.However, it is inappropriate for the professor to use their position of power to push their own political or cultural beliefs. This could include making statements in the media, public meetings, organizations, essays, or any platform available to the general public. Instead, the professor should focus on providing knowledge and skills to their students in a neutral and unbiased manner. This means being able to accept and present facts, even if they may go against personal beliefs. The professor should prioritize the task at hand and avoid the temptation to express personal emotions or opinions unnecessarily. This is even

more important now than it was 40 years ago, as this issue has become more prevalent. It is not accurate to suggest that an individual's personality should be displayed at all times. Each professional role comes with responsibilities that must be adhered to when performing professional duties.An adult man should limit himself to what strictly belongs to him, including his own likes and dislikes. Showing power and personality does not mean adding a personal touch to everything. The new generation should understand that becoming a true personality cannot be achieved by simply desiring it. It requires dedicated devotion to a specific task or mission. Mixing personal concerns with objective analysis is tasteless. To truly understand the meaning of vocation, one must practice the required moderation. The trendy cult of personality may appear impressive, but its effects are ultimately shallow and harmful. It should be clear that those who support this cult cannot achieve much because it is based on personal desires.they adhere to a purportedly "ethically neutral" position.He possesses the necessary qualities to fulfill his assigned tasks with determination. However, these statements are subjective and cannot be scientifically proven. The fundamental principle for asserting practical ratings in education can only be upheld when proponents of these ratings also allow proponents of other perspectives to demonstrate the validity of their ratings. In Germany, the insistence on professors expressing their preferences has been associated with the opposite desire for equal representation of all viewpoints, including the most extreme ones. Schmoller believed that "Marxists and the Manchester school" should be disqualified from academic positions, although he did not ignore their intellectual achievements. These are the points on which

I disagree with our esteemed leader. One should not simultaneously defend the expression of ratings in education while also stating that the university's role is to train "loyal" civil servants. This approach transforms the university into a seminary, albeit without the religious dignity of the latter, rather than a specialized technical school, which many educators find demeaning.Attempts have been made to establish limits on the range of ratings allowed in university instruction. A professor of jurisprudence once argued against excluding socialists from teaching positions, stating that he would also be hesitant to accept an anarchist as a jurisprudence instructor, as anarchists reject the validity of jurisprudence. However, I hold the opposite view. An anarchist can still be a proficient legal scholar, and their unique perspective, detached from our commonly held assumptions, may allow them to identify issues in legal theory that others overlook. The main source of uncertainty lies in our understanding of knowledge. Like doctors are not responsible for proving the value of life extension, legal experts are not obligated to justify the cultural aspects associated with law. If we wish to transform universities into platforms for discussing practical evaluations, it is necessary to allow unrestricted freedom in addressing fundamental questions from all perspectives. Is this feasible?The current political situation in Germany prevents the most important political evaluations from being discussed openly in universities. This raises the question of whether the prevailing concept of the sovereign's role in Germany aligns with the country's global interests and the methods, such as war and diplomacy, used to pursue them. It is not only nationalists or anti-monarchists who question this and doubt the possibility of success without

significant changes. Unfortunately, these crucial discussions cannot take place freely in German universities as certain politically significant evaluations are permanently prohibited. Given this restriction, it is appropriate for a representative of science and scholarship to remain silent on topics that they are allowed to delve into. However, it is never acceptable to avoid addressing the unsolvable question - which ultimately revolves around personal opinions - of whether one is allowed, obligated, or should defend specific practical evaluations in education.It is important to distinguish the logical treatment of ratings from empirical subjects like sociology and economic sciences. Any confusion on this point will hinder the thoroughness of the logical job. However, even solving the logical problem will not help answer the other question, except for the necessary conditions of clarity and differentiation by the instructor of different job categories. The discussion on whether differentiating between empirical propositions or statements of fact and practical ratings is difficult is unnecessary. It is a challenge for everyone, including those in this position, to differentiate between them. However, proponents of "ethical economics" should be aware that moral law is unfulfillable but still imposed as a responsibility. Self-reflection would show that fulfilling this requirement is particularly difficult because we are hesitant to approach the enticing topic of rating with a personal touch. Every teacher notices that their students become more interested and attentive when they incorporate religion into their teachings, and this expectation increases competition among teachers for students.When universities make recommendations for publicity, they often choose a speaker who can captivate the audience, leaving behind a more serious scholar who doesn't offer personal opinions. Of course, it is understood that

the chosen speaker will not challenge the politically dominant or conventional opinions that are generally accepted at the time. Only the supposedly "ethical-neutral" speaker who represents influential groups has better chances of gaining publicity due to their influence on the prevailing political powers. Personally, I find this very unsatisfactory and I won't argue that the demand for abstaining from personal opinions is insignificant and leads to boring lectures. I also won't delve into whether lecturers on specialized empirical issues should primarily focus on being "interesting". In any case, I fear that a lecturer who makes their lectures exciting by injecting personal opinions will eventually diminish the students' appreciation for serious empirical analysis. I acknowledge, without further debate, that it is possible to surreptitiously convey personal opinions with great impact by simply "letting the facts speak for themselves". The better type of parliamentary and electoral speeches in Germany operate in this manner – and fully legally, considering their purposes.It is important to state that all processes in university discussions, particularly when considering the separation, are detestable if they involve mistreatment. However, the fact remains that even if a morally corrupt representation of fulfilling an ethical imperative can be seen as the norm, it does not discredit the imperative itself. Regardless, if an instructor believes they should evaluate students, it is crucial for them to clearly communicate this intention to both the students and themselves. Ultimately, we must strongly oppose the widespread belief that scientific objectivity is achieved by compromising and weighing various evaluations against each other. This "middle way" is not scientifically demonstrable and lacks clarity in the domain of evaluations. Instead, it fits better in

political agendas, government offices, and parliaments. The sciences, whether normative or empirical, can significantly assist individuals involved in political activities by informing them that certain ultimate evaluative positions are conceivable for this practical problem.and (2) these are the facts that you must consider when making your decision between these evaluating places. Now, let's address the actual problem.