Pure Sine Wave Power Inverters Circuit Schematics

EDUCATION AND ADDICTIONS: REFLECTIONS ON AN ETHICAL CONFLICT (II).

educational practice in our social and ethical conflict is a constant with which we must live. Are many and various ethical problems that can occur in educational practice everyday, but we would like to discuss two ethical issues (raised by Szasz in his field) which are essential for educational and usually do not arise explicitly and frame structure of all professional activities. The first conflict, has to do with the explicit and implicit answer given to the following questions: who is the educator social agent? "At whose service is the teacher? The educator who works for a public or private institution, in principle, serves paymaster. But the educator has a legal and ethical obligations with respect to the subject: it is because Act, subjects to "your truth" and professional ethics. In the professional educator in fact converge various conflicting interests: the social interests ( Law, norms, customs, etc..), Interest contracting institution, the interests of the individual and the interests of the professional himself. When, in practice, the different interests "lawful" conflict, the teacher should ensure the interest of the particular subject that is usually the weaker party. The professional educator can not ignore their duties as ethical authority, but will have educational functions epistemological foundation, based on professional knowledge and not in power. The second conflict, interrelated with the previous one, refers to whether the conduct professional activities with the voluntary consent of individuals or whether the activity is imposed, directly or indirectly. We understand that adults are responsible citizens, therefore, free. All educational activity forced undo any foundation of ethical or epistemological. If the subject is forced to undertake any educational activity, then the educator is the exclusive service of who pays and / or their own. In this case we speak of social control, coercion, repression, punishment, therapy, indoctrination, re-accreditation, re-entering or re-education. But that is not to educate. The teacher is an agent, theoretically and legally, both social and educational welfare of the subjects (which means no harm and respect), and the institutional demand and the Law The objective of the institutions social policy and often the "control" and "exclusion" of the conflict, private firms of "economic efficiency" and "exclusion of the risks." The objective of the subject is his own welfare, their own interest. If these objectives are in conflict what is at stake is the independence or otherwise of the subject, the violation or enforcement of their rights and freedoms (dignity, personal autonomy). The ethical conflict is posed starkly tragic, too often, usually resolves to the welfare of the subject and to the welfare of the teacher.

When we speak of freedom we assume the possibility of error and the wisdom. Prevent the negative effects of personal liberty of the subjects of education is not possible without coercion, their disability or their alienation. Learning is also built with the errors and mistakes. For freedom is possible the individual should be responsible for their actions, their choices. If the State, institution or professional guidance assume the subject is placed at the site of the disabled. The citizen is placed by the dominant discourse that stigmatizes a disqualified as a holder, in person responsible citizen. The myth of "responsible medicine the rule "has established itself among the ethical-legal discourse and medical-legal with the effects of control and expansion of the" symptoms "treated as psychological disorders, personality or multiple addictions. [1] Mannoni, identified as institutional control justified in the name of a science created aseptic neutral and stigmatizing segregation measures that classifies the subject into a "diagnosis" responsible for behavior modification. [2]

As noted, Savater, the state has assumed the functions of management and protection: the first, serves as intermediary (harmonizing) the conflicts that arise between citizens and institutions, administering best resources in the collective interest is the "Status Manager", the second "(...) is committed to ensuring the happiness of every citizen (...)", is the "State Shepherd." [3] This "symbiosis" between the two functions is classified by the author as "medical condition." "Clinical state" that sets a public health model which enhances "content with standing pastoral instrumental for the effective management, and concubinage the utilitarian and teleological, productive performance and moralizing" . [4] So mark the distinction between the concept of a public health understood as "personal invention" versus standardization model overcrowded public health symptomatology. As the author, this is the opposition of life understood as "working" and the understanding of life as "experiment." The first, represents the loss of individuality and difference. The second is the "unique" and "irreplaceable." The personal and autonomous in relation to overcrowding and the mechanical. "In life, understood as an individual experiment is serious about their freedom and life as running the state takes serious liberties with the individual." [5]

medical and psychiatric treatments, therapies, rehabilitation, rehabilitation and forced or compulsory rehabilitation under the "accusation" of being poor, excluded, sick, misfits, social risk or danger has been a social practice from the origin of modern science. Recall the role played by the "science" and its practitioners from the trials of the Inquisition , the use of the guillotine, asylums and mental hospital, state-run eugenic practices, to the Jewish genocide, atomic bombs, the application of lobotomy, electroshock, the application of the death penalty or supervising torture in military barracks, prisons and police stations.

The claim of educators, doctors and scientists to represent the only true, objective, neutral, philanthropic selflessness and altruism (freedom, justice, progress, aid, assistance, charity) has no foundation epistemological or scientific. That claim is usually a feature of abuse of power. Can only be understood from the perspective of power relations and power, domination and control institutional, professional and personal. Social Education is a right, but on many occasions for the citizens is an obligation, an imposition even a punishment.

The "truths" or "values" can not be monopolized by professionals or institutions, because we believe, from education to health are the heritage of all humanity, are part of Culture. We seems important to emphasize that philosophical, ethical and ideological authority can not be accepted ethical one.

---

[1] Mannoni, M. (1973). Education impossible. Siglo XXI Editores.

[2] Mannoni, Maud op.

[3] Savater, Fernando . clinical status. Magazine "Keys of practical reason", No. 1, 1989.

