Class #1 Blog – July 1st,
2012
EDUC 504 “Teaching with Technology” Class
#1 is in the books. Some great discussion happened on a variety of
topics.
Admittedly, the flow of the class was
not what I expected in a "Teaching with Technology" class, but it was
quite enjoyable to spend a couple hours pontificating on the ramifications of
technology usage in the classroom and even ethical issues surrounding its use.
The most interesting part of the first class for me was the group discussion. For most of the
class Dr. Stanzler facilitated the interaction.
When one of the topics clearly evoked a more emotional response from the
class, Ms. Fontichiaro suggested allowing ten minutes for individual group
discussion. And what a discussion we had...
*Disclaimer* This is just a blog…not a
fully developed thought out paper…I am just putting down thoughts as they come
out of my head for consideration.
The discussion
centered around the legitimacy of the potential NYC ban on large soft
drinks. The tone of the class seemed to
be against the ban (a conjecture admittedly).
Having not made up my opinion yet on the matter, I was able to discuss it with Lisa who seemed
to be leaning for the ban. She brought a
very interesting angle to the discussion that I had not considered before. I still have not made up my mind yet, but
appreciated seeing the issue from a view I had not previously thought about.
Lisa’s view was
that the issue was not about having a ban for the sake of the ban, but about
helping people make better decisions.
She brought up the valid point that if someone still wanted a 44oz soda,
nothing would stop them from buying two 22oz drinks. Instead, by banning a 44oz soda, the
opportunity to make a better decision is provided. She said the ban would create a “pause”
moment in which a consumer would be forced into making a more conscious decision to either
consume more soda or choose another alternative.
Admittedly I am
still chewing on Lisa’s idea, but it is a valid point and one that has given me
“pause.” So let’s see if we can make
some short objective arguments for Lisa’s idea…
From my readings
of Aristotle, Plato, Hobbes, Locke, Smith, etc. my belief is that the purpose
of government is, “to protect the people”;
more specifically, to protect “me from
you.” The question remains, how much
authority does the government have to protect “me from me”? Since we are a
democracy, I believe the answer is, “As much authority as we give it.” While likely the correct answer, this is just a piece of the puzzle.
A second
consideration for Lisa’s argument could be that the purpose of government is to
protect the “whole” of the people from which it derives its authority. The argument could be made that by protecting
“me from me” on an individual level, the government is making an attempt to
protect the whole. It’s like the voting
model: my individual vote does not mean much, but when added to the whole “us”
is an extremely powerful voice. So too
preventing one individual from drinking a 44oz soda does not mean much, but
when applied across a city, it could lead to an overall healthier city. If we take it as an assumption that our individual
goals are to “live long and prosper” then this ban (by the government we
elected) does facilitate this!
Of course, the
root of any controversial topic always comes back to the definition of terms:
what does it mean to “prosper”? What
does “freedom” mean? What does the "social contract" mean? Do I have the right
to harm myself regardless of my social obligation to the society I have agreed
to be a part of?
Such big
questions! I love this stuff! Thank you Lisa for your additive thoughts. And still “chewing” on it…
