Tuesday, May 30, 2006

Brave question

"Can a welfare culture that has no work ethic be in a position to prepare its children for school?"

Perhaps this is the question last week's hui (as commented on yesterday) should have been asking. The question is lifted from a debate over whether Aboriginal culture should continue to be taught in schools. But take the question in isolation. Forget ethnicity and focus on the "welfare culture" which can affect all races, albeit disproportionately.

(Do you notice the Aussies are more prepared to discuss these types of issues than we are?)
Posted by at

6 comments:

Unknown said...

Australia tends to be more willing to talk about these things because there tends to be less ramifications.

If they bring up things to do with Aboriginal culture decline etc then there isn't instantly a call and legal threats on the basis of a Treaty to have to do something about it.

So they can have a rational debate for the purpose of a debate.

7:36 AM
Unknown said...

Of course it may also stem from the fact that Australia's track record with the Aboriginals leaves alot more ground to be covered than NZ's treatment of Maori...

7:37 AM
Psycho Milt said...

Apply Occam's razor, iiq374 - the simplest explanation is that Australia is a more racist country than NZ.

8:37 AM
Unknown said...

Actually psycho the simplest explanation is that Australia was more racist than NZ.

1:43 PM
Anonymous said...

A shame no-one read the request in the post to overlook the racial part of the question.

I don't buy the assertion "a welfare state has no work ethic". Mostly because if you are using the word "ethic", then to ignore greater ethical matters invalidates your original position.

Would it be better - a state that insists its subjects be productive, or be left behind and die?

Now, that's taking the argument to an extreme point, but I think that compassion towards individuals is a vital ethic for any evolved society. Other ethics such as "work ethic" must come second.

5:56 PM
Unknown said...

Sam - the question does not assert that *all* welfare states have no work ethics, it is asking the question whether one *without* a work ethic can prepare children etc.

IE the proposition is that it is *possible* for a welfare state to have no work ethic, not that it is impossible for a welfare state to have a work ethic.

7:37 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)