To: Baccalaureate Assessment Subcommittee

To: Baccalaureate Assessment Subcommittee

From: Ronald F. White, Professor of Philosophy

Re: Performance Indicators for Ethics and Sociocultural Relationships

Date: 12/5/05

For the past few days I’ve been thinking about how I might assist you in generating “Performance Indicators” for “Ethics” and “Sociocultural Relationships.” The following remarks are offered in the spirit of free inquiry and the pursuit of Truth. My concerns are certainly not intended as personal attacks.Remember, I'm just a lowly philosopher anxiously awaiting a much needed 2006 sabbatical.

First of all, let me state for the record that I am philosophically opposed to just about everything we are doing under the guise of "assessment."The problem is that we are dealing with "philosophical nonsense;" that is to say,that we are attempting to operationalizeconcepts that are infinitely malleable and therefore resist the forging of reality-based consensus.When we seek to operationalize nonsense there is no way of knowing when we're getting closer tothe Truth. So we argue until we get tired, bored, or until we havesomething else that we have to do,like grade exams.Whatever we'vearrived at so far in terms of this “Glossary of LO/PI Terms, is actuallythe product ofboredom, fatigue, and/or time rationing.I can find little here that I actually agree with. As we continue to erect this great conceptual edifice "grounded in boredom and fatigue," each successive generation of MSJ operationalizers will continue to modify our edifice.But alas, their findings won't be any closer to the Truth, just different.Moreover, as thatedifice evolves to ever higher levels of complexity, the number of us that will actually understand how to interpret itwill become fewer. Eventually, we'll have to rely onapriesthood of experts that are skilledat talking this inbred nonsense.We can’t seek help from external sources. No one outside theCollege will ever be able to "make sense" of our nonsense, any more than we'll be able to "make sense" of theirs.

Finally, I must say that the more time and energy we spend doing things like this, theless time we havefor research, teaching,service, family, leisure etc.I'm really concernedwiththe amount of time and effort we've already wastedonthis assessment-based nonsense. As far as I know,there has been noevidence presented by anyone that suggests thatthe construction of this open-endededifice of nonsensewillmake the College of Mount St. Joseph a better institution, or that it will itmakeus better teachers and/or learners. But itwill almost certainly make the Collegea lot more like high school.In a nutshell, that's Ron White'sphilosophy of nonsense. I wish I could be more positive and helpful.

As a philosopher I deal with "philosophical nonsense" on a regular basis, but I neverattempt to operationalize it.I can analyze, discuss, and debate the various elements of the"Judeo-Christian Ethical Tradition" but I certainly can't reducetwo-thousand years of moral philosophyto "four performance indicators." I wish I could!It would make living "the good life" a whole lot easier for all of us!The basic problem is that thereis no one single, stable,body of knowledge that constitutes the "Judeo-Christian Moral Tradition." It's really one, long,intergenerationaldebate over the foundations of human value and goodness.Unfortunately, it also tends to overlap with the "Greco-Roman Moral Tradition,"the "Western Liberal Moral Tradition," and an assortment of "Non-Western Moral Traditions." We could certainly argue over the historical and/or conceptual relationships between thesetraditions. Of course, some of us still believe that morality transcends all threeWestern moral traditions(and non-Western traditions as well) and that there at least some universal moral values.I've been interested in "Evolutionary Ethics" and itsquest the biological roots of morality.

Given the political reality here at MSJ,someoneis going to generate these four operators. The followingadmittedly feeble suggestions at least correspond to identifiable lines of philosophical debate over the nature of morality.

1. The student can distinguish between amoral issue (good v. bad) and a legal issue (legal v. illegal), if there is such a distinction.

2. The student can evaluatetheconsequences of arule or actin terms of the distribution of happiness or pleasure for one's self and/or others.(TELEOLOGICAL MORAL THEORIES)

3. The student can evaluate a rule or act in terms ofthe rights and duties ofpersons. (DEONTOLOGICAL MORAL THEORIES)

4. The student can evaluatea rule or act based onproximity to human excellence. (VIRTUE-BASED MORAL THEORIES)

As for operationalizing "Sociocultural Relationships," I'm at a total loss. I can't operationalizeit at all. It’s infinitely malleable philosophical nonsense on stilts.Sorry, I wish I could be more helpful.

RON