Watching TV is Morally Wrong
Not in the general sense, but in a particular sense it is. That particular sense is as a college student. What is the purpose of college, after all? To become educated, of course. Some people go to college for instrumental purposes: to gain technical skills to become an engineer or journalist, for example. But they really seek the same thing as the rest of us, and even if they didn't, those people aren't supposed to exist at my school. So we can all agree that college is for education's sake, here as much as anywhere. A corollary of that claim is that if one is fully committed to the educational values implicit in attending college, then one should act in manners that further that goal. So an action is only justifiable if it somehow furthers the goal of education.
But how could TV further the goal of education? There are two possible avenues. Firstly, one could watch educational television or classic films. But this TV-watching slag that frequents the lounge watches the lowest cable trash. Secondly, it could provide a method of relaxation that is required for maximizing educational attainment. But that is simply implausible. The TV-watching hooligans always numb their minds with the tube in packs. And if they travel in packs, surely they could learn more by simply chatting among themselves about something interesting, while still gaining the proper relaxation. If being with others is not relaxing, then clearly they could better relax alone in their rooms. And if that's not good enough, then they should just drink themselves into a coma in their rooms so that they produce no negative externality on the world.
There you have it. The TV-watching college student is a walking, talking, irrationality. And yet irrationality is so popular... Although given the number of mental breakdowns among people this quarter, universal insanity would not be surprising. That's my dose of passive aggression for the week.
By your implication of what is morally wrong, our society is in moral shambles. No one spends every second of every day furthering some clearly-defined ultimate goal in any circumstance. The desire for leisure is repressible in no one, and I submit that you are no exception.
Also, does that "lowest cable trash" that your fellow Chicagoans watch include 24 by any chance?
No, I was just referring to university students. It's not morally wrong for most other people to watch TV. I'm just talking about the 17.4 million people enrolled in post-secondary education in the US, according to the 2005 census.
You're right, though. Although I always try (unsuccessfully) to repress the urge, I also need leisure. But I don't need morally corrupt leisure!
I'm pretty sure there is a large contingent of fans of 24.
I just snapped last night when some ignoramus was watching "Gladiator" in the lounge next door to my room. I was trying to write an essay and the battle-cries and chanting were driving me insane. Apparently they didn't figure out how to make even marginally sound-resistant walls until after 1931, when this place was built.
I don't agree with your warrant that every moment in the college student's life must be dedicated, in some way or another, to furthering their education. As long as sufficient progress in education is made (what exactly is sufficient is debatable), I think students should be free to use the remaining time as they please. Of course, this is coming from someone who spends more time than they should playing lame but entertaining Flash-based games on the internet.
[...being obnoxiously argumentative and contrarian...]
Preposterous!
Do you mean to propose that education is like filling an empty bucket? Once you fill it up, you're done?
No, of course not. And I know you're not being serious, so I won't bother coming up with a real conter-argument. In fact, I think you weren't being completely serious in the first place.
So what? My argument is still a serious and perhaps defensible one, isn't it?
Your argument rests on a rather vulnerable base. It depends on the validity of this statement: "an action is only justifiable if it somehow furthers the goal of education," in regards to actions in college. You act as if this naturally follows from your previous, more valid point: "if one is fully committed to the educational values implicit in attending college, then one should act in manners that further that goal." Of course we all act in manners that further that goal, but your belief that all of our actions must further that goal is in no way implicit in that statement. You can't logically come to the conclusion that "one should 'only' in manners that further tht goal" from there. You're tacking on your personal ethics onto an otherwise logical train of thought. Of course, I'm sure you already knew that, and I'm only doing this as an excercise for myself.
As for why watching TV is justifiable, my previous point still stands. As long as most of our actions do further the goal of education, we are still entitled to a certain amount of recreation, which may or may not be of the mind-numbing variety. Also, I could argue that being passive-aggressive through your blogging hardly furthers the goal of furthering your own education.
Now wait a minute. Are you saying that it is rational to do something that doesn't further a goal? That seems irrational to me. It seems that the whole point of a goal is that it provides a motivation for action. Likewise, if the action has no goal, then it has no motivation or intent. And if there is no intent, then actions are no different than pure randomness. That pure randomness is not rational is a fact in most cases, I think--not an ethical judgement.
Actually, passive-aggressive blogging has two educational advantages. First, I practice my argumentative skills, which is both an act of learning and helpful to learn more effectively. Second, the act of writing an argument helps (for me, personally) to learn new things related to the original argument. Although I may not entirely believe my argument (I think I believe about 75% of this one), I can still learn new things from it.
Hopefully kids are going to college knowing that they will get more than a good education. It's definitely a time in which you have opportunities to "find out more about yourself" (whatever that means) and what things you enjoy. Most of us don't have to hold down real jobs so we can do a lot of things others can't really do.
Anyways, I see no need to separate my goals of recreation and education. I can spend a healthy time doing school stuff, extra school projects, and then screw around - meaning hiking, cycling, and yes, TV. To me it seems like a good balance, especially given that these activities give our minds a break and can even give us insight to our academic activities.
In closing, Aqua Teen Hunger Force uber alles.
I think you've nearly hit the logical flaw. That being said, I prefer to live by my theory of the unbalanced life, however fallacious it may be.
I guess that's what I was trying to say: one's life does not have to be completely dominated by one goal. We have room in our lives for pursuing multiple goals at once (education, recreation, personal discovery), and enough time in our day to pursue all of them. While the stated goal of college may be "to further education," having fun and finding oneself are definitely included in the expectations for college.