[4] vater Sa, Fernando, op.

[5] Savater Fernando, op.

Things

Social education.

The Best Way To Master Bate

EDUCATION AND ADDICTIONS: REFLECTIONS ON AN ETHICAL CONFLICT (I). SOCIAL EDUCATION AND ADDICTIONS

"For millennia, men and women shunned theologized moral responsibility. Today, the medicalization of moral shun. "

T. Szasz

Ethics is a human characteristic, social and cultural. Is the conjunction freedom of will and personal responsibility. [1] is the ability to reflect, compare, decide, choose, to make mistakes or learn. Is to assume personal autonomy and independence of mind, is the right to be different. Ethics is a reflection on what we consider good or bad, adequate or not, desirable or undesirable. Perhaps the social ethics is the product that makes us human: a cultural heritage that belongs to all mankind. When classifying someone as amoral or immoral means you disapprove of what that person does not say, or think you do not have moral or ethical. All elections and all human behavior (social) imply an inscription evaluative, ideological, philosophical and / or anthropology. Every choice involves a conception of man and society explicitly or implicitly. In social ethical choice is implicit in every option. We deny the hypothesis that advocates neutrality and professional objectivity when dealing with people or social issues. Every subject it is of its time, its own language, their training, their values \u200b\u200bor ideology. As an Arab proverb says: "Men are more like their time than their parents." In turn, that every person (citizen or subject) is morally free, because they ultimately think (or will) as it thinks fit, despite the social constraints, as already stated, Kant.

Adults have the ability and the option to choose between eating or not eating, eating in a reasonable, well informed, without danger or even make it negligently, violating their own welfare. Consider the use of drugs, gambling and other habits of behavior as mental illness is a deliberate mystification of our time. It is a manipulation language. Is to transmute the myth of sin to the myth of mental illness. What in other times was sin (meat, greed, vices more) today is mental illness (promiscuity, bulimia, addiction). What was imprisoned, is now called hospitalization or placement, which was torture and we call it today purification treatment, therapy or re-education. [2] With the metaphorical, if not corrupt, language, religious myths of the old regime are presented to us today as a pathology, disease or abnormality in all its forms (genetic , biological, physical, mental, emotional, moral or social). Medical science from its beginnings morphed meanings and stigmas of sin to significant error, failure or no reason. [3] Today, health systems and mental health, institutionalized since the Empire of Act, have taken punitive saving mission: health is good and the illness (insanity, drug addiction, promiscuity, "social risk", immorality, sexual deviation, maladjustment, dissent, anorexia, bulimia, obesity, pathological gambling) Evil medical practices in general and psychiatric in particular, have become a moral and punitive jurisdiction Key health. This clinical strategy is characterized by moral imposition and paternalism: those who can mentor those who do not know to protect their own actions and for their own good (moral ethical). In this context, people are forced, at best, to choose between freedom and responsibility or treatment and disability and, at worst, the forced submission.

A key question raised by Szasz, is whether or not people have the right to property and specifically, ownership of the body, to eat or what each considers appropriate, to think one way or another. The trouble is: the "clinical states," the Rule of Law and professional employees prohibit, punish, cure or re-educated. Citizens are deprived of their rights, are infantilized and protected. Given these power relations citizens or submit or rebel rejecting the disability, institutionalization, treatments authority officers and professionals.

The problem drug use was not on the substance in the abstract but in the decision to consume or not consume carelessly or in a society that considers it a disease, or an illegal act, or moral turpitude or a mixture thereof. Take a comparative example to help us understand the double standard put into play about drugs: the problem lies not driving recklessly in the manufacture, sale and purchase of vehicles, but the choice to drive recklessly (negligent use) and by this principle, not pursuing the manufacture or sale, or use of vehicles. When someone violates a traffic signal or code, draining the case, kill another by driving carelessly usually not admitted to assess their capabilities or if you are responsible or not, is considered responsible and is required criminal liability, civil or administrative. And no one escapes the consequences of road accidents are objectively more harmful to health than heroin and cocaine together (kill more and more left physically disabled, mental and sensory) with the aggravation of damage to third parties that drugs are not.

When a person chooses to consume a substance (snuff, pan, heroin, tomatoes, wine or other) does not that is "sick", it does because it is free: free to decide, you can choose between the yes and no. And much more: it one way or another. The objective problem will never be their mere use, but its good and bad use: can be used rightly or wrongly, can be used care or negligence. Something characteristic of humans is their choice. In the words of Fernando Savater: "Unlike other beings, living or inanimate, men can invent and choose in part our way of life. We can choose what we think is good, that is convenient for us compared to what we think is bad or undesirable. And as we invent and choose can make mistakes, which is something that the beavers, bees and termites do not usually pass. So it seems prudent to look good in what we do and seek to acquire a certain knowledge that allows us to live it right. In that knowing how to live, or art of living if you prefer, is what we call ethics. " [4]

---

[1] Thomas Szasz, The second sin, Edic. Martínez Roca. Barcelona. 1992.

[2] Thomas Zsasz. (1993). Our right to drugs. Barcelona. Edit. Anagram.

[3] Foucault, M. (1990). The Lives of infamous men . Madrid. Editions de La Piquette.

[4] Savater , F. ( 1991). Ethics for Amador . Ariel Ed.

Things

Social education.